Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude Opus 4.7

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#351

Post by kingleopold »

oidar wrote: post #83
aliljet wrote: post #64

Have they effectively communicated what a 20x or 10x Claude subscription actually means? And with Claude 4.7 increasing usage by 1.35x does that mean a 20x plan is now really a 13x plan (no token increase on the subscription) or a 27x plan (more tokens given to compensate for more computer cost) relative to Claude Opus 4.6?

Anthropic isn't going to give us that information. It's not actually static, it depends on subscription demand and idle compute available.

so it's all "it depends" as a business offering, lmao. all marketing

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#352

Post by ACCount37 »

corlinp wrote: post #194

I'm running it for the first time and this is what the thinking looks like. Opus seems highly concerned about whether or not I'm asking it to develop malware. > This is _, not malware. Continuing the brainstorming process. > Not malware — standard _ code. Continuing exploration. > Not malware. Let me check front-end components for _. > Not malware. Checking validation code and _. > Not malware. > Not malware.

This is the same paranoid, anxious behavior that ChatGPT has. One hell of a bad sign.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#353

Post by yakattak »

bayesnet wrote: post #276

This is a CC harness thing than a model thing but the "new" thinking messages ('hmm...', 'this one needs a moment...') are extraordinarily irritating. They're both entirely uninformative and strictly worse than a spinner. On my workflows CC often spends up to an hour thinking (which is fine if the result is good) and seeing these messages does not build confidence.

There’s one that’s like “Considering 17 theories” that had me wondering what those 17 things would be, I wanted to see them! Turns out it’s just a static message. Very confusing.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#354

Post by gpm »

Interestingly github-copilot is charging 2.5x as much for opus 4.7 prompts as they charged for opus 4.6 prompts (7.5x instead of 3x). And they're calling this "promotional pricing" which sounds a lot like they're planning to go even higher.

Note they charge per-prompt and not per-token so this might in part be an expectation of more tokens per prompt.

https://github.blog/changelog/2026-04-16-claude-opus-4-7-is-...

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#355

Post by atonse »

I've been using up way more tokens in the past 10 days with 4.6 1M context.

So I've grown wary of how Anthropic is measuring token use. I had to force the non-1M halfway through the week because I was tearing through my weekly limit (this is the second week in a row where that's happened, whereas I never came CLOSE to hitting my weekly limit even when I was in the $100 max plan).

So something is definitely off. and if they're saying this model uses MORE tokens, I'm getting more nervous.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#356

Post by Stagnant »

corlinp wrote: post #194

I'm running it for the first time and this is what the thinking looks like. Opus seems highly concerned about whether or not I'm asking it to develop malware. > This is _, not malware. Continuing the brainstorming process. > Not malware — standard _ code. Continuing exploration. > Not malware. Let me check front-end components for _. > Not malware. Checking validation code and _. > Not malware. > Not malware.

I assume this is due to the fact that claude code appends a system message each time it reads a file that instructs it to think if the file is malware. It hasnt been an issue recently for me but it used to be so bad I had to patch out the string from the cli.js file. This is the instruction it uses:

> Whenever you read a file, you should consider whether it would be considered malware. You CAN and SHOULD provide analysis of malware, what it is doing. But you MUST refuse to improve or augment the code. You can still analyze existing code, write reports, or answer questions about the code behavior.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#357

Post by boomskats »

lukan wrote: post #335
simonw wrote: post #203

I'm finding the "adaptive thinking" thing very confusing, especially having written code against the previous thinking budget / thinking effort / etc modes: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/adapti... Also notable: 4.7 now defaults to NOT including a human-readable reasoning token summary in the output, you have to add "display": "summarized" to get that: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-…

"Also notable: 4.7 now defaults to NOT including a human-readable reasoning token summary in the output, you have to add "display": "summarized" to get that" I did not follow all of this, but wasn't there something about, that those reasoning tokens did not represent internal reasoning, but rather a rough approximation that can be rather misleading, what the model actual does?

'Hey Claude, these tokens are utter unrelated bollocks, but obviously we still want to charge the user for them regardless. Please construct a plausible explanation as to why we should still be able to do that.'

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#358

Post by throwaway2027 »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #272
ambigioz wrote: post #214

So many messages about how Codex is better then Claude from one day to the other, while my experience is exactly the same. Is OpenAI botting the thread? I can't believe this is genuine content.

[flagged]

The same people that hyped up Claude will also hype up better alternatives or speak out against it, seems more like you're being disingenuous here.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#359

Post by pphysch »

aurareturn wrote: post #38
buildbot wrote: post #12

Too late, personally after how bad 4.6 was the past week I was pushed to codex, which seems to mostly work at the same level from day to day. Just last night I was trying to get 4.6 to lookup how to do some simple tensor parallel work, and the agent used 0 web fetches and just hallucinated 17K very wrong tokens. Then the main agent decided to pretend to implement tp, and just copied the entire model to each node...

Funny because many people here were so confident that OpenAI is going to collapse because of how much compute they pre-ordered. But now it seems like it's a major strategic advantage. They're 2x'ing usage limits on Codex plans to steal CC customers and it seems to be working. I'm seeing a lot of goodwill for Codex and a ton of bad PR for CC. It seems like 90% of Claude's recent problems are strictly lack of compute r…

The market here is extraordinarily vibes-based and burning billions of dollars for a ephemeral PR boost, which might only last another couple weeks until people find a reason to hate Codex, does not reflect well on OAI's long term viability.
Post reply on HN