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

51–60 of 620 posts

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

#51

Post by c0balt »

Shailendra_S wrote: post #40

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.…

One could reconsider whether building your business on top of a model without owning the core skills to make your product is viable regardless.

A smaller builder might reconsider (re)acquiring relevant skills and applying them. We don't suddenly lose the ability to program (or hire someone to do it) just because an inference provider is available.

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

#52

Post by tiffanyh »

I was using Opus 4.7 just yesterday to help implement best practices on a single page website.

After just ~4 prompts I blew past my daily limit. Another ~7 more prompts & I blew past my weekly limit.

The entire HTMl/CSS/JS was less than 300 lines of code.

I was shocked how fast it exhausted my usage limits.

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

#53

Post by OptionOfT »

Shailendra_S wrote: post #40

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.…

That's the risk you take on.

There are 2 things to consider:

    * Time to market.
    * Building a house on someone else's land.
You're balancing the 2, hoping that you win the time to market, making the second point obsolete from a cost perspective, or you have money to pivot to DIY.

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

#54

Post by ahartmetz »

dakiol wrote: post #46

We dropped Claude. It's pretty clear this is a race to the bottom, and we don't want a hard dependency on another multi-billion dollar company just to write software We'll be keeping an eye on open models (of which we already make good use of). I think that's the way forward. Actually it would be great if everybody would put more focus on open models, perhaps we can come up with something like the "linux/postgres/git…

>we don't want a hard dependency on another multi-billion dollar company just to write software

One of two main reasons why I'm wary of LLMs. The other is fear of skill atrophy. These two problems compound. Skill atrophy is less bad if the replacement for the previous skill does not depend on a potentially less-than-friendly party.

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

#55

Post by mvkel »

The cope is real with this model. Needing an instruction manual to learn how to prompt it "properly" is a glaring regression.

The whole magic of (pre-nerfed) 4.6 was how it magically seemed to understand what I wanted, regardless of how perfectly I articulated it.

Now, Anth says that needing to explicitly define instructions are as a "feature"?!

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

#56

Post by blahblaher »

nate8bit wrote: post #49
dakiol wrote: post #46

We dropped Claude. It's pretty clear this is a race to the bottom, and we don't want a hard dependency on another multi-billion dollar company just to write software We'll be keeping an eye on open models (of which we already make good use of). I think that's the way forward. Actually it would be great if everybody would put more focus on open models, perhaps we can come up with something like the "linux/postgres/git…

Any recommendations on good open ones? What are you using primarily?

qwen3.5/3.6 (30B) works well,locally, with opencode

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

#57

Post by dgellow »

falcor84 wrote: post #14
therobots927 wrote: post #6

Wow this is pretty spectacular. And with the losses anthro and OAI are running, don’t expect this trend to change. You will get incremental output improvements for a dramatically more expensive subscription plan.

Indeed, and if we accept the argument of this tech approaching AGI, we should expect that within x years, the subscription cost may exceed the salary cost of a junior dev. To be clear, I'm not saying that it's a good thing, but it does seem to be going in this direction.

If LLMs do reach AGI (assuming we have an actual agreed upon definition), it would make sense to pay way more than a junior salary. But also, LLMs won’t give us AGI (again, assuming we have an actual, meaningful definition)

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

#58

Post by blahblaher »

Conspiracy time: they released a new version just so hey could increase the price so that people wouldn't complain so much along the lines of "see this is a new version model, so we NEED to increase the price") similar to how SaaS companies tack on some shit to the product so that they can increase prices

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

#59

Post by dgellow »

vessenes wrote: post #13
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.

4.7 is super variable in my one day experience - it occasionally just nails a task. Then I'm back to arguing with it like it's 2023.

That has been my Friday experience as well… very frustrating to go back to the arguing, I forgot how tense that makes me feel

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

#60

Post by usrnm »

embedding-shape wrote: post #25
UltraSane wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Writing Opus 4.6 to 4.7 does make more sense for people who read left to right.

But the page is not in a language that should be read right to left, doesn't that make that kind of confusing?

Did you mean "right to left"?
Post reply on HN