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

361–370 of 620 posts

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

#361

Post by techpression »

idopmstuff wrote: post #228
estetlinus wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, +1. I will never be working on unsolved problems anyhow. Skill atrophy is not happening if you stay curious and responsible.

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,…

Understanding is not learning. Zero effort gives zero rewards, I ask Claude plenty of things, I get answers but not learnings.

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

#362

Post by gck1 »

Anthropic is playing a strange game. It's almost like they want you to cancel the subscription if you're an active user and only subscribe if you only use it once per month to ask what the weather in Berlin is.

First they introduce a policy to ban third party clients, but the way it's written, it affects claude -p too, and 3 months later, it's still confusing with no clarification.

Then they hide model's thinking, introduce a new flag which will still show summaries of thinking, which they break again in the next release, with a new flag.

Then they silently cut the usage limits to the point where the exact same usage that you're used to consumes 40% of your weekly quota in 5 hours, but not only they stay silent for entire 2 weeks - they actively gaslight users saying they didn't change anything, only to announce later that they did, indeed change the limits.

Then they serve a lobotomized model for an entire week before they drop 4.7, again, gaslighting users that they didn't do that.

And then this.

Anthropic has lost all credibility at this point and I will not be renewing my subscription. If they can't provide services under a price point, just increase the price or don't provide them.

EDIT: forgot "adaptive thinking", so add that too. Which essentially means "we decide when we can allocate resources for thinking tokens based on our capacity, or in other words - never".

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

#363

Post by Jweb_Guru »

therealdrag0 wrote: post #203
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure you would know if it didn't work? I use Claude extensively myself, so I'm not saying this from a "hater" angle, but I had 2 people last week who believe themselves to be in your shoes send me pull requests which made absolutely no sense in the context of the codebase.

That’s always been the case, AI or not.

No, it hasn't. I did not have a problem before AI with people sending in gigantic pull requests that made absolutely no sense, and justifying them with generated responses that they clearly did not understand. This is not a thing that used to happen. That's not to say people wouldn't have done it if it were possible, but there was a barrier to submitting a pull request that no longer exists.

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

#364

Post by zozbot234 »

reddit_clone wrote: post #356
micromacrofoot wrote: post #50

The latest qwen actually performs a little better for some tasks, in my experience latest claude still fails the car wash test

Not just _wrong_. It is confused! It is actually right in the second sentence. This was Friday, Opus 4.6. >I want to wash my car. The car wash is 50 meters away. Should I walk or drive? Walk. It's 50 meters — you're going there to clean the car anyway, so drive it over if it needs washing, but if you're just dropping it off or it's a self-service place, walking is fine for that distance.

This is actually a good diagnostic of whether the model is skimping on the thinking loop. Try raising thinking effort and it should get it right. Of course, if you're running this in a coding harness with a whole lot of extraneous context, the model will be awfully confused as to what it should be thinking about.

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

#365

Post by gck1 »

_blk wrote: post #164
hgoel wrote: post #74

The bump from 4.6 to 4.7 is not very noticeable to me in improved capabilities so far, but the faster consumption of limits is very noticeable. I hit my 5 hour limit within 2 hours yesterday, initially I was trying the batched mode for a refactor but cancelled after seeing it take 30% of the limit within 5 minutes. Had to cancel and try a serial approach, consumed less (took ~50 minutes, xhigh effort, ~60% of the rem…

From what I understand you shouldn't wait more than 5min between prompts without compacting or clearing or you'll pay for reinitializing the cache. With compaction you still pay but it's less input tokens. (Is compaction itself free?)

Cache ttl on max subscriptions is 1h, FYI.

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

#366

Post by techpression »

Paradigma11 wrote: post #313
bluefirebrand wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

So, you havent really learned anything from any teacher if you could not do it again without them?

That would be the definition of learning something, yes.

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

#367

Post by Jweb_Guru »

falkensmaize wrote: post #325
Paradigma11 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you havent really learned anything from any teacher if you could not do it again without them?

I mean...yeah? If your child says they've learned their multiplication tables but they can't actually multiply any numbers you give them do they actually know how to do multiplication? I would say no.

For some reason people are perfectly able to understand this in the context of, say, cursive, calculator use, etc., but when it comes to their own skillset somehow it's going to be really different.

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

#368

Post by hdjrudni »

idopmstuff wrote: post #228
estetlinus wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, +1. I will never be working on unsolved problems anyhow. Skill atrophy is not happening if you stay curious and responsible.

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,…

The "infinite patience" thing I find particularly interesting.

Every now and then I pause before I ask an LLM to undo something it just did or answer something I know it answered already, somewhere. And then I remember oh yeah, it's an LLM, it's not going to get upset.

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

#369

Post by bluefirebrand »

tossandthrow wrote: post #302
bluefirebrand wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could definitely maintain the infrastructure without an llm Not what I asked, but thanks for playing.

You literally asked that question > Could you do it again without the help of an LLM?

And the question you answered was "could you maintain it without the help of an LLM"

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

#370

Post by techpression »

IgorPartola wrote: post #335
ahartmetz wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Yeah I am worried about skill atrophy too. Everyone uses a compiler these days instead of writing assembly. Like who the heck is going to do all the work when people forget how to use the low level tools and a compiler has a bug or something? And don’t get me started on memory management. Nobody even knows how to use malloc(), let alone brk()/mmap(). Everything is relying on automatic memory management. I mean when w…

Snark aside, this is an actual problem for a lot of developers in varying degrees, not understand anything about the layers below make for terrible layers above in very many situations.
Post reply on HN