Live data from Hacker News

Claude Opus 4.7

anthropic.com

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#271
even sonnet right now has degraded for me to the point of like ChatGPT 3.5 back then. took ~5 hours on getting a playwright e2e test fixed that waited on a wrong css selector. literlly, dumb as fuck. and it had been better than opus for the last week or so still... did roughly comparable work for the last 2 weeks and it all went increasingly worse - taking more and more thinking tokens circling around nonsense and just not doing 1 line changes that a junior dev would see on the spot. Too used to vibing now to do it by hand (yeah i know) so I kept watching and meanwhile discovered that codex just fleshed out a nontrivial app with correct financial data flows in the same time without any fuzz. I really don't get why antrhopic is dropping their edge so hard now recently, in my head they might aim for increasing hype leading to the IPO, not disappointment crashes from their power user base.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#273
This is the first new model from Anthropic in a while that I'm not super enthused about. Not because of the model, I literally haven't opened the page about it, I can already guess what it says ("Bigger, better, faster, stronger"), but because of the company.

I have enjoyed using Claude Code quite a bit in the past but that has been waning as of late and the constant reports of nerfed models coupled with Anthropic not being forthcoming about what usage is allowed on subscriptions [0] really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'll probably give them another month but I'm going to start looking into alternatives, even PayG alternatives.

[0] Please don't @ me, I've read every comment about how it _is clear_ as a response to other similar comments I've made. Every. Single. One. of those comments is wrong or completely misses the point. To head those off let me be clear:

Anthropic does not at all make clear what types of `claude -p` or AgentSDK usage is allowed to be used with your subscription. That's all I care about. What am I allowed to use on my subscription. The docs are confusing, their public-facing people give contradictory information, and people commenting state, with complete confidence, completely wrong things.

I greatly dislike the Chilling Effect I feel when using something I'm paying quite a bit (for me) of money for. I don't like the constant state of unease and being unsure if something might be crossing the line. There are ideas/side-projects I'm interested in pursuing but don't because I don't want my account banned for crossing a line I didn't know existed. Especially since there appears to be zero recourse if that happens.

I want to be crystal clear: I am not saying the subscription should be a free-for-all, "do whatever you want", I want clear lines drawn. I increasingly feeling like I'm not going to get this and so while historically I've prefered Claude over ChatGPT, I'm considering going to Codex (or more likely, OpenCode) due to fewer restrictions and clearer rules on what's is and is not allowed. I'd also be ok with kind of warning so that it's not all or nothing. I greatly appreciate what Anthropic did (finally) w.r.t. OpenClaw (which I don't use) and the balance they struck there. I just wish they'd take that further.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#274

So many messages about how Codex is better then Claude from one day to the other, while my experience is exactly the same. Is OpenAI botting the thread? I can't believe this is genuine content.

It's a combination of factors. There was rate-limiting implemented by Anthropic, where the 5hr usage limit would be burned through faster at peak hours, I was personally bitten by this multiple times before one guy from Anthropic announced it publicly via twitter, terrible communication. It wasn't small either, ~15 minutes of work ended up burning the entire 5hr limit. That annoyed me enough to switched to Codex for the month at that point.

Now people are saying the model response quality went down, I can't vouch for that since I wasn't using Claude Code, but I don't think this many people saying the same thing is total noise though.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#275
post #25

> where previous models interpreted instructions loosely or skipped parts entirely, Opus 4.7 takes the instructions literally. Users should re-tune their prompts and harnesses accordingly. interesting

This sounds good, I look forward to experimenting with it.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#276
This is a CC harness thing than a model thing but the "new" thinking messages ('hmm...', 'this one needs a moment...') are extraordinarily irritating. They're both entirely uninformative and strictly worse than a spinner. On my workflows CC often spends up to an hour thinking (which is fine if the result is good) and seeing these messages does not build confidence.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#277

> Opus 4.7 uses an updated tokenizer that improves how the model processes text. The tradeoff is that the same input can map to more tokens—roughly 1.0–1.35× depending on the content type. caveman[0] is becoming more relevant by the day. I already enjoy reading its output more than vanilla so suits me well. [0] https://github.com/JuliusBrussee/caveman/tree/main

I used Opus 4.7 for about 15 minutes on the auto effort setting. It nicely implemented two smallish features, and already consumed 100% of my session limit on the $20 plan. See you again in five hours.

[deleted]

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#278
post #54

I hope this will fix up the poor quality that we're seeing on Claude Opus 4.6 But degrading a model right before a new release is not the way to go.

I wish someone would elaborate on what they were doing and observed since Jan on opus 4.6. I’ve been using it with 1m context on max thinking since it was released - as a software engineer to write most of my code, code reviews + research and explain unfamiliar code - and haven’t notice a degradation. I’ve seen this mentioned a lot though.

I have seen that codex -latest highest effort - will find some important edge cases that opus 4.6 overlooked when I ask both of them to review my PRs.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#279

So many messages about how Codex is better then Claude from one day to the other, while my experience is exactly the same. Is OpenAI botting the thread? I can't believe this is genuine content.

Sorry, no, not a bot. I get way better results out of Codex.

It's just ultimately subjective, and, it's like, your opinion, man. Calling people bots who disagree is probably not a good look.

I don't like OpenAI the company, but their model and coding tool is pretty damn good. And I was an early Claude Code booster and go back and forth constantly to try both.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#280
Might be sticking with 4.6 it's only been 20 minutes of using 4.7 and there are annoyances I didn't face with 4.6 what the heck. Huge downgrade on MRCR too....

256K:

- Opus 4.6: 91.9% - Opus 4.7: 59.2%

1M:

- Opus 4.6: 78.3% - Opus 4.7: 32.2%

Post reply on HN