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

641–650 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#641

Post by sambellll »

Tiberium wrote: post #36
cupofjoakim wrote: post #20

> Opus 4.7 uses an updated tokenizer that improves how the model processes text. The tradeoff is that the same input can map to more tokens—roughly 1.0–1.35× depending on the content type. caveman[0] is becoming more relevant by the day. I already enjoy reading its output more than vanilla so suits me well. [0] https://github.com/JuliusBrussee/caveman/tree/main

I hope people realize that tools like caveman are mostly joke/prank projects - almost the entirety of the context spent is in file reads (for input) and reasoning (in output), you will barely save even 1% with such a tool, and might actually confuse the model more or have it reason for more tokens because it'll have to formulate its respone in the way that satisfies the requirements.

Someone should make an MCP that parses every non-code file before it hits claude to turn it into caveman talk

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#642

Post by sigmarule »

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…

Out of curiosity, (a) did you receive this error at the start of a session or in the middle of it, and (b) did you manage to find/confirm valid findings within the scope/codebase 4.7 was auditing with Sonnet/yourself later on?

I just gave 4.7 a run over a codebase I have been heavily auditing with 4.6 the past few days. Things began soothly so I left it for 10-15 minutes. When I checked back in I saw it had died in the middle of investigating one of the paths I recommended exploring.

I was curious as to why the block occurred when my instructions and explicitly stated intent had not changed at all - I provided no further input after the first prompt. This would mean that its own reasoning output or tool call results triggered the filter. This is interesting, especially if you think of typical vuln research workflows and stages; it’s a lot of code review and tracing, things which likely look largely similar to normal engineering work, code reviews, etc. Things begin to get more explicitly “offensive” once you pick up on a viable angle or chain, and increase as you further validate and work the chain out, reaching maximum “offensiveness” as you write the final PoC, etc.

So, one would then have to wonder if the activity preceding the mid-session flagging only resulted in the flag because it finally found something seemingly viable and started shifting reasoning from generic-ish bug hunting to over exploitation.

So, I checked the preceding tool calls, and sure enough…

What a strange world we’re living in. Somebody should try making a joke AUP violation-based fuzzer, policy violations are the new segfaults…

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#643

Post by Stevvo »

gpm wrote: post #354

Interestingly github-copilot is charging 2.5x as much for opus 4.7 prompts as they charged for opus 4.6 prompts (7.5x instead of 3x). And they're calling this "promotional pricing" which sounds a lot like they're planning to go even higher. Note they charge per-prompt and not per-token so this might in part be an expectation of more tokens per prompt. https://github.blog/changelog/2026-04-16-claude-opus-4-7-is-...

Not only is it 7x on requests, reasoning is locked to medium. Have been with Copilot for the fair and transparent pricing, but reconsidering that now.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#644

Post by MattRix »

geuis wrote: post #634

I don't really understand Anthropic's pricing model. https://claude.com/pricing They have individual, enterprise, and API tiers. Some are subscriptions like Pro and Max, others require buying credits. Say for my use-case I wanted to use Opus or Sonnet with vscode. What plan would I even look at using?

You could use any of the plans depending on your situation.., they will all work in VSCode, so the question is how much usage you need and whether you want to pay for a subscription or directly for usage.

If you’re actually asking this question earnestly, I recommend starting out with the Pro plan ($20).

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#645

Post by rafaelmn »

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…

GPT 5.4 xhigh thinking was really good at teasing out problems in multi step flows of a process I was refactoring, caught higher level/deeper problems than Opus 4.6. However getting it to write the code is just not a good experience for me, it changes the style/does not follow surrounding code, codes in a sloppy way and creates subtle bugs that I don't see from Opus. So I use codex for review and opus to write code. Testing the new Opus 4.7 still to see if the review/reasoning catches more/better stuff. I frequently fire off all 3 (Gemini 3.1 pro, Opus, Codex xhigh) on same code than have them cross reference each other and stuff like that. Gemini is so bad it's not even funny, not sure why I keep it running.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#646

Post by XCSme »

> Instruction following. Opus 4.7 is substantially better at following instructions. Interestingly, this means that prompts written for earlier models can sometimes now produce unexpected results: where previous models interpreted instructions loosely or skipped parts entirely, Opus 4.7 takes the instructions literally. Users should re-tune their prompts and harnesses accordingly.

Yay! They finally fixed instruction following, so people can stop bashing my benchmarks[0] for being broken, because Opus 4.6 did poorly on them and called my tests broken...

[0]: https://aibenchy.com/compare/anthropic-claude-opus-4-7-mediu...

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#648

Post by sdeframond »

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…

Funny, just tried a few runs of the car wash prompt with Sonnet 4.6. It significantly improved after I put this into my personal preferences:

"- prioritize objective facts and critical analysis over validation or encouragement - you are not a friend, but a neutral information-processing machine. - make reserch and ask questions when relevant, do not jump strait to giving an answer."

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#649

Post by jeffybefffy519 »

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…

Codex is just as bad with this, i've received two ToS warnings for security research activities so far. I have also tried to appeal with zero response.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#650

Post by brunooliv »

antinomicus wrote: post #631
brunooliv wrote: post #617

I’ve been using Opus 4.6 extensively inside Claude Code via AWS Bedrock with max effort for a few months now (since release). I’ve found a good “personal harness” and way of working with it in such a way that I can easily complete self contained tasks in my Java codebase with ease. Now idk if it’s just me or anything else changed, but, in the last 4/5 days, the quality of the output of Opus 4.6 with max effort has be…

This thread is very confusing. Everyone is saying diametrically opposed things. But I think this may be a clue: AWS bedrock means api billing, no? I’m guessing those complaining about the recently lowered quality of Claude are on subscriptions. And those who are still loving Claude are on work accounts.

Maybe… but I can say I saw a real shift in these last few days, why or if it’s real, I can’t fully say but definitely something changed
Post reply on HN