Opus 4.7 seems smarter not wiser. More knowledge, maybe, but less grit. It often has been asking me to wrap it up or just be happy with current state, instead of working out a problem.
Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
511–520 of 620 posts
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#512It’s really funny how people are surprised or upset about the pricing “anomalies” of these SaaS models. If you’ve been around in tech, you know it’s probably designed to keep you outraged about it to keep engagement up and essentially free ads. The advice, as always, is to not lock yourself into it.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#513Earlier quoted context omitted.
Programming language is not just syntax, keywords and standard libraries, but also: processes, best practices and design principles. The latter group I guess is more difficult to learn and harder to forget.
I respectfully completely disagree. not only will you just as easily lose thr processed, best practices and design principles but they will be changing over time (what was best practice when I got my first gig in 1997 is not a best practice today (even just 4-5 years ago not to go all the back to the 90’s)). all that is super easy to both forget and lose unless you live it daily
Forget, yes; lose, no. Like it would be much easier for you to relearn Russian - especially compared with someone who only knows English.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#514Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > Why are you handwaving things away though? I've got you on max effort. I even patched the system prompts to reduce this. In my experience, prompts like this one, which 1) ask for a reason behind an answer (when the model won't actually be able to provide one), 2) are somewhat standoff-ish, don't work well at all. You'll just have the model go the other way. What works much better is to tell the model to take a st…
This is frankly one of the most frustrating things about LLMs: sometimes I just want to drive it into a corner. “Why the f** did you do X when I specifically told you not to?” It never leads to anything helpful. I don’t generally find it necessary to drive humans into a corner. I’m not sure it’s because it’s explicitly not a human so I don’t feel bad for it, though I think it’s more the fact that it’s always so bland…
You might be surprised how well 5.3-codex follows your instructions. When it hits a wall with your request, it usually emits the final turn and says it can’t do it.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#515It’s really funny how people are surprised or upset about the pricing “anomalies” of these SaaS models. If you’ve been around in tech, you know it’s probably designed to keep you outraged about it to keep engagement up and essentially free ads. The advice, as always, is to not lock yourself into it.
Honestly… that is a fair point. It’s not what I would assume by default but now that I’ve read what you said, I mean … I don’t disagree.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#516Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pro. It even gave me $20 free credits, and exhausted free credits nearly instantly.
The pro plan is useless. You need at least the 5x max plan to get any real work done. That said I find the GPT plans much better value.
Yeah. But then you have to use GPT
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#517Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Those tools seem mostly useful for a Google alternative, scaffolding tedious things, code reviewing, and acting as a fancy search. Just to get a sense for the rate of change, imagine if you took a survey. Compare what people said about AI tools... 3 years ago, 2 years ago, 1 year ago, 6 months ago. Then think about what is plausible that people will be saying in 3 months, 6 months, 9 months ... Moving the goalposts…
> Today, in ~5 minutes I can do a literature review that would have taken me easily 10+ hours five years ago.
And it will not yield the same outcome you would have had. Your own taste in clicking links and pre-filtering as you do your research, is no longer being done if you outsource this. I‘m guilty of this myself. But let’s not kid ourselves.
I’ve had GPT Pro think 40 minutes about the ideal reverse osmosis setup for my home. It came up with something that would have been able to support 10 houses and cost 20k. Even though I did tell it all about what my water consumers are and that it should research their peak usage. It just failed to observe that you can buffer water in a tank.
There‘s a reason they let you steer GPT-Pro as it goes, now.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#518Earlier quoted context omitted.
It thinks less and produces less output tokens because it has forced adaptive thinking that even API users can't disable. Same adaptive thinking that was causing quality issues in Opus 4.6 not even two weeks ago. The one bcherny recommended that people disable because it'd sometimes allocate zero thinking tokens to the model. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47668520 People are already complaining about low quali…
> > Why are you handwaving things away though? I've got you on max effort. I even patched the system prompts to reduce this. In my experience, prompts like this one, which 1) ask for a reason behind an answer (when the model won't actually be able to provide one), 2) are somewhat standoff-ish, don't work well at all. You'll just have the model go the other way. What works much better is to tell the model to take a st…
The same is true of humans, not surprisingly.
If you ask the average human "Why?", they will generally get defensive, especially if you are asking them to justify their own motivation.
However, if you ask them to describe the thinking and actions that led to their result, they often respond very differently.
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#519For a fair comparison you need to look at the total cost, because 4.7 produces significantly fewer output tokens than 4.6, and seems to cost significantly less on the reasoning side as well. Here is a comparison for 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 (Output Tokens section): https://artificialanalysis.ai/?models=claude-opus-4-7%2Cclau... 4.7 comes out slightly cheaper than 4.6. But 4.5 is about half the cost: https://artificialanalysi…
That is not what anthropic says-
"Opus 4.7 thinks more at higher effort levels, particularly on later turns in agentic settings. This improves its reliability on hard problems, but it does mean it produces more output tokens. "
Re: Anonymous request-token comparisons from Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.7
#520Earlier quoted context omitted.
It thinks less and produces less output tokens because it has forced adaptive thinking that even API users can't disable. Same adaptive thinking that was causing quality issues in Opus 4.6 not even two weeks ago. The one bcherny recommended that people disable because it'd sometimes allocate zero thinking tokens to the model. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47668520 People are already complaining about low quali…
Adaptive thinking is optional
Not when you want extended thinking - you select extended thinking and opus decides if you get it with apativenthinking.
"With Opus 4.6, extended thinking was a toggle you managed: turn it on for hard stuff, off for quick stuff. If you left it on, every question paid the thinking tax whether it needed to or not. Now, with Opus 4.7, extended thinking becomes adaptive thinking. "
https://claude.com/resources/tutorials/working-with-claude-o...