Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude Opus 4.7

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#301

Post by bastawhiz »

ambigioz wrote: post #214

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.

I'm an Opus stan but I'll also admit that 5.4 has gotten a lot better, especially at finding and fixing bugs. Codex doesn't seem to do as good a job at one shotting tasks from scratch.

I suppose if you are okay with a mediocre initial output that you spend more time getting into shape, Codex is comparable. I haven't exhaustively compared though.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#302

Post by e10jc »

Regardless of the model quality improvement, the corporate damage was done by not only ignoring the Opus quality degradation but gaslighting users into thinking they aren’t using it right.

I switched to Codex 5.4 xhigh fast and found it to be as good as the old Claude. So I’ll keep using that as my daily driver and only assess 4.7 on my personal projects when I have time.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#303

Post by suzzer99 »

johnmlussier wrote: post #242
johnmlussier wrote: post #227

They'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…

⎿ API Error: Claude Code is unable to respond to this request, which appears to violate our Usage Policy (https://www.anthropic.com/legal/aup). This request triggered restrictions on violative cyber content and was blocked under Anthropic's Usage Policy. To request an adjustment pursuant to our Cyber Verification Program based on how you use Claude, fill out https://claude.com/form/cyber-use-case?token=[REDACTED] Ple…

I've never seen "double press esc" as a control pattern.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#304

Post by [deleted] »

buildbot wrote: post #12

Too 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...

[deleted]

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#305

Post by usaar333 »

persedes wrote: post #110

Interesting that the MCP-Atlas score for 4.6 jumped to 75.8% compared to 59.5% https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-6 There's other small single digit differences, but I doubt that the benchmark is that unreliable...?

page is updated to state:

MCP-Atlas: The Opus 4.6 score has been updated to reflect revised grading methodology from Scale AI.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#306

Post by jp0001 »

WTF. `Opus 4.7 is the first such model: its cyber capabilities are not as advanced as those of Mythos Preview (indeed, during its training we experimented with efforts to differentially reduce these capabilities). We are releasing Opus 4.7 with safeguards that automatically detect and block requests that indicate prohibited or high-risk cybersecurity uses. `

Seriously? You're degrading Opus 4.7 Cybersecurity performance on purpose. Absolute shit.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#307

Post by enraged_camel »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #195
buildbot wrote: post #12

Too 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 switched to Codex and found it extremely inferior for my use case. It is much faster, but faster worse code is a step in the wrong direction. You're just rapidly accumulating bugs and tech debt, rather than more slowly moving in the correct direction. I'm a big fan of Gemini in general, but at least in my experience Gemini Cli is VERY FAR behind either Codex or CC. It's both slower than CC, MUCH slower than Codex,…

>> I switched to Codex and found it extremely inferior for my use case.

Yeah, 100% the case for me. I sometimes use it to do adversarial reviews on code that Opus wrote but the stuff it comes back with is total garbage more often than not. It just fabricates reasons as to why the code it's reviewing needs improvement.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#309

Post by solenoid0937 »

anonyfox wrote: post #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 ju…

You are operating purely on vibes, https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code-historical-perform...

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#310

Post by jp0001 »

velcrovan wrote: post #193
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #3

> "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.

Questions about "fatality" aside, where do you see asymmetry here?

It's easier to produce vulnerable code than it is to use the same Model to make sure there are no vulnerabilities.
Post reply on HN