Claude Opus 4.7 • Hacker News Board

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#651

Post by ionwake » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 9:21 PM UTC

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/

based sun worshipping pelican

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#652

Post by 6thbit » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 9:29 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #580

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…

>> are we being spammed? great. annoying. Yeah, very. Every single time this happens here, where there's a thread about an Anthropic model and people spam the comments with how Codex is better, I go and try it by giving the exact same prompt to Codex and Opus and comparing the output. And every single time the result is the same: Opus crushes it and Codex really struggles. I feel like people like me are being gaslit…

this is exactly how the other side feels

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#653

Post by jagmeetchawla » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 9:31 PM UTC

Using it to build https://rustic-playground.app. Rust + Claude turned out to be a surprisingly good pairing — the compiler catches a whole class of AI slip-ups before they ever run. So far so good!

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#654

Post by fschuett » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 9:32 PM UTC

helloplanets wrote: post #153

I wonder why computer use has taken a back seat. Seemed like it was a hot topic in 2024, but then sort of went obscure after CLI agents fully took over. It would be interesting to see a company to try and train a computer use specific model, with an actually meaningful amount of compute directed at that. Seems like there's just been experiments built upon models trained for completely different stuff, instead of any…

The trillion dollar "Computer Use" model could not figure out how to configure audio outputs in Microsoft Teams. It then model-collapsed when trying to configure an HP printer. AGI was postponed, we'll get back to this after next weeks retrospective.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#655

Post by chasd00 » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 9:34 PM UTC

cesarvarela wrote: post #494

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…

With all the low quality code that's being generated and deployed cybersecurity will be the golden goose.

hah maybe the plan for Mythos is to solution all the security issues introduced by ClaudeCode. Anthropic makes money creating the security issues and identifying/fixing the security issues, that's a nice spot to be in.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#656

Post by madrox » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 9:35 PM UTC

fl4regun wrote: post #584

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.

I hear you (see what I did there?)

What makes this even more complicated is that multiple models use these terms. Does "high" effort mean the same thing in Claude and GPT?

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#657

Post by consumer451 » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 9:36 PM UTC

mchinen wrote: post #28

These stuck out as promising things to try. It looks like xhigh on 4.7 scores significantly higher on the internal coding benchmark (71% vs 54%, though unclear what that is exactly) > More effort control: Opus 4.7 introduces a new xhigh (“extra high”) effort level between high and max, giving users finer control over the tradeoff between reasoning and latency on hard problems. In Claude Code, we’ve raised the default…

Someone posted a theory on reddit that /ultrareview might use Mythos. Seems at least plausible. It runs in the cloud like /ultraplan, and is gated by the CC - so no way to inspect what it's doing, or give it "dangerous" tasks, right?

I just ran it against an auth-related PR, and it found great edge-case stuff. Very interesting! I get the feeling we will be here a lot more about /ultrareview.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#658

Post by baron3dl » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 9:39 PM UTC

deepsquirrelnet wrote: post #288

buildbot wrote: post #12

Too late, personally after how bad 4.6 was the past week I was pushed to codex, which seems to mostly work at the same level from day to day. Just last night I was trying to get 4.6 to lookup how to do some simple tensor parallel work, and the agent used 0 web fetches and just hallucinated 17K very wrong tokens. Then the main agent decided to pretend to implement tp, and just copied the entire model to each node...

My tinfoil hat theory, which may not be that crazy, is that providers are sandbagging their models in the days leading up to a new release, so that the next model "feels" like a bigger improvement than it is. An important aspect of AI is that it needs to be seen as moving forward all the time. Plateaus are the death of the hype cycle, and would tether people's expectations closer to reality.

I was there too, but honestly after today, 4.7 "feels" just as a bad. I was cynical, but also, kind of eager for the improvement. It's just not there. Compared to early Feb, I have to babysit EVERYTHING.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#659

Post by gizmodo59 » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 9:41 PM UTC

While OpenAI was late to the game with codex, they are (inspite of the hate they get) consistent in model performance, limits, and model getting better along with harness (which is open source unlike Claude) and they don’t hype shit up like mythos. It seems like Anthropic PR game is scare tactics and squeeze out developers while getting money from big tech. Not to forget they are the ones worked with palantir first. Blatant marketing game but it has worked for them! Something to learn by other companies.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#660

Post by boxingdog » Thu, Apr 16, 2026, 9:44 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-…

[dead]