Summarizer

IT's cute you think they're gonna do any full training of a model. As soon as they can extract cash from the machine, the better.

Much like what Anthropic very recently did re: Mythos

> It's been funny watching my own attitude to Anthropic change, from being an enthusiastic Claude user to pure frustration. You were enthusiastic because it was a great product at an unsustainable price. Its clear that Claude is now harnessing their model because giving access to their full model is too expensive for the $20/m that consumers have settled on as the price point they want to pay. I wrote a more in depth analysis here, there's probably too much to meaningfully summarize in a comment: https://sustainableviews.substack.com/p/the-era-of-models-is...

It seems like the big companies they're providing Mythos to are their only concern right now.

Corporate software in general is often chosen based on the value returned simply being "good enough" most of the time, because the actual product being purchased is good controls for security, compliance, etc. A corporate purchaser is buying hundreds to thousands of Claude seats and doesn't care very much about percieved fluctuations in the model performance from release to release, they're invested in ties into their SSO and SIEM and every other internal system and have trained their employees and there's substantial cost to switching even in a rapidly moving industry. Consumer end-users are much less loyal, by comparison.

Are they convinced that claiming they have technical issues while continuing to adjust their internal levers to choose which customers to serve is holistically the best path?

Mythos is speculated to have 10 trillion parameters. Almost certainly they were training it for months.

> It looks like full time work would require the 20x plan. Full time work where you have the LLM do all the code has always required the larger plans. The $20/month plans are for occasional use as an assistant. If you want to do all of your work through the LLM you have to pay for the higher tiers. The Codex $20/month plan has higher limits, but in my experience the lower quality output leaves me rewriting more of it anyway so it's not a net win.

I agree with you here. I think this is for product placement for Mythos.

> 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) I wonder if this means that it will simply refuse to answer certain types of questions, or if they actually trained it to have less knowledge about cyber security. If it's the latter, then it would be worse at finding vulnerabilities in your own code, assuming it is willing to do that.

Sounds really minor, but was actually a big contributor to me canceling and switching. The VS Code extension has a morphing spinner thing that rapidly switches between these little catch phrases. It drives me crazy, and I end up covering it up with my right click menu so I can read the actual thinking tokens without that attention vampire distracting me. And of course they recently turned off all third party harness support for the subscription, so you're just forced to watch it and any other stuff they randomly decide to add, or pay thousands of dollars.

Let's say we take Anthropic's security and alignment claims at face value, and they have models that are really good at uncovering bugs and exploiting software. What should Anthropic do in this case? Anthropic could immediately make these models widely available. The vast majority of their users just want develop non-malicious software. But some non-zero portion of users will absolutely use these models to find exploits and develop ransomware and so on. Making the models widely available forces everyone developing software (eg, whatever browser and OS you're using to read HN right now) into a race where they have to find and fix all their bugs before malicious actors do. Or Anthropic could slow roll their models. Gatekeep Mythos to select users like the Linux Foundation and so on, and nerf Opus so it does a bunch of checks to make it slightly more difficult to have it automatically generate exploits. Obviously, they can't entirely stop people from finding bugs, but they can introduce some speedbumps to dissuade marginal hackers. Theoretically, this gives maintainers some breathing space to fix outstanding bugs before the floodgates open. In the longer run, Anthropic won't be able to hold back these capabilities because other companies will develop and release models that are more powerful than Opus and Mythos. This is just about buying time for maintainers. I don't know that the slow release model is the right thing to do. It might be better if the world suffers through some short term pain of hacking and ransomware while everyone adjusts to the new capabilities. But I wouldn't take that approach for granted, and if I were in Anthropic's position I'd be very careful about about opening the floodgate.

I'm on the max $200 plan, so maybe its that?

Same, if we're punished for being on the highest tier... what is anthropic even doing.

/model claude-opus-4.7 ⎿ Model 'claude-opus-4.7' not found Just love that I'm paying $200 for models features they announce I can't use! Related features that were announced I have yet to be able to use: $ claude --enable-auto-mode auto mode is unavailable for your plan $ claude /memory Auto-dream: on · /dream to run Unknown skill: dream

For anyone who was wondering about Mythos release plans: > What we learn from the real-world deployment of these safeguards will help us work towards our eventual goal of a broad release of Mythos-class models.

They don't have the compute to make Mythos generally available: that's all there is to it. The exclusivity is also nice from a marketing pov.

I've read so many conflicting things about Mythos that it's become impossible to make any real assumptions about it. I don't think it's vaporware necessarily, but the whole "we can't release it for safety reasons" feels like the next level of "POC or STFU".

The original blog post for Mythos did lay out this safeguard testing strategy as part of their plan.

My guess is that it is just too expensive to make generally available. Sounds similar to ChatGPT 4.5 which was too expensive to be practical.

Mythos release feels like Silicon Valley "don't take revenue" advice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzAdXyPYKQo ""If you show the model, people will ask 'HOW BETTER?' and it will never be enough. The model that was the AGI is suddenly the +5% bench dog. But if you have NO model, you can say you're worried about safety! You're a potential pure play... It's not about how much you research, it's about how much you're WORTH. And who is worth the most? Companies that don't release their models!"

