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

751–760 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#751

Post by raylad »

I am using 4.7 with the default extra high thinking, and it is clearly very stupid. It's worse than old Sonnet 4.5.

I had it suggest some parameters for BCFtools and it suggested parameters that would do the opposite of what I wanted to do. I pointed out the error and it apologized.

It also is not taking any initiative to check things, but wants me to check them (ie: file contents, etc.).

And it is claiming that things are "too complex" or "too difficult" when they are super easy. For instance refreshing an AWS token - somehow it couldn't figure out that you could do that in a cron task.

A really really bad downgrade. I will be using Codex more now, sadly.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#752

Post by atlex2 »

A couple drawbacks so far via our scenario-based tests:

1. You can't ask the model to "think hard" about something anymore - model decides 2. Reasoning traces are no longer true to the thinking – vs opus 4.6, they really are summaries now 3. Reasoning is no longer consciously visible to the agent

They claim the personality is less warm, but I haven't experienced that yet with the prompts we have – seems just as warm, just disconnected from its own thought processes. Would be great for our application if they could improve on the above!

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#753

Post by j45 »

simonw wrote: post #203

I'm finding the "adaptive thinking" thing very confusing, especially having written code against the previous thinking budget / thinking effort / etc modes: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/adapti... Also notable: 4.7 now defaults to NOT including a human-readable reasoning token summary in the output, you have to add "display": "summarized" to get that: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-…

Prompts seem to need to evolve with every new model.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#754

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#755

Post by cesarvarela »

earthnail wrote: post #664
davesque wrote: post #662

> We stated that we would keep Claude Mythos Preview’s release limited and test new cyber safeguards on less capable models first. Opus 4.7 is the first such model: its cyber capabilities are not as advanced as those of Mythos Preview (indeed, during its training we experimented with efforts to differentially reduce these capabilities). We are releasing Opus 4.7 with safeguards that automatically detect and block req…

I feel it’s fine as a short term solution, and probably a good thing. Gives the good guys some time to stay on top. Always remember: a defender must succeed every time , an attacker only once.

Yeah, it is easier to destroy than to create. Models will always be better at hacking than at building.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#756

Post by galaxyLogic »

LostMyLogin wrote: post #431
avaer wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Still trying to get a decent pelican out of this one but the new thinking stuff is tripping me up Wouldn't that be p-hacking where p stands for pelican?

Input: I want to wash my car. The car wash is 50 meters away. Should I walk or drive? Output: Walk. It'll take you under a minute, and driving 50 meters barely gets the engine warm — plus you'd just have to park again at the other end. Honestly, by the time you started the car, you'd already be there on foot. --- I asked it to figure out why it made the mistake: "Physical/spatial common sense. Exactly what just happe…

> I want to wash my car. The car wash is 50 meters away. Should I walk or drive?

I think no real human would ask such a question. Or if we do we maybe mean should I drive some other car than the one that is already at the car-wash?

A human would answer, "silly question ". But a human would not ask such a question.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#757

Post by christophilus »

Jcampuzano2 wrote: post #529
trueno wrote: post #455

noticing sharp uptick in "i switched to codex" replies lately. a "codex for everything" post flocking the front page on the day of the opus 4.7 release me and coworker just gave codex a 3 day pilot and it was not even close to the accuracy and ability to complete & problem solve through what we've been using claude for. are we being spammed? great. annoying. i clicked into this to read the differences and initial exp…

No, I assure you you are not being spammed because legitimately many people prefer codex over claude right now. I am one of those people. And if you go on tech social media spaces you'll see many prominent well known devs in open source say the same. And of course others praise claude as well. At my job we have enterprise access to both and I used claude for months before I got access to codex. Around the time gpt-5.…

Same. Codex is faster and more consistent in the last few weeks for me vs Claude Code. I also don’t hit limits anywhere near as frequently.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#759

Post by sothatsit »

raylad wrote: post #751

I am using 4.7 with the default extra high thinking, and it is clearly very stupid. It's worse than old Sonnet 4.5. I had it suggest some parameters for BCFtools and it suggested parameters that would do the opposite of what I wanted to do. I pointed out the error and it apologized. It also is not taking any initiative to check things, but wants me to check them (ie: file contents, etc.). And it is claiming that thin…

You can’t make up your mind about a model by using it on one task. Especially to say it’s such a bad downgrade after that is ludicrous. I’ve had great experiences with it this morning.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#760

Post by silverwind »

robeym wrote: post #474

Assuming /effort max still gets the best performance out of the model (meaning "ULTRATHINK" is still a step below /effort max, and equivalent to /effort high), here is what I landed on when trying to get Opus 4.7 to be at peak performance all the time in ~/.claude/settings.json: { "env": { "CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL": "max", "CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_BACKGROUND_TASKS": "1" } } The env field in settings.json persists across…

Seems so silly that they won't support `effortLevel: "max"` while a env var is perfectly fine.
Post reply on HN