Claude Opus 4.7

Post by fzaninotto » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 5:49 PM UTC

corlinp wrote: post #194

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.

Post by deaux » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 5:53 PM UTC

bastawhiz wrote: post #301

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.

Post by mewpmewp2 » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 5:55 PM UTC

unshavedyak wrote: post #401

zarzavat wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These threads are always full of superstitious nonsense. Had a bad week at the AIs? Someone at Anthropic must have nerfed the model! The roulette wheel isn't rigged, sometimes you're just unlucky. Try another spin, maybe you'll do better. Or just write your own code.

Part of me wonders if there's some subtle behavioral change with it too. Early on we're distrusting of a model and so we're blown away, we were giving it more details to compensate for assumed inability, but the model outperformed our expectations. Weeks later we're more aligned with its capabilities and so we become lazy. The model is very good, why do we have to put in as much work to provide specifics, specs, ACs,…

Post by lnenad » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 5:56 PM UTC

zarzavat wrote: post #336

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…

These threads are always full of superstitious nonsense. Had a bad week at the AIs? Someone at Anthropic must have nerfed the model! The roulette wheel isn't rigged, sometimes you're just unlucky. Try another spin, maybe you'll do better. Or just write your own code.

Post by deaux » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 5:56 PM UTC

throwaway2027 wrote: post #340

hyperionultra wrote: post #243

[flagged]

Gemini and Codex already scored higher on benchmarks than Opus 4.6 and they recently added a $100 tier with limited 2x limits, that's their answer and it seems people have caught on.