[dead]
Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
111–120 of 620 posts
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#112I'm going to suggest what's going on here is Hanlon's Razor for models: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by a model's stupidity." In my opinion, we've reached some ceiling where more tokens lead only to incremental improvements. A conspiracy seems unlikely given all providers are still competing for customers and a 50% token drives infra costs up dramatically too.
Never attribute to incompetence what is sufficiently explained by greed.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#113We 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 My manager doesn't even want us to use copilot locally. Now we are supposed to only use the GitHub copilot cloud agent. One shot from prompt to PR. With people like that selling vendor lock in for them these companies like GitHub, OpenAI, Anthropic etc don't even need sales and marketing departments!
You are aware that using eg. Github copilot is not one shot? It will start an agentic loop.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#114We 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…
What open models are truly competing with both Claude Code and Opus 4.7 (xhigh) at this stage?
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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?
I think this is a bit dismissive.
It’s quite possible to be deep into solving a problem with an LLM guiding you where you’re reading and learning from what it says. This is not really that different from googling random blogs and learning from Stack Overflow.
Assuming everyone just sits there dribbling whilst Claude is in YOLO mode isn’t always correct.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#116Token consumption is huge compared to 4.6 even for smaller tasks. Just by "reasoning" after my first prompt this morning I went over 50% over the 5 hours quota.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
qwen3.5/3.6 (30B) works well,locally, with opencode
Is this sort of setup tenable on a consumer MBP or similar?
For a 30B model, you want at least 20GB of VRAM and a 24GB MBP can’t quite allocate that much of it to VRAM. So you’d want at least a 32GB MBP.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#118We 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.
Not so much atrophy as apathy.
I've worked with people who will look at code they don't understand, say "llm says this", and express zero intention of learning something. Might even push back. Be proud of their ignorance.
It's like, why even review that PR in the first place if you don't even know what you're working with?
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#119My impression the reverse is true when upgrading to GPT-5.4 from GPT-5; it uses fewer tokens(?).
But with the same tokenizer, right?
The difference here is Opus 4.7 has a new tokenizer which converts the same input text to a higher number of tokens. (But it costs the same per token?)
> Claude Opus 4.7 uses a new tokenizer, contributing to its improved performance on a wide range of tasks. This new tokenizer may use roughly 1x to 1.35x as many tokens when processing text compared to previous models (up to ~35% more, varying by content), and /v1/messages/count_tokens will return a different number of tokens for Claude Opus 4.7 than it did for Claude Opus 4.6.
> Pricing remains the same as Opus 4.6: $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens.
ArtificialAnalysis reports 4.7 significantly reduced output tokens though, and overall ~10% cheaper to run the evals.
I don't know how well that translates to Claude Code usage though, which I think is extremely input heavy.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#120is 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
For my working style (fine-grained instructions to the agent), Opus 4.5 is basically ideal. Opus 4.6 and 4.7 seem optimized for more long-running tasks with less back and forth between human and agent; but for me Opus 4.6 was a regression, and it seems like Opus 4.7 will be another.
This gives me hope that even if future versions of Opus continue to target long-running tasks and get more and more expensive while being less-and-less appropriate for my style, that a competitor can build a model akin to Opus 4.5 which is suitable for my workflow, optimizing for other factors like cost.