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.
Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
81–90 of 620 posts
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
You can argu that you will have skill atrophy by not using LLMs. We have gone multi cloud disaster recovery on our infrastructure. Something I would not have done yet, had we not had LLMs. I am learning at an incredible rate with LLMs.
Could you do it again without the help of an LLM?
If no, then can you really claim to have learned anything?
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#83I 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
#84Makes me think the model could actually not even be smarter necessarily, just more token dependent.
That's an incentive difficult to reconcile with the user's benefit.
To keep this business running they do need to invest to make the best model, period.
It happens to be exactly what Anthropic's strategy is. That and great tooling.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#86Subsidies don't last forever.
If tech companies convince Congress that AI is an existential issue (in defense or even just productivity), then these companies will get subsidies forever.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#87I 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.
Which plan are you on? I could see that happening with Pro (which I think defaults to Sonnet?), would be surprised with Max…
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#88If anyone's had 4.7 update any documents so far - notice how concise it is at getting straight to the point. It rewrote some of my existing documentation (using Windsurf as the harness), not sure I liked the decrease in verbosity (removed columns and combined / compressed concepts) but it makes sense in respect to the model outputting less to save cost. To me this seems more that it's trained to be concise by default…
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any recommendations on good open ones? What are you using primarily?
qwen3.5/3.6 (30B) works well,locally, with opencode