Live data from Hacker News

Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7

tokens.billchambers.me

131–140 of 620 posts

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

#131

[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.

[deleted]

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

#132

Earlier 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.

You might like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boustrophedon

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

#133
Had a pretty heavy workload yesterday, and never hid the limit on claude code. Perhaps they allowed for more tokens for the launch?

Claude 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

#136
post #92

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.

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.

I see it completely the opposite way, you use an LLM and correct all its mistakes and it allows you to deliver a rough solution very quickly and then refine it in combination with the AI but it still gets completely lost and stuck on basic things. It’s a very useful companion that you can’t trust, but it’s made me 4-5x more productive and certainly less frustrated by the legacy codebase I work on.

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

#137
post #96
post #24

Earlier 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.

You underestimating the algorithmic complexity of such brute forcing, and the indirect cost of brittle code that's produced by inferior models

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

#138
I wonder if this is like when a restaurant introduces a new menu to increase prices.

Is 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

#139

Brutal. 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.

I haven't seen a noticeable difference BUT I've been always using the context mode plugin.

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

#140

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. 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.

If you've seen further it's only because you've stood on the shoulders of giants.

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?

Post reply on HN