Summarizer

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 many others have corroborated seeing

you're using a proprietary blackbox

It’s the official communication that sucks. It’s one thing for the product to be a black box if you can trust the company. But time and time again Boris lies and gaslights about what’s broken, a bug or intentional.

Genuine question, why have you chosen to phrase this scraping and distillation as an attack? I'm imagining you're doing it because that's how Anthropic prefers to frame it, but isn't scraping and distillation, with some minor shuffling of semantics, exactly what Anthropic and co did to obtain their own position? And would it be valid to interpret that as an attack as well?

Attacks? That's a choice of words.

Definitely Anthropic playing the victim after distilling the whole internet.

Very cool that these companies can scrape basically all extant human knowledge, utterly disregard IP/copyright/etc, and they cry foul when the tables turn.

Yep, that is exactly what happens. It's a disgrace that their models aren't open, after training on everything humanity has preserved. They should at least release the weights of their old/deprecated models, but no, that would be losing money.

and so does OpenAI

yeah they took "i pick the budget" and turned it into "trust us".

Why does this comment appear every time someone complains about CoT becoming more and more inaccessible with Claude? I have entire processes built on top of summaries of CoT. They provide tremendous value and no, I don't care if "model still did the correct thing". Thinking blocks show me if model is confused, they show me what alternative paths existed. Besides, "correct thing" has a lot of meanings and decision by the model may be correct relative to the context it's in but completely wrong relative to what I intended. The proof that thinking tokens are indeed useful is that anthropic tries to hide them. If they were useless, why would they even try all of this? Starting to feel PsyOp'd here.

'Hey Claude, these tokens are utter unrelated bollocks, but obviously we still want to charge the user for them regardless. Please construct a plausible explanation as to why we should still be able to do that.'

It's likely hiding the model downgrade path they require to meet sustainable revenue. Should be interesting if they can enshittify slowly enough to avoid the ablative loss of customers! Good luck all VCs!

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.

Aka 'We cared about misuse right up until it became apparent that was profit to be had' OpenAI sure speed ran the Google and Facebook 'Don't be evil' -> 'Optimize money' transition.

Or - making sensational statements gets attention. A dangerous tool is necessarily a powerful tool, so that statement is pretty much exactly what you'd say if you wanted to generate hype, make people excited and curious about your mysterious product that you won't let them use.

Much like what Anthropic very recently did re: Mythos

Who would suspect that the companies selling 'tokens' would (unintentionally) train their models to prefer longer answers, reaping a HIGHER ROI (the thing a publicly traded company is legally required to pursue: good thing these are all still private...)... because it's not like private companies want to make money...

caveman stops being a style tool and starts being self-defense. once prompt comes in up to 1.35x fatter, they've basically moved visibility and control entirely into their black box.

Same. I stopped my Pro subscription yesterday after entering the week with 70% of my tokens used by Monday morning (on light, small weekend projects, things I had worked on in the past and barely noticed a dent in usage.) Support was... unhelpful. It's been funny watching my own attitude to Anthropic change, from being an enthusiastic Claude user to pure frustration. But even that wasn't the trigger to leave, it was the attitude Support showed. I figure, if you mess up as badly as Anthropic has, you should at least show some effort towards your customers. Instead I just got a mass of standardised replies, even after the thread replied I'd be escalated to a human. Nothing can sour you on a company more. I'm forgiving to bugs, we've all been there, but really annoyed by indifference and unhelpful form replies with corporate uselessness. So if 4.7 is here? I'd prefer they forget models and revert the harness to its January state. Even then, I've already moved to Codex as of a few days ago, and I won't be maintaining two subscriptions, it's a move. It has its own issues, it's clear, but I'm getting work done. That's more than I can say for Claude.

> 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...

I used the $60/mo subscription and I bet most developers get access to AI agents via their company, and there was no difference. They should have reduced the rate limits, or offered a new model, anything except silently reduce the quality of their flagship product to reduce cost. The cost of switching is too low for them to be able to get away with the standard enshittification playbook. It takes all of 5 minutes to get a Codex subscription and it works almost exactly the same, down to using the same commands for most actions.

> people here were so confident that OpenAI is going to collapse because of how much compute they pre-ordered That's not why. It was and is because they've been incredibly unfocused and have burnt through cash on ill-advised, expensive things like Sora. By comparison Anthropic have been very focused.

Nobody was talking about them betting too much on compute, people were saying that their shady deals on compute with NVIDIA and Oracle were creating a giant bubble in their attempt to get a Too Big To Fail judgement (in their words- taxpayer-backed "backstop").

