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

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#511

Post by bredren »

simonw wrote: post #485
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-…

... here's the pelican, I think Qwen3.6-35B-A3B running locally did a better job! https://simonwillison.net/2026/Apr/16/qwen-beats-opus/

A secret backup test to the pelican? This is as noteworthy as 4.7 dropping.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#512

Post by iterateoften »

whateveracct wrote: post #500
JamesSwift wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its especially concerning / frustrating because boris’s reply to my bug report on opus being dumber was “we think adaptive thinking isnt working” and then thats the last I heard of it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47668520 Now disabling adaptive thinking plus increasing effort seem to be what has gotten me back to baseline performance but “our internal evals look good“ is not good enough right now for what ma…

you're using a proprietary blackbox

It’s the official communication that sucks. It’s one thing for the product to be a black box if you can trust the company. But time and time again Boris lies and gaslights about what’s broken, a bug or intentional.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#513

Post by [deleted] »

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-…

[deleted]

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#514

Post by jubilanti »

gck1 wrote: post #498

I've always seen people complaining about model getting dumber just before the new one drops and always though this was confirmation bias. But today, several hours before the 4.7 release, opus 4.6 was acting like it was sonnet 2 or something from that era of models. It didn't think at all, it was very verbose, extremely fast, and it was just... dumb. So now I believe everyone who says models do get nerfed without any…

> So my question is: what is the actual reason Anthropic lobotomizes the model when the new one is about to be dropped?

You can only fit one version of a model in VRAM at a time. When you have a fixed compute capacity for staging and production, you can put all of that towards production most of the time. When you need to deploy to staging to run all the benchmarks and make sure everything works before deploying to prod, you have to take some machines off the prod stack and onto the staging stack, but since you haven't yet deployed the new model to prod, all your users are now flooding that smaller prod stack.

So what everyone assumes is that they keep the same throughput with less compute by aggressively quantizing or other optimizations. When that isn't enough, you start getting first longer delays, then sporadic 500 errors, and then downtime.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#515

Post by smooc »

LostMyLogin wrote: post #431
avaer wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Still trying to get a decent pelican out of this one but the new thinking stuff is tripping me up Wouldn't that be p-hacking where p stands for pelican?

Input: I want to wash my car. The car wash is 50 meters away. Should I walk or drive? Output: Walk. It'll take you under a minute, and driving 50 meters barely gets the engine warm — plus you'd just have to park again at the other end. Honestly, by the time you started the car, you'd already be there on foot. --- I asked it to figure out why it made the mistake: "Physical/spatial common sense. Exactly what just happe…

I'd say the joke is on you ;-)

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#516

Post by MarkMarine »

puppystench wrote: post #364
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-…

Does this mean Claude no longer outputs the full raw reasoning, only summaries? At one point, exposing the LLM's full CoT was considered a core safety tenet.

Anthropic was chirping about Chinese model companies distilling Claude with the thinking traces, and then the thinking traces started to disappear. Looks like the output product and our understanding has been negatively affected but that pales in comparison with protecting the IP of the model I guess.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#517

Post by itmitica »

What a joke Opus 4.7 at max is.

I gave it an agentic software project to critically review.

It claimed gemini-3.1-pro-preview is wrong model name, the current is 2.5. I said it's a claim not verified.

It offered to create a memory. I said it should have a better procedure, to avoid poisoning the process with unverified claims, since memories will most likely be ignored by it.

It agreed. It said it doesn't have another procedure, and it then discovered three more poisonous items in the critical review.

I said that this is a fabrication defect, it should not have been in production at all as a model.

It agreed, it said it can help but I would need to verify its work. I said it's footing me with the bill and the audit.

We amicably parted ways.

I would have accepted a caveman-style vocabulary but not a lobotomized model.

I'm looking forward to LobotoClaw. Not really.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#518

Post by jdiff »

DrammBA wrote: post #384
puppystench wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this mean Claude no longer outputs the full raw reasoning, only summaries? At one point, exposing the LLM's full CoT was considered a core safety tenet.

Anthropic always summarizes the reasoning output to prevent some distillation attacks

Genuine question, why have you chosen to phrase this scraping and distillation as an attack? I'm imagining you're doing it because that's how Anthropic prefers to frame it, but isn't scraping and distillation, with some minor shuffling of semantics, exactly what Anthropic and co did to obtain their own position? And would it be valid to interpret that as an attack as well?

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#519

Post by recallingmemory »

ayewo wrote: post #463
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. W…

I'm surprised we can't just authenticate in other ways.. like a domain TXT record that proves the website I'm looking to audit for security is my own.
Post reply on HN