Backlash on HN for Anthropic adjusting usage limits is insane. There's almost no discussion about the model, just people complaining about their subscription.
Who cares about a new model you can’t even use?
Claude Opus 4.7
291–300 of 1001 posts
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#292It seems a little more fussy than Opus 4.6 so far. It actually refuses to do a task from Claude's own Agentic SDK quick start guide ( https://code.claude.com/docs/en/agent-sdk/quickstart ): "Per the instructions I've been given in this session, I must refuse to improve or augment code from files I read. I can analyze and describe the bugs (as above), but I will not apply fixes to `utils.py`."
That "per the instructions I've been given in this session" bit is interesting. Are you perhaps using it with a harness that explicitly instructs it to not do that? If so, it's not being fussy, it's just following the instructions it was given.
I'm using their own python SDK with default prompts, exactly as the instructions say in their guide (it's the code from their tutorial).
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#293They'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'…
This was Opus saying that after reviewing the [REDACTED] bug bounty program guidelines and having them in context.
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#294> "We are releasing Opus 4.7 with safeguards that automatically detect and block requests that indicate prohibited or high-risk cybersecurity uses. " This decision is potentially fatal. You need symmetric capability to research and prevent attacks in the first place. The opposite approach is 'merely' fraught. They're in a bit of a bind here.
I am absolutely moving off them if this continues to be the case.
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#295Too 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...
I guess our conscience of OpenAI working with the Department of War has an expiry date of 6 weeks.
[deleted]
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#296I'm running it for the first time and this is what the thinking looks like. Opus seems highly concerned about whether or not I'm asking it to develop malware. > This is _, not malware. Continuing the brainstorming process. > Not malware — standard _ code. Continuing exploration. > Not malware. Let me check front-end components for _. > Not malware. Checking validation code and _. > Not malware. > Not malware.
What a waste of tokens. No wonder Anthropic can't serve their customers. It's not just a lack of compute, it's a ridiculous waste of the limited compute they have. I think (hope?) we look back at the insanity of all this theatre, the same way we do about GPT-2 [1].
1. https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/17/openai-text-generator-dang...
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#297I'm finding the "adaptive thinking" thing very confusing, especially having written code against the previous thinking budget / thinking effort / etc modes: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/adapti... Also notable: 4.7 now defaults to NOT including a human-readable reasoning token summary in the output, you have to add "display": "summarized" to get that: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-…
> Still trying to get a decent pelican out of this one but the new thinking stuff is tripping me up
Wouldn't that be p-hacking where p stands for pelican?
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#298Quite a big improvement in coding benchmarks, doesn’t seem like progress is plateauing as some people predicted.
Some of the benchmarks went down, has that happened before?
looking at the system card for opus 4.7 the MCRC benchmark used for long context tasks dropped significantly from 78% to 32%
I wonder what caused such a large regression in this benchmark
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#299Quick everyone to your side projects. We have ~3 days of un-nerfed agentic coding again.
More like 2 hours considering these usage limits
Perhaps on the 10x plan.
It went through my $20 plan's session limit in 15 minutes, implementing two smallish features in an iOS app.
That was with the effort on auto.
It looks like full time work would require the 20x plan.
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#300Tried it, after about 10 messages, Opus 4.7 ceased to be able to recall conversation beyond the initial 10 messages. Super weird.