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

251–260 of 620 posts

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

#251

Post by danny_codes »

Bridged7756 wrote: post #233
glerk wrote: post #148

I'd be ok with paying more if results were good, but it seems like Anthropic is going for the Tinder/casino intermittent reinforcement strategy: optimized to keep you spending tokens instead of achieving results. And yes, Claude models are generally more fun to use than GPT/Codex. They have a personality. They have an intuition for design/aesthetics. Vibe-coding with them feels like playing a video game. But the resu…

Mirrors my sentiment. Those tools seem mostly useful for a Google alternative, scaffolding tedious things, code reviewing, and acting as a fancy search. It seems that they got a grip on the "coding LLM" market and now they're starting to seek actual profit. I predict we'll keep seeing 40%+ more expensive models for a marginal performance gain from now on.

I just don’t see how they’ll be able to make a profit. Open models have the same performance on coding tasks now. The incentives are all wrong. Why pay more for a model that’s no better and also isn’t open? It’s nonsense

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

#252

Post by gbro3n »

Someone1234 wrote: post #199
gbro3n wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely see your point, but when my / developer time is worth what it is compared to the cost of a frontier model subscription, I'm wary of choosing anything but the best model I can. I would love to be able to say I have X technique for compensating for the model shortfall, but my experience so far has been that bigger, later models out perform older, smaller ones. I genuinely hope this changes through. I under…

Right; but every major generation has had diminishing returns on the last. Two years ago the difference was HUGE between major releases, and now we're discussing Opus 4.6 Vs. 4.7 and people cannot seem to agree if it is an improvement or regression (and even their data in the card shows regressions). So my point is: If you have the attitude that unless it is the bleeding edge, it may have well not exist, then local m…

I feel like I'm going to have to try the next model. For a few cycles yet. My opinion is that Opus 4.7 is performing worse for my current work flow, but 4.6 was a significant step up, and I'd be getting worse results and shipping slower if I'd stuck with 4.5. The providers are always going to swear that the latest is the greatest. Demis Hassabis recently said in an interview that he thinks the better funded projects will continue to find significant gains through advanced techniques, but that open source models figure out what was changed after about 6 months or so. We'll see I guess. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to settle down with one model and I'd love it to be something I could self host for free.

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

#253

Post by gbgarbeb »

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…

[dead]

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

#254

Post by visarga »

onemoresoop wrote: post #244
idopmstuff wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people talk like skill atrophy is inevitable when you use LLMs, which strikes me as pretty absurd given that you are talking about a tool that will answer an infinite number of questions with infinite patience. I usually learn way more by having Claude do a task and then quizzing it about what it did than by figuring out how to do it myself. When I have to figure out how to do the thing, it takes much more time,…

You lose some, you win some. The win could be short-term much higher, however imagine that the new tool suddenly gets ragged pulled from under your feet. What do you do then? Do you still know how to handle it the old way or do you run into skill atrophy issues? I’m using Claude/Codex as well, but I’m a little worried that the environment we work in will become a lot more bumpy and shifty.

> the new tool suddenly gets ragged pulled from under your feet

If that happened at this point, it would be after societal collapse.

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

#255

Post by hereme888 »

> Opus 4.7 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort) cost ~$4,406 to run the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, ~11% less than Opus 4.6 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, ~$4,970) despite scoring 4 points higher. This is driven by lower output token usage, even after accounting for Opus 4.7's new tokenizer. This metric does not account for cached input token discounts, which we will be incorporating into our cost calculations in the near future.

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

#256

Post by sergiotapia »

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…

I can recommend this stack. It works well with the existing Claude skills I had in my code repos:

1. Opencode

2. Fireworks AI: GLM 5.1

And it is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than Claude. I'm waiting eagerly for something new from Deepseek. They are going to really show us magic.

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

#257

Post by malnourish »

oremj wrote: post #205
ljm wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Is this the same subset of people who copy/paste code directly from stack overflow without understanding ? I’m not sure this is a new problem.

I don't think so. I'll spend a ton of time and effort thinking through, revising, and planning out the approach, but I let the agent take the wheel when it comes to transpiling that to code. I don't actually care about the code so long as it's secure and works.

I spent years cultivating expertise in C++ and .NET. And I found that time both valuable and enjoyable. But that's because it was a path to solve problems for my team, give guidance, and do so with both breadth and depth.

Now I focus on problems at a higher level of abstraction. I am certain there's still value in understanding ownership semantics and using reflection effectively, but they're broadly less relevant concerns.

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

#258

Post by voxl »

aerhardt wrote: post #200
gsleblanc wrote: post #142

It's increasingly looking naive to assume scaling LLMs is all you need to get to full white-collar worker replacement. The attention mechanism / hopfield network is fundamentally modeling only a small subset of the full human brain, and all the increasing sustained hype around bolted-on solutions for "agentic memory" is, in my opinion, glaring evidence that these SOTA transformers alone aren't sufficient even when yo…

> you just limit the space to text And even then... why can't they write a novel? Or lowering the bar, let's say a novella like Death in Venice , Candide , The Metamorphosis , Breakfast at Tiffany's ...? Every book's in the training corpus... Is it just a matter of someone not having spent a hundred grand in tokens to do it?

I know someone spending basically every day writing personal fan fiction stories using every model you can find. She doesn't want to share it, and does complain about it a lot, seems like maintaining consistency for something say 100 pages long is difficult

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

#259

Post by throwatdem12311 »

Price is now getting to be more in line with the actual cost. Th models are dumber, slower and more expensive than what we’ve been paying up until now. OpenAI will do it too, maybe a bit less to avoid pissing people off after seeing backlash to Anthropic’s move here. Or maybe they won’t make it dumber but they’ll increase the price while making a dumber mode the baseline so you’re encouraged to pay more. Free ride is over. Hope you have 30k burning a hole in your pocket to buy a beefy machine to run your own model. I hear Mac Studios are good for local inference.

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

#260

Post by subscribed »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #82
tossandthrow wrote: post #69

Earlier 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 am learning a new skill with instructor at an incredible rate

> Could you do it again on your own?

Can you you see how nonsensical your stance is? You're straight up accusing GP of lying they are learning something at the increased rate OR suggesting if they couldn't learn that, presumably at the same rate, on they own, they're not learning anything.

That's not very wise to project your own experiences on others.

Post reply on HN