[dead]
Claude Opus 4.7
961–970 of 1001 posts
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#962A gated, premium-tier product differentiation strategy only works when you sell the differentiated product. They went to market with 4.7 nerfed at security work and aren’t letting even large, vetted corporations pay more for the Mythos model… sentiment is quite negative where I work right now. There’s a real possibility that open source will give them a hair cut in the interim. And if the SWEs start modifying their C…
It's going to be quite a while until open source models catch up. And, as long as Anthropic maintains the perception that Opus is even slightly better than the best OSS models, they'll still be the preferred tool for professional developers.
Even if the best OSS model is only 1% worse than Claude, do you want to risk your codebase on it? When you're working through a tough bug in your code, and an OSS model just isn't grokking it, wouldn't it be only natural to want to cast it away and say "I should only be using the very best tools, dammit! My time is too valuable!"
That said, I agree with your point about SWEs modifying their workflows to avoid lock-in. That's a good idea, no matter what.
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#963> "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.
Now we have to trick the models when you legitimately work in the security space.
Why does it have to be reserved to security space? Here is my API please find vulnerabilities I missed (otherwise someone with not restricted AI will find them first).
Cat is out of the bag.
Removing restrictions will help everybody in the long run.
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#964Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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" I did not follow all of this, but wasn't there something about, that those reasoning tokens did not represent internal reasoning, but rather a rough approximation that can be rather misleading, what the model actual does?
Although it's more likely they are protecting secret sauce in this case, I'm wondering if there is an alternate explanation that LLMs reason better when NOT trying to reason with natural language output tokens but rather implement reasoning further upstream in the transformer.
I would doubt it. They are mostly trained on natural language. They may be getting some visual reasoning capability from multi-modal training on video, but their reasoning doesn't seem to generalize much from one domain to another.
Some future AGI, not LLM based, that learns from it's own experience based on sensory feedback (and has non-symbolic feedback paths) presumably would at least learn some non-symbolic reasoning, however effective that may be.
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#965Earlier quoted context omitted.
⎿ API Error: Claude Code is unable to respond to this request, which appears to violate our Usage Policy (https://www.anthropic.com/legal/aup). This request triggered restrictions on violative cyber content and was blocked under Anthropic's Usage Policy. To request an adjustment pursuant to our Cyber Verification Program based on how you use Claude, fill out https://claude.com/form/cyber-use-case?token=[REDACTED] Ple…
I predict this sort of filtering is only going to get worse. This will probably be remembered as the 'open internet' era of LLMs before everything is tightly controlled for 'safety' and regulations. Forcing software devs to use open source or local models to do anything fun.
It’s like all the conspiracy theories we ve been hearing about AI and bio weapons and vaccines used for surveillance aren’t conspiracy theories at all?
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#966I 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…
Its funny to think that with a model release Anthropic can slide in some instructions ("be a bit more detailed" or something similar) that affect the token output by a few percent, 5-10%, which will not be noticeable by most users but over the course of the year would bring solid growth (once the VC craze is over, if ever) and increase income. "Regular companies" would love to have a growth like that without effectiv…
They have switched tokenizer to one that generates 1-1.35x (i.e. up to 35% more) tokens for the same input.
They have changed default CC effort to xhigh.
They have said that Opus 4.7 will generate more tokens than 4.6 at same effort level.
They have increased their image input resolution meaning more tokens per image.
etc.
Maybe they are also extracting another 5% tokens from you by prompting it to not talk like a caveman, but that would hardly be noticeable.
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#967"We have a better model. But here's this significantly worse one." Thanks Anthropic.
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#968I'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-…
[dead]
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#969Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fundamental tension is that the models are getting weirdly good at hacking while still sort of sucking at a bunch of economically valuable tasks. So they've hit the point where the models are simultaneously too smart (dangerous hacking abilities) and too stupid (can't actually replace most employees). So at this point they need to make the models bigger, but they're already too big. So the only thing left to do i…
Honestly I feel sometimes like about the only thing they do successfully is hacking. Not just in the sense of breaking into systems that are assumed to be secure although also in that sense. They're just, highly effective at fumbling around with a hatchet until something works. We just happen to have version control and automated testing that generally makes that approach somewhat viable for the task of programming.…
"Genius is but the capacity to take infinite pains."
Re: Claude Opus 4.7
#970[flagged]