Live data from Hacker News

Claude Opus 4.7

anthropic.com

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#411

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...

codex low-key seems to be better than claude. and i say this as an 18-hour-a-day user of both (mostly claude)

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#412

It's interesting to see Opus 4.7 follow so soon after the announcement of Mythos, especially given that Anthropic are apparently capacity constrained. Capacity is shared between model training (pre & post) and inference, so it's hard to see Anthropic deciding that it made sense, while capacity constrained, to train two frontier models at the same time... I'm guessing that this means that Mythos is not a whole new mod…

[deleted]

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#413

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...

How do you get codex to generate any code? I describe the problem and codex runs in circles basically: codex> I see the problem clearly. Let me create a plan so that I can implement it. The plan is X, Y, Z. Do you want me to implement this? me> Yes please, looks good. Go ahead! codex> Okay. Thank you for confirming. So I am going to implement X, Y, Z now. Shall I proceeed? me> Yes, proceed. codex> Okay. Implementing.…

Do you have to put it in a build/execute mode (separate from a planning mode) to allow it to move on? I use opencode, and that's how it works.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#414

I'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.

Is this happening on the latest build of Claude Code? Try `claude --update`

[deleted]

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#415

> 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

caveman stops being a style tool and starts being self-defense. once prompt comes in up to 1.35x fatter, they've basically moved visibility and control entirely into their black box.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#416
Let's say we take Anthropic's security and alignment claims at face value, and they have models that are really good at uncovering bugs and exploiting software.

What should Anthropic do in this case?

Anthropic could immediately make these models widely available. The vast majority of their users just want develop non-malicious software. But some non-zero portion of users will absolutely use these models to find exploits and develop ransomware and so on. Making the models widely available forces everyone developing software (eg, whatever browser and OS you're using to read HN right now) into a race where they have to find and fix all their bugs before malicious actors do.

Or Anthropic could slow roll their models. Gatekeep Mythos to select users like the Linux Foundation and so on, and nerf Opus so it does a bunch of checks to make it slightly more difficult to have it automatically generate exploits. Obviously, they can't entirely stop people from finding bugs, but they can introduce some speedbumps to dissuade marginal hackers. Theoretically, this gives maintainers some breathing space to fix outstanding bugs before the floodgates open.

In the longer run, Anthropic won't be able to hold back these capabilities because other companies will develop and release models that are more powerful than Opus and Mythos. This is just about buying time for maintainers.

I don't know that the slow release model is the right thing to do. It might be better if the world suffers through some short term pain of hacking and ransomware while everyone adjusts to the new capabilities. But I wouldn't take that approach for granted, and if I were in Anthropic's position I'd be very careful about about opening the floodgate.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#417

Looks completely broken on AWS Bedrock "errorCode": "InternalServerException", "errorMessage": "The system encountered an unexpected error during processing. Try your request again.",

I get this error too and if I try again: { ... "error":{"type":"permission_error","message":"anthropic.claude-opus-4-7 is not available for this account. You can explore other available models on Amazon Bedrock. For additional access options, contact AWS Sales at https://aws.amazon.com/contact-us/sales-support/"}}

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#418

I'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...

[deleted]

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#419
post #203

I'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-…

It's likely hiding the model downgrade path they require to meet sustainable revenue. Should be interesting if they can enshittify slowly enough to avoid the ablative loss of customers! Good luck all VCs!

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#420
> "We are releasing Opus 4.7 with safeguards that automatically detect and block requests that indicate prohibited or high-risk cybersecurity uses. "

They're really investing heavily into this image that their newest models will be the death knell of all cybersecurity huh?

The marketing and sensationalism is getting so boring to listen to

Post reply on HN