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

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#421

Post by vessenes »

Uh oh:

  > The new /ultrareview slash command produces a dedicated review session that reads through changes and flags bugs and design issues that a careful reviewer would catch. We’re giving Pro and Max Claude Code users three free ultrareviews to try it out.
More monetization a tier above max subscriptions. I just pointed openclaw at codex after a daily opus bill of $250.

As Anthropic keeps pushing the pricing envelope wider it makes room for differentiation, which is good. But I wish oAI would get a capable agentic model out the door that pushes back on pricing.

Ps I know that Anthropic underbought compute and so we are facing at least a year of this differentiated pricing from them, but still..ouch

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#422

Post by pingou »

loudmax wrote: post #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 explo…

Or they could check if the source is open source and available on the internet, and if yes refuse to analyse it if the person who request the analysis isn't affiliated to the project.

That will still leave closed source software vulnerable, but I suspect it is somewhat rare for hackers to have the source of the thing they are targeting, when it is closed source.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#424

Post by vessenes »

cyanydeez wrote: post #419
simonw wrote: 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!

They have super sustainable revenue. They are deadly supply constrained on compute, and have a really difficult balancing act over the next year or two in which they have to trade off spending that limited compute on model training so that they can stay ahead, while leaving enough of it available for customers that they can keep growing number of customers.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#425

Post by bandrami »

p_stuart82 wrote: post #361
simonw wrote: 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-…

yeah they took "i pick the budget" and turned it into "trust us".

I keep saying even if there's not current malfeasance, the incentives being set up where the model ultimately determines the token use which determines the model provider's revenue will absolutely overcome any safeguards or good intentions given long enough.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#426

Post by AquinasCoder »

It's been a little while since I cared all that much about the models because they work well enough already. It's the tooling and the service around the model that affects my day-to-day more.

I would guess a lot of the enterprise customers would be willing to pay a larger subscription price (1.5x or 2x) if it means that they would have significantly higher stability and uptime. 5% more uptime would gain more trust than 5% more on a gamified model metrics.

Anthropic used to position itself as more of the enterprise option and still does, but their issues recently seems like they are watering down the experience to appease the $20 dollar customer rather than the $200 dollar one. As painful as it is personally, I'd expect that they'd get more benefit long term from raising prices and gaining trust than short term gaining customers seeking utility at a $20 dollar price point.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#427

Post by troupo »

Wojtkie wrote: post #90
aurareturn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't have enough compute for all their customers. OpenAI bet on more compute early on which prompted people to say they're going to go bankrupt and collapse. But now it seems like it's a major strategic advantage. They're 2x'ing usage limits on Codex plans to steal CC customers and it seems to be working. It seems like 90% of Claude's recent problems are strictly lack of compute related.

Is that why Anthropic recently gave out free credits for use in off-hours? Possibly an attempt to more evenly distribute their compute load throughout the day?

> Is that why Anthropic recently gave out free credits for use in off-hours?

That was the carrot for the stick. The limits and the issues were never officially recognized or communicated. Neither have been the "off-hours credits". You would only know about them if you logged in to your dashboard. When is the last time you logged in there?

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#428

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#430

Post by jancsika »

dmix wrote: post #317
johnmlussier wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

⎿ 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 predict this sort of filtering is only going to get worse. This will probably be remembered as the 'open internet' era of LLMs before everything is tightly controlled for 'safety' and regulations. Forcing software devs to use open source or local models to do anything fun.

> Forcing software devs to use open source or local models to do anything fun.

Episode Five-Hundred-Bazillenty-Eight of Hacker News: the gang learns a valuable lesson after getting arrested at an unchaperoned Enshittification party and having to call Open Source to bail them out.

Post reply on HN