Personally its down to Altman having the cognitive capacity of a sleeping snail, the world insight of a hormonal 14 year old who's only ever read one series of manga. Despite having literal experts at his fingertips, he still isn't able to grasp that he's talking unfilters bollocks most of the time. Not to mention is Jason level of "oath breaking"/dishonesty.

> By comparison Anthropic have been very focused. Ah yes, very focused on crapping out every possible thing they can copy and half bake?

That’s more a leadership decision because Anthropic are nerfing the model to cut costs, if they stop doing that then they’ll stay ahead.

Most of the compute OpenAI "preordered" is vapour. And it has nothing to do with why people thought the company -- which is still in extremely rocky rapids -- was headed to bankruptcy. Anthropic has been very disciplined and focused (overwhelmingly on coding, fwiw), while OpenAI has been bleeding money trying to be the everything AI company with no real specialty as everyone else beat them in random domains. If I had to qualify OpenAI's primary focus, it has been glazing users and making a generation of malignant narcissists. But yes, Anthropic has been growing by leaps and bounds and has capacity issues. That's a very healthy position to be in, despite the fact that it yields the inevitable foot-stomping "I'm moving to competitor!" posts constantly.

All of the smart people I know went to work at OpenAI and none at Anthropic. In addition to financial capital, OpenAI has a massive advantage in human capital over Anthropic. As long as OpenAI can sustain compute and paying SWE $1million/year they will end up with the better product.

Attracting talent with huge sums of money just gets you people who optimize for money, and it's usually never a good long-term decision. I think it's what led to Google's downturn.

> OpenAI has a massive advantage in human capital over Anthropic. but if your leader is a dipshit, then its a waste. Look You can't just throw money at the problem, you need people who are able to make the right decisions are the right time. That that requires leadership. Part of the reason why facebook fucked up VR/AR is that they have a leader who only cares about features/metrics, not user experience. Part of the reason why twitter always lost money is because they had loads of teams all running in different directions, because Dorsey is utterly incapable of making a firm decision. Its not money and talent, its execution.

My tinfoil hat theory, which may not be that crazy, is that providers are sandbagging their models in the days leading up to a new release, so that the next model "feels" like a bigger improvement than it is. An important aspect of AI is that it needs to be seen as moving forward all the time. Plateaus are the death of the hype cycle, and would tether people's expectations closer to reality.

I guess our conscience of OpenAI working with the Department of War has an expiry date of 6 weeks.

That number is generous, and is also a pretty decent lifespan for a socially-conscious gesture in 2026.

Thing is that Anthropic was always working with DoD, too, and the line in the sand they drew looked really noble until I found it didn't not apply to me, a non-US citizen. Dario made it clear that was the case. And so the difference, to me, was irrelevant. I'll buy based on value, and keep a poker in the fire of Chinese & European open weight models, as well.

Not everyone is American, and people who are not see Anthropic state they are willing to spy on our countries and shrug about OAI saying the same about America. What’s the difference to us?

if you're not american you should be worried about the bit of using AI to kill people which was the other major objection by Anthropic. (not that I think the US DoD wouldn't do that anyway, ToS or not.)

well, if they put in a fully automated kill chain, its gonna be weak to attacks to make yourself look like a car, or a video game styled "hide under a box" the current non-automated kill chain has targeted fishermen and a girl's school. Nobody is gonna be held accountable for either. Am i worried about the killing or the AI? If i'm worried about the killing, id much rather push for US demilitarization.

Anthropic's issue was only that the AI isn't yet good enough to tell who's an American, so it avoids killing them. They were fine with the "killing non-Americans" bit.

Vote with your dollar. Ask others to do the same and explain why. If we all did this, it might matter. There’s not a lot else an individual can do.

Dario in fact said it was ok to spy and drone non-US citizens, and in fact endorsed American foreign policy generally. So, no, I'm not voting with my wallet for one American country versus the other. I'll pick the best compromise product for me, and then also boost non-American R&D where I can.

Not only is Anthropic perfectly happy to let the DoD use their products to kill people, but they are partners with Palantir and were apparently instrumental in the strikes against Iran by the US military. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/03/04/anthrop... So uh, yeah, the only difference I see between OAI and Anthropic is that one is more honest about what they’re willing to use their AI for.

OpenAI replaced its founding engineers with Meta PMs. The shift towards consumer engagement metrics and marketing is apparent.

Most people just want to use a tool that works. Not everything has to be a damn moral crusade.

