Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

tokens.billchambers.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 620 posts

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#31

Post by slowmovintarget »

quux wrote: post #18
coldtea wrote: post #10

This, the push towards per-token API charging, and the rest are just a sign of things to come when they finally establish a moat and full monoply/duopoly, which is also what all the specialized tools like Designer and integrations are about. It's going to be a very expensive game, and the masses will be left with subpar local versions. It would be like if we reversed the democratization of compilers and coding toolin…

If only there were an Open AI company who's mandate, built into the structure of the company, were to make frontier models available to everyone for the good of humanity. Oh well

Things used to be better... really.

OpenAI was built as you say. Google had a corporate motto of "Don't be evil" which they removed so they could, um, do evil stuff without cognitive dissonance, I guess.

This is the other kind of enshitification where the businesses turn into power accumulators.

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#33

Post by kalkin »

manmal wrote: post #29
kalkin wrote: post #19

AFAICT this uses a token-counting API so that it counts how many tokens are in the prompt, in two ways, so it's measuring the tokenizer change in isolation. Smarter models also sometimes produce shorter outputs and therefore fewer output tokens. That doesn't mean Opus 4.7 necessarily nets out cheaper, it might still be more expensive, but this comparison isn't really very useful.

Why is it not useful? Input token pricing is the same for 4.7. The same prompt costs roughly 30% more now, for input.

That's valid, but it's also worth knowing it's only one part of the puzzle. The submission title doesn't say "input".

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#34

Post by bakugo »

bcherny wrote: post #27
justindotdev wrote: post #8

i think it is quite clear that staying with opus 4.6 is the way to go, on top of the inflation, 4.7 is quite... dumb. i think they have lobotomized this model while they were prioritizing cybersecurity and blocking people from performing potentially harmful security related tasks.

Hey, Boris from the Claude Code team here. People were getting extra cyber warnings when using old versions of Claude Code with Opus 4.7. To fix it, just run claude update to make sure you're on the latest. Under the hood, what was happening is that older models needed reminders, while 4.7 no longer needs it. When we showed these reminders to 4.7 it tended to over-fixate on them. The fix was to stop adding cyber remi…

How do you justify the API and web UI versions of 4.7 refusing to solve NYT Connections puzzles due to "safety"?

https://x.com/LechMazur/status/2044945702682309086

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#35

Post by [deleted] »

manmal wrote: post #29
kalkin wrote: post #19

AFAICT this uses a token-counting API so that it counts how many tokens are in the prompt, in two ways, so it's measuring the tokenizer change in isolation. Smarter models also sometimes produce shorter outputs and therefore fewer output tokens. That doesn't mean Opus 4.7 necessarily nets out cheaper, it might still be more expensive, but this comparison isn't really very useful.

Why is it not useful? Input token pricing is the same for 4.7. The same prompt costs roughly 30% more now, for input.

[deleted]

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#37

Post by zozbot234 »

ausbah wrote: post #16

is it really unthinkable that another oss/local model will be released by deepseek, alibaba, or even meta that once again give these companies a run for their money

> is it really unthinkable that another oss/local model will be released by deepseek, alibaba, or even meta that once again give these companies a run for their money

Plenty of OSS models being released as of late, with GLM and Kimi arguably being the most interesting for the near-SOTA case ("give these companies a run for their money"). Of course, actually running them locally for anything other than very slow Q&A is hard.

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#38

Post by dktp »

manmal wrote: post #29
kalkin wrote: post #19

AFAICT this uses a token-counting API so that it counts how many tokens are in the prompt, in two ways, so it's measuring the tokenizer change in isolation. Smarter models also sometimes produce shorter outputs and therefore fewer output tokens. That doesn't mean Opus 4.7 necessarily nets out cheaper, it might still be more expensive, but this comparison isn't really very useful.

Why is it not useful? Input token pricing is the same for 4.7. The same prompt costs roughly 30% more now, for input.

The idea is that smarter models might use fewer turns to accomplish the same task - reducing the overall token usage

Though, from my limited testing, the new model is far more token hungry overall

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#39

Post by zozbot234 »

pitched wrote: post #23
ausbah wrote: post #16

is it really unthinkable that another oss/local model will be released by deepseek, alibaba, or even meta that once again give these companies a run for their money

Now that Anthropic have started hiding the chain of thought tokens, it will be a lot harder for them

Anthropic and OpenAI never showed the true chain of thought tokens. Ironically, that's something you only get from local models.

Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

#40

Post by Shailendra_S »

45% is brutal if you're building on top of these models as a bootstrapped founder. The unit economics just don't work anymore at that price point for most indie products.

What I've been doing is running a dual-model setup — use the cheaper/faster model for the heavy lifting where quality variance doesn't matter much, and only route to the expensive one when the output is customer-facing and quality is non-negotiable. Cuts costs significantly without the user noticing any difference.

The real risk is that pricing like this pushes smaller builders toward open models or Chinese labs like Qwen, which I suspect isn't what Anthropic wants long term.

Post reply on HN