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

461–470 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#461

Post by bearjaws »

redml wrote: post #245
aliljet wrote: post #64

Have they effectively communicated what a 20x or 10x Claude subscription actually means? And with Claude 4.7 increasing usage by 1.35x does that mean a 20x plan is now really a 13x plan (no token increase on the subscription) or a 27x plan (more tokens given to compensate for more computer cost) relative to Claude Opus 4.6?

a few months ago it was for weekly: pro = 5m tokens, 5x = 41m tokens, 20x = 83m tokens making 5x the best value for the money (8.33x over pro for max 5x). this information may be outdated though, and doesn't apply to the new on peak 5h multipliers. anything that increases usage just burns through that flat token quota faster.

I am 90% sure it's looking at month long usage trends now and punishing people who utilize 80%+ week over week. It's the only way to explain how some people burn through their limit in an hour and others who still use it a lot get through their hourly limits fine.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#462

Post by stasomatic »

lanyard-textile wrote: post #200

This 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…

I am a neophyte regarding pros and cons of each model. I am learning the ropes, writing shell scripts, a tiny Mac app, things like that.

Reading about all the “rage switching”, isn’t it prudent to use a model broker like GH Copilot with your own harness or something like oh-my-pi? The frontier guys one up each other monthly, it’s really tiring. I get that large corps may have contracts in place, but for an in indie?

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#463

Post by ayewo »

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…

Sounds like you will need to drink a(n identity) verification can soon [1] to continue as a security researcher on their platform.

1: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/14328960-identity-ver...

Identity verification on Claude

Being responsible with powerful technology starts with knowing who is using it. Identity verification helps us prevent abuse, enforce our usage policies, and comply with legal obligations.

We are rolling out identity verification for a few use cases, and you might see a verification prompt when accessing certain capabilities, as part of our routine platform integrity checks, or other safety and compliance measures.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#464

Post by shawnz »

dgb23 wrote: post #337
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-…

Don't look at "thinking" tokens. LLMs sometimes produce thinking tokens that are only vaguely related to the task if at all, then do the correct thing anyways.

Thinking summaries might not be useful for revealing the model's actual intentions, but I find that they can be helpful in signalling to me when I have left certain things underspecified in the prompt, so that I can stop and clarify.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#466

Post by cesarvarela »

bayesnet wrote: post #276

This is a CC harness thing than a model thing but the "new" thinking messages ('hmm...', 'this one needs a moment...') are extraordinarily irritating. They're both entirely uninformative and strictly worse than a spinner. On my workflows CC often spends up to an hour thinking (which is fine if the result is good) and seeing these messages does not build confidence.

It is the new "You are absolutely right!"

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#467

Post by gck1 »

dgb23 wrote: post #337
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-…

Don't look at "thinking" tokens. LLMs sometimes produce thinking tokens that are only vaguely related to the task if at all, then do the correct thing anyways.

Why does this comment appear every time someone complains about CoT becoming more and more inaccessible with Claude?

I have entire processes built on top of summaries of CoT. They provide tremendous value and no, I don't care if "model still did the correct thing". Thinking blocks show me if model is confused, they show me what alternative paths existed.

Besides, "correct thing" has a lot of meanings and decision by the model may be correct relative to the context it's in but completely wrong relative to what I intended.

The proof that thinking tokens are indeed useful is that anthropic tries to hide them. If they were useless, why would they even try all of this?

Starting to feel PsyOp'd here.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#468

Post by cpan22 »

grandinquistor wrote: post #94

Quite a big improvement in coding benchmarks, doesn’t seem like progress is plateauing as some people predicted.

But it majorly regressed in long context retrieval? Which is arguably getting more and more important?

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#469

Post by whatisthiseven »

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…

Worse, I have had it being sus of my own codebase when I tasked it with writing mundane code. Apparently if you include some trigger words it goes nuts. Still trying to narrow down which ones in particular.

Here is some example output:

"The health-check.py file I just read is clearly benign...continuing with the task" wtf.

"is the existing benign in-process...clearly not malware"

Like, what the actual fuck. They way over compensated for the sensitivity on "people might do bad stuff with the AI".

Let people do work.

Edit: I followed up with a plan it created after it made sure I wasn't doing anything nefarious with my own plain python service, and then it still includes multiple output lines about "Benign this" "safe that".

Am I paying money to have Anthropic decide whether or not my project is malware? I think I'll be canceling my subscription today. Barely three prompts in.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#470

Post by Veyg »

nickandbro wrote: post #457

Here you go folks: https://www.svgviewer.dev/s/odDIA7FR "create a svg of a pelican riding on a bicycle" - Opus 4.7 (adaptive thinking)

Interesting that it used font-family:"Anthropic Sans
Post reply on HN