Yes, let take morality out of our daily lives as much as possible... That seems like a great categorical imperative and a recipe for social success

There's nothing moral about Anthropic. Especially to those of us who are not American citizens and to which Dario's pronouncements about ethics apparently do not apply, as stated in his own press release. To me it just looks like a big sanctimonious festival of hypocrisy.

That's an incredibly uncharitable take on what I said. But that kind of proves my point. Foist your morality upon everyone else and burden them with your specific conscience; sounds like a fun time.

How about assuming the positive intent of what I actually said? Not everything has to be a moral crusade. Let me use the tool without pushing your personal moral opinions on me. The same person wringing their hands over OpenAI, buys clothing made from slave labor and wrote that comment using a device with rare earth materials gotten from slave labor. Why is OpenAI the line? Why are they allowed to "exploit people" and I'm not? Taken to its logical conclusion it's silly. And instead of engaging with that, they deflect with oH yEaH lEtS hAvE nO mOrAlS which is clearly not what I'm advocating.

Yeah, why actually engage with moral issues when we can just defer to a status quo that happens to benefit me?

"Not everything" - sure, but mass surveillance and autonomous killing are kind of big things to sweep under that rug no?

You mean Anthropic are the only ones refusing the de-facto standard despite a long-standing issue: https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/6235 And as others have said, it's a one-line fix. "Skills" etc. are another `ln -s`

I've been raging pretty hard too. Thought either I'm getting cleverer by the day or Claude has been slipping and sliding toward the wrong side of the "smart idiot" equation pretty fast. Have caught it flat-out skipping 50% of tasks and lying about it.

How do you get codex to generate any code? I describe the problem and codex runs in circles basically: codex> I see the problem clearly. Let me create a plan so that I can implement it. The plan is X, Y, Z. Do you want me to implement this? me> Yes please, looks good. Go ahead! codex> Okay. Thank you for confirming. So I am going to implement X, Y, Z now. Shall I proceeed? me> Yes, proceed. codex> Okay. Implementing. ...codex is working... you see the internal monologue running in circles codex> Here is what I am going to implement: X, Y, Z me> Yes, you said that already. Go ahead! codex> Working on it. ...codex in doing something... codex> After examining the problem more, indeed, the steps should be X, Y, Z. Do you want me to implement them? etc. Very much every sessions ends up being like this. I was unable to get any useful code apart from boilerplate JS from it since 5.4 So instead I just use ChatGPT to create a plan and then ask Opus to code, but it's a hit and miss. Almost every time the prompt seems to be routed to cheaper model that is very dumb (but says Opus 4.6 when asked). I have to start new session many times until I get a good model.

This more or less mimics a flow that I had fairly good results from -- but I'm unwilling to pay for both right now unless I had a client or employer willing to foot the bill. Claude Code as "author" and a $20 Codex as reviewer/planner/tester has worked for me to squeeze better value out of the CC plan. But with the new $100 codex plan, and with the way Anthropic seemed to nerf their own $100 plan, I'm not doing this anymore.

> Forcing software devs to use open source or local models to do anything fun. Episode Five-Hundred-Bazillenty-Eight of Hacker News: the gang learns a valuable lesson after getting arrested at an unchaperoned Enshittification party and having to call Open Source to bail them out.

They don't want competition, they are going to become bounty hunters themselves. They probably plan on turning this into a part of their business. Its kinda trivial to jailbreak these things if you spend a day doing so.

This comment thread is a good learner for founders; look at how much anguish can be put to bed with just a little honest communication. 1. Oops, we're oversubscribed. 2. Oops, adaptive reasoning landed poorly / we have to do it for capacity reasons. 3. Here's how subscriptions work. Am I really writing this bullet point? As someone with a production application pinned on Opus 4.5, it is extremely difficult to tell apart what is code harness drama and what is a problem with the underlying model. It's all just meshed together now without any further details on what's affected.

Nah dude, that roulette wheel is 100% rigged. From top to bottom. No doubt about that. If you think they are playing fair you are either brand new to this industry, or a masochist.

I mean they literally said on their own end that adaptive thinking isn't working as it should. They rolled it out silently, enabled by default, and haven't rolled it back.

Good shout. Wish they were more transparent about these 3 things.

I'm not sure how much I trust Anthropic recently. This coming right after a noticeable downgrade just makes me think Opus 4.7 is going to be the same Opus i was experiencing a few months ago rather than actual performance boost. Anthropic need to build back some trust and communicate throtelling/reasoning caps more clearly.

> Is that why Anthropic recently gave out free credits for use in off-hours? That was the carrot for the stick. The limits and the issues were never officially recognized or communicated. Neither have been the "off-hours credits". You would only know about them if you logged in to your dashboard. When is the last time you logged in there?

