Claude Opus 4.7 • Hacker News Board

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#581

Post by NewsaHackO » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 7:07 PM UTC

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…

What do you offer as a solution? If theoretically some foreign state intelligence was exposed using Claude for security penetration that affected the stability of your home government due to Antropic's lax safety controls, are you going to defend Anthropic because their reasoning was to allow everyone to be able to do security research?

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#582

Post by nextaccountic » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 7:09 PM UTC

dakolli wrote: post #487

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.

Its because llm companies are literally building quasi slot machines, their UI interfaces support this notion, for instance you can run a multiplier on your output x3,x4,5, Like a slot machine. Brain fried llm users are behaving like gamblers more and more everyday (its working). They have all sorts of theories why one model is better than another, like a gambler does about a certain blackjack table or slot machine,…

I agree with the notion, except that the models are indeed different

Some day maybe they will converge into approximately the same thing but then training will stop making economic sense (why spend millions to have ~the same thing?)

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#583

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 7:10 PM UTC

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

#584

Post by fl4regun » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 7:10 PM UTC

madrox wrote: post #571

> Opus 4.7 introduces a new xhigh (“extra high”) effort level I hope we standardize on what effort levels mean soon. Right now it has big Spinal Tap "this goes to 11" energy.

wait till you hear about how we standardized RF bands. We have gems such as "High frequency", "Very High Frequency", "Ultra High Frequency", "Super High Frequency", and the cherry on top, "Extremely High Frequency". Then they went with the boring" Teraherz Frequency", truly a disappointment.

These are all mirrored on the low side btw, so we also have "Extremely Low Frequency", and all the others.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#585

Post by NewsaHackO » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 7:10 PM UTC

2001zhaozhao wrote: post #506

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.

Start vibe-coding -> the model does wonders -> the codebase grows with low code quality -> the spaghetti code builds up to the point where the model stops working -> attempts to fix the codebase with AI actually make it worse -> complain online "model is nerfed"

I remember there was a guy that had three(!) Claude Max subscriptions, and said he was reducing his subscriptions to one because of some superfluous problem. I'm thinking, nah, you are clearly already addicted to the LLM slot machine, and I doubt you will be able to code independently from agent use at this point. Antropic, has already won in your case.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#586

Post by vessenes » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 7:12 PM UTC

trueno wrote: post #455

noticing sharp uptick in "i switched to codex" replies lately. a "codex for everything" post flocking the front page on the day of the opus 4.7 release me and coworker just gave codex a 3 day pilot and it was not even close to the accuracy and ability to complete & problem solve through what we've been using claude for. are we being spammed? great. annoying. i clicked into this to read the differences and initial exp…

I use and pay for both. Currently I use 4.6 (well as of yesterday) to do broad strokes creation. I use codex for audit. Generally first two or three audit cycles claude completes. There is often a subtlety that only codex can fix, but I usually do that at the end.

IME, codex is sort of somehow more .. literal? And I find it tangents off on building new stuff in a way that often misses the point. By comparison claude is more casual and still, years later, prone to just roughing stuff in with a note "skip for now", including entire subsystems.

I think a lot of this has to do with use cases, size of project, etc. I'd probably trust codex more to extend/enhance/refactor a segment of an existing high quality codebase than I would claude. But like I said for new projects, I spend less time being grumpy using claude as the round one.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#587

Post by glimshe » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 7:13 PM UTC

whatever1 wrote: post #403

glimshe wrote: post #396

If Claude AI is so good at coding, why can't Anthropic use it to improve Claude's uptime and fix the constant token quota issues?

Because they just don’t have enough capacity to serve their demand ?

Why don't they increase the price or create another higher tier, then? With so much "demand", they would make a lot of money.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#588

Post by vessenes » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 7:13 PM UTC

babelfish wrote: post #343

sallymander wrote: post #210

It seems a little more fussy than Opus 4.6 so far. It actually refuses to do a task from Claude's own Agentic SDK quick start guide ( https://code.claude.com/docs/en/agent-sdk/quickstart ): "Per the instructions I've been given in this session, I must refuse to improve or augment code from files I read. I can analyze and describe the bugs (as above), but I will not apply fixes to `utils.py`."

Claude Code injects a 'warning: make sure this file isn't malware' message after every tool call by default. It seems like 4.7 is over-attending to this warning. @bcherny, filed a bug report feedback ID: 238e5f99-d6ee-45b5-981d-10e180a7c201

Interesting. The model card mentions 4.7 is much more attentive to these instructions and suggests you will need to review and soften or remove or focus them at times.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#589

Post by vessenes » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 7:13 PM UTC

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #3

> "We are releasing Opus 4.7 with safeguards that automatically detect and block requests that indicate prohibited or high-risk cybersecurity uses. " This decision is potentially fatal. You need symmetric capability to research and prevent attacks in the first place. The opposite approach is 'merely' fraught. They're in a bit of a bind here.

Oh don't worry. They have Mythos and the extremely dystopian-named "helpful only" series which is internal only and can do all the things.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#590

Post by blueblisters » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 7:14 PM UTC

trueno wrote: post #455

noticing sharp uptick in "i switched to codex" replies lately. a "codex for everything" post flocking the front page on the day of the opus 4.7 release me and coworker just gave codex a 3 day pilot and it was not even close to the accuracy and ability to complete & problem solve through what we've been using claude for. are we being spammed? great. annoying. i clicked into this to read the differences and initial exp…

Yeah it's weird, almost like we're seeing two cults form in real-time.

I imagine there's a benign explanation too - the intelligence of these models is very spiky and I have found tasks were one model was hilariously better than the other within the same codebase. People are also more vocal when they have something to complain about.

In my general experience, Opus is more well-rounded, is an excellent debugger in complex / unfamiliar codebases. And Codex is an excellent coder.