Backlash on HN for Anthropic adjusting usage limits is insane. There's almost no discussion about the model, just people complaining about their subscription.
Claude Opus 4.7
281–290 of 1001 posts
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#282Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#283> 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. Second, Opus 4.7 thinks more at higher effort levels, particularly on later turns in agentic settings. This improves its reliability on hard problems, but it does mean it produces more output tokens. I guess that means bad news for…
In GitHub Copilot it costs 7.5x whereas Opus 4.6 is 3x
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#284So 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.
I've had good experiences with codex, as have many others. Its genuine content since everyones codebases and needs are different.
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#285So 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.
Looks to me like a mob of humans, angry they've been deceived by ambiguous communications, product nerfing, surprisingly low usage limits, and an appallingly sycophantic overconfident coding agent
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#286They've increased their cybersecurity usage filters to the point that Opus 4.7 refuses to work on any valid work, even after web fetching the program guidelines itself and acknowledging "This is authorized research under the [Redacted] Bounty program, so the findings here are defensive research outputs, not malware. I'll analyze and draft, not weaponize anything beyond what's needed to prove the bug to [Redacted]. I…
>even after acknowledging "This is authorized research under the [Redacted] Bounty program, so the findings here are defensive research outputs, not malware. I'll analyze and draft, not weaponize anything beyond what's needed to prove the bug to [Redacted].
What else would you expect? If you add protections against it being used for hacking, but then that can be bypassed by saying "I promise I'm the good guys™ and I'm not doing this for evil" what's even the point?
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#287> 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 hope people realize that tools like caveman are mostly joke/prank projects - almost the entirety of the context spent is in file reads (for input) and reasoning (in output), you will barely save even 1% with such a tool, and might actually confuse the model more or have it reason for more tokens because it'll have to formulate its respone in the way that satisfies the requirements.
This specific form may be a joke, but token conscious work is becoming more and more relevant..
Look at
https://github.com/AgusRdz/chop
And
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#288Too late, personally after how bad 4.6 was the past week I was pushed to codex, which seems to mostly work at the same level from day to day. Just last night I was trying to get 4.6 to lookup how to do some simple tensor parallel work, and the agent used 0 web fetches and just hallucinated 17K very wrong tokens. Then the main agent decided to pretend to implement tp, and just copied the entire model to each node...
My tinfoil hat theory, which may not be that crazy, is that providers are sandbagging their models in the days leading up to a new release, so that the next model "feels" like a bigger improvement than it is.
An important aspect of AI is that it needs to be seen as moving forward all the time. Plateaus are the death of the hype cycle, and would tether people's expectations closer to reality.
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#289So 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.
not a bot, voiced frustration is real here. I kind of depend on good LLMs now and wouldn't even mind if they had frozen the LLMs capabilities around dec 2025 forver and would hppily continue to pay, even more. but when suddenly the very same workload that was fine for months isn't possible anymore with the very same LLM out of nowhere and gets increasingly worse, its a huge disappointment. and having codex in parallel as a backup since ever I started also using it again with gpt 5.4 and it just rips without the diva sensitivity or overfitting into the latest prompt opus/sonnet is doing. GPT just does the job, maybe thinks a bit long, but even over several rounds of chat compression in the same chat for days stays well within the initial set of instructions and guardrails I spelled out, without me having to remind every time. just works, quietly, and gets there. Opus doesn't even get there anymore without nearly spelling out by hand manual steps or what not to do.
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#290This comment thread is a good learner for founders; look at how much anguish can be put to bed with just a little honest communication. 1. Oops, we're oversubscribed. 2. Oops, adaptive reasoning landed poorly / we have to do it for capacity reasons. 3. Here's how subscriptions work. Am I really writing this bullet point? As someone with a production application pinned on Opus 4.5, it is extremely difficult to tell ap…
Or it could be a selection bias. The ground truth is not what HN herd mentality complains about, but the usage stats.