Honestly, I personally would rather a time-out than the quality of my response noticably downgrading. I think what I found especially distrustful is the responses from employees claiming that no degredation has occured. An honest response of "Our compute is busy, use X model?" would be far better than silent downgrading.

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?

Not to mention their recent integration of Persona ID verification - that was the last straw for me.

> This coming right after a noticeable downgrade just makes me think Opus 4.7 is going to be the same Opus i was experiencing a few months ago rather than actual performance boost. If they are indeed doing this, I wonder how long they can keep it up?

Exactly. God, it wouldn't be such a problem if they didn't gaslight you and act like it was nothing. Just put up a banner that says Claude is experiencing overloaded capacity right now, so your responses might be whatever.

Only software approved by Anthropic (and/or the USG) is allowed to be secure in this brave new era.

so it's all "it depends" as a business offering, lmao. all marketing

The model card confirms the chain-of-thought supervision error from Mythos was present during Opus 4.7 training too, affecting 7.8% of episodes. That's not a one-time bug that got patched. It's a training pipeline issue that persisted across model generations. The long-context regression from 91.9% to 59.2% is also worth noting — they traded retrieval accuracy for coding benchmarks, which is a reasonable engineering choice, but the framing buries it.

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".

Looks like they are adding Peter Thiel backed ID verification too. https://reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1smr9vs/claude_is_abo...

Oh look it was too powerful to release, now it’s just a matter of safeguards. This story sounds a lot like GPT2.

This seems needlessly cynical. I don't think they said they never planned to release it. They seemed to make it clear that they expect other labs to reach that level sooner or later, and they're just holding it off until they've helped patch enough vulnerabilities.

It's too powerful now. Once GPT6 is released it will suddenly, magically, become not too powerful to release.

productivity going right back down again, ah well they weren't going to pay us more anyway

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!"

Completely agree. We're at this place where a frontier model's peak perceived value always seems to be right before it releases.

This made me LOL. They keep trying to fleece us by nerfing functionality and then adding it back next release. It’s an abusive relationship at this point.

It's a combination of factors. There was rate-limiting implemented by Anthropic, where the 5hr usage limit would be burned through faster at peak hours, I was personally bitten by this multiple times before one guy from Anthropic announced it publicly via twitter, terrible communication. It wasn't small either, ~15 minutes of work ended up burning the entire 5hr limit. That annoyed me enough to switched to Codex for the month at that point. Now people are saying the model response quality went down, I can't vouch for that since I wasn't using Claude Code, but I don't think this many people saying the same thing is total noise though.

Looks to me like a mob of humans, angry they've been deceived by ambiguous communications, product nerfing, surprisingly low usage limits, and an appallingly sycophantic overconfident coding agent

Nobody I've seen in the comments is basing it on 4.7 performance. They're basing it on how unpleasant March and early April was on the Claude Code coding plans with 4.6. Which, from my experience, it was. I'm interested in seeing how 4.7 performs. But I'm also unwilling to pony up cash for a month to do so. And frankly dissatisfied with their customer service and with the actual TUI tool itself. It's not team sports, my friend. You don't have to pick a side. These guys are taking a lot of money from us. Far more than I've ever spent on any other development tooling.

> Usually a ground up rebuild is related to a bigger announcement. So, it's weird that they'd be naming it 4.7. Benchmarks say it all. Gains over previous model are too small to announce it as a major release. That would be humiliating for Anthropic. It may scare investors that the curve flattened and there are only diminishing returns.

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. :(

I've always seen people complaining about model getting dumber just before the new one drops and always though this was confirmation bias. But today, several hours before the 4.7 release, opus 4.6 was acting like it was sonnet 2 or something from that era of models. It didn't think at all, it was very verbose, extremely fast, and it was just... dumb. So now I believe everyone who says models do get nerfed without any notification for whatever reasons Anthropic considers just. So my question is: what is the actual reason Anthropic lobotomizes the model when the new one is about to be dropped?

So if I understand it right, in order to free up VRAM space for a new one, model string in the api like `opus-4.6-YYYYMMDD` is not actually an identifier of the exact weight that is served, but more like ID of group of weights from heavily quantized to the real deal, but all cost the same to me? How is this even legal?

