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

541–550 of 620 posts

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

#541

Post by xpe »

toraway wrote: post #503
xpe wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Your quoted example to make that point isn't particularly convincing, IMO. Cursor came out in 2023 and everything on that list would be a typical use case, plus ChatGPT for the search replacement. Of course, it wasn't nearly as effective back then compared to current SOTA models, but none of those are hard to imagine someone recommending Cursor for anytime in 2024 or later. If OP instead said something like one shott…

I was attempting to give an example to say that AI-LLM technology is more than "fancy search" which to me sounds like "search engine". / I realize now that ChatGPT was released in late 2022, more than 3 years ago. Time flies.

> But it feels somewhat hype-y to say that goal posts are being moved "monthly"...

Here's what I mean. What you see if you kept a journal once a day and wrote down:

1. what impressed you about AI that day;

2. what did you do with it that day that you pretty much took for granted ("just SoTA")

Then compare today against 30 days ago. A lot changes! My point is that it is getting harder to impress us: our standard for what we expect seems to be changing significantly on a ~monthly basis. What does this rate of change where you "just expect something to work as table stakes" feel like to you? Certainly faster than annually, right? 6 months? 3? 2? 1?

For me, a lot of this isn't just the raw technology but also socialization of what the tools can do and the personal experience of doing it yourself.

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

#542

Post by einpoklum »

adrian_b wrote: post #533
einpoklum wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right to Left English - read can, who? Anyone with [which] impressed am I.

English can be read in a different order than the normal order when the sentences contain words for which it is easy to guess whether they are agents or patients, e.g. when the agents are animate nouns and the patients are inanimate nouns, or when pronouns are used for the agents or patients. Otherwise, the non-standard order can be understood incorrectly. While the distinction between agents and patients is the most…

In my example, the RTL reading is indeed a misunderstanding. I even cheated, because it really should have been:

> Left to Right English - read can, who? Anyone with [which] impressed am I.

and the causation is wrong; instead of the ability being impressive, it's the impressive character than allows reading in the opposite order.

So, you're right, and now I'll wait for the dog police to come pick me up.

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

#543

Post by slopinthebag »

parinporecha wrote: post #178
aliljet wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What open models are truly competing with both Claude Code and Opus 4.7 (xhigh) at this stage?

I've had a good experience with GLM-5.1. Sure it doesn't match xhigh but comes close to 4.6 at 1/3rd the cost

1/3? Try 2/13 :P

5.1 is like $4 / 1m output, Opus 4.6 is $25. GPT 5.4 pro is $270 with large contexts :O

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

#544

Post by glerk »

holoduke wrote: post #395
glerk wrote: post #148

I'd be ok with paying more if results were good, but it seems like Anthropic is going for the Tinder/casino intermittent reinforcement strategy: optimized to keep you spending tokens instead of achieving results. And yes, Claude models are generally more fun to use than GPT/Codex. They have a personality. They have an intuition for design/aesthetics. Vibe-coding with them feels like playing a video game. But the resu…

You have to guide an ai. Not let roam freely. If you got skills to guide you can make it output high quality

Of course, and I feel like Codex/GPT is generally better at following instructions and implementing a step-by-step plan and at a lower cost. Opus still has an edge in writing, brainstorming, and open-ended frontend vibe-coding.

I’m definitely not coming to this from a “AI is useless” angle. I’ve been using these tools extensively over the past year and they are providing a massive productivity boost.

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

#546

Post by vanviegen »

zozbot234 wrote: post #534
vanviegen wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that how the kv cache currently works? Of course they could decide to hold on to cache items for longer than an hour, but the storage requirements are pretty significant while the chance of sessions resumption slinks rapidly.

The storage requirements for large-model KV caches are actually comparatively tiny: the per-token size grows far less than model parameters. Of course, we're talking "tiny" for stashing them on bulk storage and slowly fetching them back to RAM. But that should still be viable for very long context, since the time for running prefill is quadratic.

We only have open models to go by, so looking at GLM 5.1 for instance, we're talking about almost 300 GB of kv-cache for a full context window of 200k tokens.

That's hardly tiny.

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

#547

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

xvector wrote: post #496
Miner49er wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it might. If the actual rate is .9x then it matters a lot. Or even if it's like 1.1x, is the cost worth the return?

The cost is so small relative to the increase. The cost whining on HN is bizarre to me. Feels like everyone here is on an individual plan and has no understanding of what margins look like for actual business. Meta pays $750k+ TC and makes far more profit/eng, do you think they care about $5k/eng/mo in inference? A 1.1x increase would be so significant that it would justify the cost easily, especially when you can ju…

What? You don't think businesses do financial planning and calculations for profit margins?

Do you really think they go on vibes - "welp, this AI thing seems to improve developer performance, I guess. Heck, what's an extra 5k per developer anyways, amirite".

Well, maybe they really do in your neck of the woods. Explains a lot, I guess.

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

#548

Post by virtualritz »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #389
andai wrote: post #239

For 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…

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…

So CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADAPTIVE_THINKING=1 is not available/is ignored in 4.7?

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

#550

Post by [deleted] »

kalkin wrote: post #33
manmal wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it not useful? Input token pricing is the same for 4.7. The same prompt costs roughly 30% more now, for input.

That's valid, but it's also worth knowing it's only one part of the puzzle. The submission title doesn't say "input".

[deleted]
Post reply on HN