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

601–610 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#601

Post by [deleted] »

zarzavat wrote: post #336
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…

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.

[deleted]

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#602

Post by youoy »

unshavedyak wrote: post #401
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.

Part of me wonders if there's some subtle behavioral change with it too. Early on we're distrusting of a model and so we're blown away, we were giving it more details to compensate for assumed inability, but the model outperformed our expectations. Weeks later we're more aligned with its capabilities and so we become lazy. The model is very good, why do we have to put in as much work to provide specifics, specs, ACs,…

100% agree, and I experienced that behaviour first hand. I got confident, started giving less guidelines, and suddenly two weeks have passed and the LLM put me into a state of horrible code that looks good superficially because I trusted it too much.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#604

Post by jruz »

alaudet wrote: post #600

Serious question about using Claude for coding. I maintain a couple of small opensource applications written in python that I created back in 2014/2015. I have used Claude Code to improve one of my projects with features I have wanted for a long time but never really had the time to do. The only way I felt comfortable using Claude Code was holding its hand through every step, doing test driven changes and manually re…

Everyone is using AI, so nothing to be ashamed about. Is better to be open about it and add a disclaimer about how it was used.

Even if it's vibe coded as long as you are open about it there's nothing wrong, it's open source and free if someone doesn't like it can just go write it themselves.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#606

Post by emp17344 »

adwn wrote: post #79
hackerInnen wrote: post #21

I just subscribed this month again because I wanted to have some fun with my projects. Tried out opus 4.6 a bit and it is really really bad. Why do people say it's so good? It cannot come up with any half-decent vhdl. No matter the prompt. I'm very disappointed. I was told it's a good model

And yet another "AI doesn't work" comment without any meaningful information. What were your exact prompts? What was the output? This is like a user of conventional software complaining that "it crashes", without a single bit of detail, like what they did before the crash, if there was any error message, whether the program froze or completely disappeared, etc.

This is quite hostile. Yes, criticism is valid without an accompanying essay detailing every aspect of the associated environment, because these tools are still quite flawed.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#607

Post by ang_cire »

alaudet wrote: post #600

Serious question about using Claude for coding. I maintain a couple of small opensource applications written in python that I created back in 2014/2015. I have used Claude Code to improve one of my projects with features I have wanted for a long time but never really had the time to do. The only way I felt comfortable using Claude Code was holding its hand through every step, doing test driven changes and manually re…

> Humans are lazy though and I can't help but feel we are being inundated with sketchy apps doing all kinds of things the authors don't even understand... there is a good chance they have no clue what they created.

I have bad news for you about the executives and salespeople who manage and sell fully-human-coded enterprise software (and about the actual quality of much of that software)...

I think people who aren't working in IT get very hung up on the bugs (which are very real), but don't understand that 99% of companies are not and never have met their patching and bugfix SLAs, are not operating according to their security policies, are not disclosing the vulns they do know, etc etc.

All the testing that does need to happen to AI code, also needs to happen to human code. The companies that yolo AI code out there, would be doing the same with human code. They don't suddenly stop (or start) applying proper code review and quality gating controls based on who coded something.

> The only way I felt comfortable using Claude Code was holding its hand through every step, doing test driven changes and manually reviewing the code afterwards.

This is also how we code 'real' software.

> I can't help but think that massive code bases that have moved to vibe coding are going to spend inordinate amounts of time testing and auditing code

This is the correct expectation, not a mistake. The code should be being reviewed and audited. It's not a failure if you're getting the same final quality through a different time allocation during the process, simply a different process.

The danger is Capitalism incentivizing not doing the proper reviews, but once again, this is not remotely unique to AI code; this is what 99% of companies are already doing.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#608

Post by flutas »

soerxpso wrote: post #234
sallymander wrote: post #210

It seems a little more fussy than Opus 4.6 so far. It actually refuses to do a task from Claude's own Agentic SDK quick start guide ( https://code.claude.com/docs/en/agent-sdk/quickstart ): "Per the instructions I've been given in this session, I must refuse to improve or augment code from files I read. I can analyze and describe the bugs (as above), but I will not apply fixes to `utils.py`."

That "per the instructions I've been given in this session" bit is interesting. Are you perhaps using it with a harness that explicitly instructs it to not do that? If so, it's not being fussy, it's just following the instructions it was given.

Claude Code is injecting it before every tool read.

    
    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

#609

Post by cowlby »

noahjohannessen wrote: post #320

prompt: right now, the website doesn't match this mockup. make it match. response: Ran a command, read a file This is a benign marketing page for a therapy website, not malware. It's a simple static HTML file with navigation, logo, and hero section — standard website content with no suspicious patterns. I'll proceed with the user's request. Read styles.css I've analyzed both files in the project: index.html — A stati…

Using tweakcc I can see the system prompt is supposed to mean “if it’s malware, refuse to improve or augment the code”. But due to all the malware noise it’s confusing the instruction as “don’t improve or augment after reading”.

I thought this was integral to LLM context design. LLMs can’t prompt their way to controls like this. Surprised they took such a hard headed approach to try and manage cybersecurity risks.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#610

Post by lanyard-textile »

preommr wrote: post #551
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…

The internet is a stupid place with people who can't make up their mind, I don't disagree :)

But this isn't like a minor debacle about a brand. The flagship product had a severe degradation, and the parent company won't be forthcoming about it.

It's short term thinking. Congratulations, everyone still uses your product for now, but it diluted your brand.

Why take the risk when the alternative is so incredibly easily? Build engagement with your users and enjoy your loyal army.

Post reply on HN