Claude Opus 4.7
891–900 of 1001 posts
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#892I was pretty happy with 4.6 and getting things done. Wouldn't mind going stable for some time without a new model. 4.7 conversations feels weird :/
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#893I'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-…
Its especially concerning / frustrating because boris’s reply to my bug report on opus being dumber was “we think adaptive thinking isnt working” and then thats the last I heard of it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47668520 Now disabling adaptive thinking plus increasing effort seem to be what has gotten me back to baseline performance but “our internal evals look good“ is not good enough right now for what ma…
It doesn’t really come as a surprise to me that these companies are struggling to reliably fix issues with software which relies on a central component which is nondeterministic.
But they made their own bed with that one.
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#894My voice will probably not be very audible here, but I ran Codex and CC side-by-side.
I had to steer claude a bunch of times, only to be hit with a limit and no actual code written (and frankly no progress, I already did the research). I was on xhigh
I ran gpt-5.4 high. Same research, GPT asked maybe 3-4 questions, looked up some stuff then got to work
I only changed 1-2 things I would've done differently, and I was able to continue just fine.
Anthropic, what the fuck happened?
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#895Well what do you think I have a project that written by opus 4.6 do I need a rewright with 4.7? and if yes how, what type of promt you think I can use
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#896[flagged]
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#897Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Given the list of very large companies in the "glasswing" project - it is likely every competent state actor and criminal organization already has access to Mythos in one way or another. Meanwhile the opensource volunteers responsible for the security of the entire internet don't have access.
It's not an easy problem to solve. You can identify certain open source projects that you deem critical and give them access too in a private fashion (maybe even under NDA). Not every state actor will have early access; Russia and the Chinese surely won't, and that matters in current affairs. It's probably only the US gvmt, not even European allies, who currently can use Mythos. The announcement specifically says "Anthropic has also been in ongoing discussions with US government officials about Claude Mythos Preview".
There is no good solution to this. Only less bad. It annoys me a bit that many comments on HN imply that open-sourcing everything right away is the answer to everything. To be clear, I'm not annoyed at your comment specifically, it's more an overall sentiment that I perceive here that I feel is very complacent. We've already seen how OSS maintainers get overwhelmed by AI vulnerability reports; I feel it's a responsible thing to gatekeep this for as long as possible (which really is only a few months, at most - other models catch up fast), and try to work with important maintainers directly to help fix the most critical stuff and onboard them to a new world of the AI-assisted cat-and-mouse security game.
This is just damage control. The damage, i.e. the attack capabilities opened up by this, is pretty brutal, and likely requires a substantial shift in mindset from OSS maintainers. This approach gives a few months of transition time. Who decides who is an important maintainer and who isn't? Again, super grey area; there's no time to decide on a proper process given how fast other models will catch up, so realistically you can just do a bit of a best effort here and try to not botch it up entirely. Anthropic went with the Linux foundation here. It's a reasonable choice. Not a perfect one, but you gotta start somewhere.
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#898[deleted]
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#899Does the second amendment cover unregistered thinking machines? Asking for a friend.
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#900noticing 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…
Personally, this is not my experience (and i'm sure others have also had very good results using Codex and this isn't some astroturf campaign).
The way i'd frame it is that both models have areas they excel at. i've had very good results with having Claude write implementation plans and initial investigations and letting Codex do the work of implementation.