It's been a little while since I cared all that much about the models because they work well enough already. It's the tooling and the service around the model that affects my day-to-day more. I would guess a lot of the enterprise customers would be willing to pay a larger subscription price (1.5x or 2x) if it means that they would have significantly higher stability and uptime. 5% more uptime would gain more trust than 5% more on a gamified model metrics. Anthropic used to position itself as more of the enterprise option and still does, but their issues recently seems like they are watering down the experience to appease the $20 dollar customer rather than the $200 dollar one. As painful as it is personally, I'd expect that they'd get more benefit long term from raising prices and gaining trust than short term gaining customers seeking utility at a $20 dollar price point.

Probably deprioritizing other areas to focus on swe capabilities since I reckon most of their revenue is from enterprise coding usage.

funny how they use mythos preview in these benchmarks like a carrot on a stick

It's interesting to see Opus 4.7 follow so soon after the announcement of Mythos, especially given that Anthropic are apparently capacity constrained. Capacity is shared between model training (pre & post) and inference, so it's hard to see Anthropic deciding that it made sense, while capacity constrained, to train two frontier models at the same time... I'm guessing that this means that Mythos is not a whole new model separate from Opus 4.6 and 4.7, but is rather based on one of these with additional RL post-training for hacking (security vulnerability exploitation). The alternative would be that perhaps Mythos is based on a early snapshot of their next major base model, and then presumably that Opus 4.7 is just Opus 4.6 with some additional post-training (as may anyways be the case).

As the author of the now (in)famous report in https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/42796 issue (sorry stella :) all I can say is... sigh. Reading through the changelog felt as if they codified every bad experiment they ran that hurt Opus 4.6. It makes it clear that the degradation was not accidental. I'm still sad. I had a transformative 6 months with Opus and do not regret it, but I'm also glad that I didn't let hope keep me stuck for another few weeks: had I been waiting for a correction I'd be crushed by this. Hypothesis: Mythos maintains the behavior of what Opus used to be with a few tricks only now restricted to the hands of a few who Anthropic deems worthy. Opus is now the consumer line. I'll still use Opus for some code reviews, but it does not seem like it'll ever go back to collaborator status by-design. :(

> Opus 4.7 is a direct upgrade to Opus 4.6, but two changes are worth planning for because they affect token usage. First, Opus 4.7 uses an updated tokenizer that improves how the model processes text. The tradeoff is that the same input can map to more tokens—roughly 1.0–1.35× depending on the content type. Second, Opus 4.7 thinks more at higher effort levels, particularly on later turns in agentic settings. This improves its reliability on hard problems, but it does mean it produces more output tokens. This is concerning & tone-deaf especially given their recent change to move Enterprise customers from $xxx/user/month plans to the $20/mo + incremental usage. IMO the pursuit of ultraintelligence is going to hurt Anthropic, and a Sonnet 5 release that could hit near-Opus 4.6 level intelligence at a lower cost would be received much more favorably. They were already getting extreme push-back on the CC token counting and billing changes made over the past quarter.

I get this error too and if I try again: { ... "error":{"type":"permission_error","message":"anthropic.claude-opus-4-7 is not available for this account. You can explore other available models on Amazon Bedrock. For additional access options, contact AWS Sales at https://aws.amazon.com/contact-us/sales-support/ "}}

How powerful will Opus become before they decide to not release it publicly like Mythos?

They are planning to release a Mythos-class model (from the initial announcement), but they won't until they can trust their safeguards + the software ecosystem has been sufficiently patched.

Excited to start using from within Cursor. Those Mythos Preview numbers look pretty mouthwatering.

Even using Mythos with their own benchmarks as a comparison that isn't available for most people to use, what a joke.

True but I guess their primary customers are businesses not individual devs. Maybe Mythos is more affordable for them

The only way it’s more affordable is if anthropic burns cash to keep their corporate clients.

is this just mythos flex?

If OpenAI has a new model that they are close to releasing, now seems like a perfect opening to steal some thunder. Mythos coming out later with only marginal improvements to a new OpenAI model would be good-great outcome for OpenAI

Introducing a new upgraded slot machine named "Claude Opus" in the Anthropic casino. You are in for a treat this time: It is the same price as the last one [0] (if you are using the API.) But it is slightly less capable than the other slot machine named 'Mythos' the one which everyone wants to play around with. [1] [0] https://claude.com/pricing#api [1] https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-7

If you're building a standard app Opus is already good enough to build anything you want. I don't even know what you'd really need Mythos for.

I've got a gfx device crash that only happens on switch. Not Xbox, ps4, steam, epic, or anything. Only switch. Opus hasn't been able to fix it. I haven't been able to fix it. Maybe mythos can idk, but I'll be surprised.

You'd need Mythos to free your iPhone, SamsungTV, SmartWatches or such. Maybe even printer drivers.

i sincerely doubt mythos is capable of jailbreaking an iphone

Consumerism... if it ain't the best, some people don't want it.

We all know this is actually Mythos but called Opus 4.7 to avoid disappointments, right?