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

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#801

Post by joegibbs »

helloplanets wrote: post #223

If the model is based on a new tokenizer, that means that it's very likely a completely new base model. Changing the tokenizer is changing the whole foundation a model is built on. It'd be more straightforward to add reasoning to a model architecture compared to swapping the tokenizer to a new one. Usually a ground up rebuild is related to a bigger announcement. So, it's weird that they'd be naming it 4.7. Swapping o…

Major numbers are just for marketing, if it's not good enough that it feels like a similar jump as from 3.7 to 4 they're not going to give it a new number.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#802

Post by shohan99 »

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…

While I believe that mythos is better than the models we have right now, the "too dangerous to release" sounds largely a marketing gimmick to me. Well not for me to speculate, I simply need to wait for the huge wave of security patches to all software in the coming weeks, as per Anthropic's claims

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#804

Post by johnmlussier »

johnmlussier wrote: post #227

They've increased their cybersecurity usage filters to the point that Opus 4.7 refuses to work on any valid work, even after web fetching the program guidelines itself and acknowledging "This is authorized research under the [Redacted] Bounty program, so the findings here are defensive research outputs, not malware. I'll analyze and draft, not weaponize anything beyond what's needed to prove the bug to [Redacted]. I…

I've switched over to Codex. On Extra High reasoning it seems very capable and is definitely catching mistakes Sonnet has missed. I'd love to move back to Opus but at this time it is untenable.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#805

Post by mk89 »

SJMG wrote: post #763
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…

Yes, it's a losing strategy; no one else is going to do this. They are inviting parties to partner with them, so it's not totally in conflict, but yeah I'm sure there's genuine concern coming out of Anthropic, but I also think as this point they've likely culturally internalized "Dangerous [think: powerful] AI" as a brand narrative. "The Beware of Mythos!" reads to me as standard Anthropic/Dario copy. Is it more true…

>Is now the moment that the world's digital infrastructure succumbs to waves of hackers using countless exploits; I doubt it.

I am not into cybersecurity but the existing "technical debt" in terms of security has been barely exploited.

The issue is that literally all software has some vulnerability, want it or not. And these LLMs are like brute forcing all possibilities faster than a human can do. Sometimes humans even ignore low security issues, while maybe these LLMs are capable to build exploits on top of multiple ones.

For me they understood the moat - cybersecurity is such a trivial space to get into, I guess they are investing heavily on that because as someone else mentioned in other threads, it's obvious they are too limited for other tasks.

Becoming a "mandatory" (SOC-2 etc, things like that) integrated part of your CI/CD pipeline would be a huge win for them. Imagine that.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#806

Post by DeathArrow »

I happy with my GLM 5.1 and MiniMax 2.7 subscription and my wallet is happy, too.

I am glad Anthropic is pushing the limits, that means cheap Chinese models will have reasons to get better, too.

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#807

Post by schneehertz »

nextaccountic wrote: post #598
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-…

If you do include reasoning tokens you pay more, right?

In fact, you need to pay regardless of whether the output includes reasoning tokens or not

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#808

Post by EmanuelB »

I can't notice any difference to 4.6 from 3 weeks ago, except that this model burns way more tokens, and produces much longer plans. To me it seem like this model is just the same as 4.6 but with a bigger token budget on all effort levels. I guess this is one way how Anthropic plans to make their business profitable.

During the past weeks of lobotomized opus, I tried a few different open weight models side by side with "opus 4.6" on the same issue. The open weights outperformed opus 4.6, and did it way faster and cheaper. I tried the same problem against Opus 4.7 today and it did manage to find one additional edge case that is not critical, but should be logged. So based on my experience, the open weight models managed to solve the exact problem I needed fixed, while Opus 4.7 seem to think a bit more freely at the bigger picture. However Opus 4.7 also consumed way more tokens at a higher price, so the price difference was 10-20x higher on Opus compared to the open weights models. I will use Opus for code review and minor final fixes, and let the open weights models do the heavy lifting from now on. I need a coding setup I can rely on, and clearly Anthropic is not reliable enough to rely on.

Why pay 200$ to randomly get rug-pulled with no warning, when I can pay 20$ for 90% of the intelligence with reliable and higher performance?

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#809

Post by parasti »

EmanuelB wrote: post #808

I can't notice any difference to 4.6 from 3 weeks ago, except that this model burns way more tokens, and produces much longer plans. To me it seem like this model is just the same as 4.6 but with a bigger token budget on all effort levels. I guess this is one way how Anthropic plans to make their business profitable. During the past weeks of lobotomized opus, I tried a few different open weight models side by side wi…

Which open weights model?

Re: Claude Opus 4.7

#810

Post by gitaarik »

draygonia wrote: post #622
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…

Interestingly, I started coding with Claude a couple weeks ago (with my only other experience being vbcode 20 years ago) and it's been surprisingly good at starting code from scratch but as soon as the code gets a little complex it takes a lot of tokens to make a simple change which makes it somewhat impractical for all but the most basic applications. That said, I'm not referring to objects by inspecting the code an…

It makes sense that CC uses more tokens on bigger and complex code bases. And I'm happy it does; because of that it gets a good understanding of the architecture and how to properly solve the issue. And yeah for that you need at least a 5x plan.
Post reply on HN