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

551–560 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#551

Post by preommr »

lanyard-textile wrote: post #200

This comment thread is a good learner for founders; look at how much anguish can be put to bed with just a little honest communication. 1. Oops, we're oversubscribed. 2. Oops, adaptive reasoning landed poorly / we have to do it for capacity reasons. 3. Here's how subscriptions work. Am I really writing this bullet point? As someone with a production application pinned on Opus 4.5, it is extremely difficult to tell ap…

> This comment thread is a good learner for founders;

lmao, no they shouldn't.

Public sentiment, especially on reactionary mediums like social media should be taken with a huge grain of salt. I've seen overwhelming negativity for products/companies, only for it it completely dissapear, or be entirely wrong.

It's like that meme showing members of a steam group that are boycotting some CoD game, and you can see that a bunch of them were playing in-game of the very thing they forsook.

People are fickle, and their words cheap.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#553

Post by audiala »

Really disappointed with Anthropic recently, burned through 2 max plans and extra usage past 10 days, getting limited almost 1h in a 5h session. Reading about the extra "safe guards" might be the nail on the coffin.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#555

Post by bushido »

mnicky wrote: post #405
bushido wrote: post #379

I think my results have actually become worse with Opus 4.7. I have a pretty robust setup in place to ensure that Claude, with its degradations, ensures good quality. And even the lobotomized 4.6 from the last few days was doing better than 4.7 is doing right now at xhigh. It's over-engineering. It is producing more code than it needs to. It is trying to be more defensible, but its definition of defensible seems to b…

Maybe this? From the article: > Opus 4.7 is substantially better at following instructions. Interestingly, this means that prompts written for earlier models can sometimes now produce unexpected results: where previous models interpreted instructions loosely or skipped parts entirely, Opus 4.7 takes the instructions literally. Users should re-tune their prompts and harnesses accordingly.

Possible, but very unlikely.

One of the hard rules in my harness is that it has to provide a summary Before performing a specific action. There is zero ambiguity in that rule. It is terse, and it is specific.

In the last 4 sessions (of 4 total), it has tried skipping that step, and every time it was pointed out, it gave something like the following.

> You're right — I skipped the summary. Here it is.

It is not following instructions literally. I wish it was. It is objectively worse.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#556

Post by astrange »

fasterthanlime wrote: post #375
puppystench wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this mean Claude no longer outputs the full raw reasoning, only summaries? At one point, exposing the LLM's full CoT was considered a core safety tenet.

I don't think it ever has. For a very long time now, the reasoning of Claude has been summarized by Haiku. You can tell because a lot of the times it fails, saying, "I don't see any thought needing to be summarised."

It also gets confused if the entire prompt is in a text file attachment.

And the summarizer shows the safety classifier's thinking for a second before the model thinking, so every question starts off with "thinking about the ethics of this request".

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#557

Post by qingcharles »

bredren wrote: post #511
simonw wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... here's the pelican, I think Qwen3.6-35B-A3B running locally did a better job! https://simonwillison.net/2026/Apr/16/qwen-beats-opus/

A secret backup test to the pelican? This is as noteworthy as 4.7 dropping.

That flamingo is hilarious. Is that his beak or a huge joint he's smoking?

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#558

Post by leptons »

dakolli wrote: post #487
zarzavat wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These threads are always full of superstitious nonsense. Had a bad week at the AIs? Someone at Anthropic must have nerfed the model! The roulette wheel isn't rigged, sometimes you're just unlucky. Try another spin, maybe you'll do better. Or just write your own code.

Its because llm companies are literally building quasi slot machines, their UI interfaces support this notion, for instance you can run a multiplier on your output x3,x4,5, Like a slot machine. Brain fried llm users are behaving like gamblers more and more everyday (its working). They have all sorts of theories why one model is better than another, like a gambler does about a certain blackjack table or slot machine,…

100% agree with this take. As I find myself using AI to write software, it is looking like gambling. And it isn't helping stimulate my brain in ways that actually writing code does. I feel like my brain is starting to atrophy. I learn so much by coding things myself, and everything I learn makes me stronger. That doesn't happen with AI. Sure I skim through what the AI produced, but not enough to really learn from it. And the next time I need to do something similar, the AI will be doing it anyway. I'm not sure I like this rabbit hole we're all going down. I suspect it doesn't lead to good things.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#559

Post by surbas »

Something is very wrong about this whole release. They nerffed security research... they are making tokens usage increase 33% and the only way to get decent responses is to make Claude talk like a caveman... seems like we are moving backwards... maybe i will go back to Opus 4.5

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#560

Post by nicce »

dgb23 wrote: post #327
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #3

> "We are releasing Opus 4.7 with safeguards that automatically detect and block requests that indicate prohibited or high-risk cybersecurity uses. " This decision is potentially fatal. You need symmetric capability to research and prevent attacks in the first place. The opposite approach is 'merely' fraught. They're in a bit of a bind here.

I agree with you here. I think this is for product placement for Mythos.

Absolutely just about the business. Mythos not tempting if basic models reaches almost the same.
Post reply on HN