[flagged]
The long-term pitch of these AI companies is that the AI will essentially replace workers for low cost. If the models don't get to a higher level of 'intelligence' and still struggle with certain basic tasks at the SOTA while also getting more expensive, then the pitch is misleading and unlikely to happen. So yes, I expect the price to go down.
Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
131–140 of 620 posts
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
Writing Opus 4.6 to 4.7 does make more sense for people who read left to right.
I’m impressed with anyone who can read English right to left.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#133Claude design on the other hand seemed to eat through (its own separate usage limit) very fast. Hit the limit this morning in about 45 mins on a max plan. I assume they are going to end up spinning that product off as a separate service.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#134Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#135It was on the higher end of Anthropics range - closer to 30-40% more tokens
https://www.claudecodecamp.com/p/i-measured-claude-4-7-s-new...
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#136Earlier 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.
Yes, you certainly can argue that, but you'd be wrong. The primary selling point of LLMs is that they solve the problem of needing skill to get things done.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm betting on a company like Taalas making a model that is perhaps less capable but 100x as fast, where you could have dozens of agents looking at your problem from all different angles simultaneously, and so still have better results and faster.
Yeah, it's a search problem. When verification is cheap, reducing success rate in exchange for massively reducing cost and runtime is the right approach.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#138Is Opus 4.7 that significantly different in quality that it should use that much more in tokens?
I like Claude and Anthropic a lot, and hope it's just some weird quirk in their tokenizer or whatnot, just seems like something changed in the last few weeks and may be going in a less-value-for-money direction, with not much being said about it. But again, could just be some technical glitch.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#139Brutal. I've been noticing that 4.7 eats my Max Subscription like crazy even when I do my best to juggle tasks (or tell 4.7 to use subagents with) Sonnet 4.6 Medium and Haiku. Would love to know if anybody's found ideal token-saving approaches.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#140Earlier 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. I don't believe it. Having something else do the work for you is not learning, no matter how much you tell yourself it is.
Having other people do work for you is how people get to focus on things they actually care about.
Do you use a compiler you didn't write yourself? If so can you really say you've ever learned anything about computers?