If the vendors of programs do not want bugs to be found in their programs, they should search for them themselves and ensure that there are no such bugs. The "legit security firms" have no right to be considered more "legit" than any other human for the purpose of finding bugs or vulnerabilities in programs. If I buy and use a program, I certainly do not want it to have any bug or vulnerability, so it is my right to search for them. If the program is not commercial, but free, then it is also my right to search for bugs and vulnerabilities in it. I might find acceptable to not search for bugs or vulnerabilities in a program only if the authors of that program would assume full liability in perpetuity for any kind of damage that would ever be caused by their program, in any circumstances, which is the opposite of what almost any software company currently does, by disclaiming all liabilities. There exists absolutely no scenario where Anthropic has any right to decide who deserves to search for bugs and vulnerabilities and who does not. If someone uses tools or services provided by Anthropic to perform some illegal action, then such an action is punishable by the existing laws and that does not concern Anthropic any more than a vendor of screwdrivers should be concerned if someone used one as a tool during some illegal activity. I am really astonished by how much younger people are willing to put up with the behaviors of modern companies that would have been considered absolutely unacceptable by anyone, a few decades ago.

What's the point of baking the best and most impressive models in the world and then serving it with degraded quality a month after releases so that intelligence from them is never fully utilised??

Excited to use 1 prompt and have my whole 5-hour window at 100%. They can keep releasing new ones but if they don't solve their whole token shrinkage and gaslighting it is not gonna be interesting to se.

Solve? You solve a problem, not something you introduced on purpose.

This is the first new model from Anthropic in a while that I'm not super enthused about. Not because of the model, I literally haven't opened the page about it, I can already guess what it says ("Bigger, better, faster, stronger"), but because of the company. I have enjoyed using Claude Code quite a bit in the past but that has been waning as of late and the constant reports of nerfed models coupled with Anthropic not being forthcoming about what usage is allowed on subscriptions [0] really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'll probably give them another month but I'm going to start looking into alternatives, even PayG alternatives. [0] Please don't @ me, I've read every comment about how it _is clear_ as a response to other similar comments I've made. Every. Single. One. of those comments is wrong or completely misses the point. To head those off let me be clear: Anthropic does not at all make clear what types of `claude -p` or AgentSDK usage is allowed to be used with your subscription. That's all I care about. What am I allowed to use on my subscription. The docs are confusing, their public-facing people give contradictory information, and people commenting state, with complete confidence, completely wrong things. I greatly dislike the Chilling Effect I feel when using something I'm paying quite a bit (for me) of money for. I don't like the constant state of unease and being unsure if something might be crossing the line. There are ideas/side-projects I'm interested in pursuing but don't because I don't want my account banned for crossing a line I didn't know existed. Especially since there appears to be zero recourse if that happens. I want to be crystal clear: I am not saying the subscription should be a free-for-all, "do whatever you want", I want clear lines drawn. I increasingly feeling like I'm not going to get this and so while historically I've prefered Claude over ChatGPT, I'm considering going to Codex (or more likely, OpenCode) due to fewer restrictions and clearer rules on what's is and is not allowed. I'd also be ok with kind of warning so that it's not all or nothing. I greatly appreciate what Anthropic did (finally) w.r.t. OpenClaw (which I don't use) and the balance they struck there. I just wish they'd take that further.

Regardless of the model quality improvement, the corporate damage was done by not only ignoring the Opus quality degradation but gaslighting users into thinking they aren’t using it right. I switched to Codex 5.4 xhigh fast and found it to be as good as the old Claude. So I’ll keep using that as my daily driver and only assess 4.7 on my personal projects when I have time.

It’s funny, a few months ago I would have been pretty excited about this. But I honestly don’t really care because I can’t trust Anthropic to not play games with this over the next month post release. I just flat out don’t trust them. They’ve shown more than enough that they change things without telling users.

Reminder that 4.7 may seem like a huge upgrade to 4.6 because they nerfed the F out of 4.6 ahead of this launch so 4.7 would seem like a remarkable improvement...

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

New model - that explains why for the past week/two weeks I had this feeling of 4.6 being much less "intelligent". I hope this is only some kind of paranoia and we (and investors) are not being played by the big corp. /s

I don't get it. Why would they make the previous model worse before releasing an update?

Why do stores increase prices before a sale?

Ok, so the answer is "they make the existing model worse to make it seem that the new model is good". I'm almost certain that this is not what's going on. It's hard to make the argument that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks of such approach. It doesn't give the more market share or revenue.

Tbf I don't think that it's just this one reason. While I'm not a subscriber to any LLM provider, the general feeling I get from reading comments online is that the models have a long history of getting worse over time. Of course, we don't know why, but presumably they're quantizing models or downgrading you to a weaker model transparently. Now as for why, I imagine that it's just money. Anthropic presumably just got done training Mythos and Opus 4.7. that must have cost a lot of cash. They have a lot of subscribers and users, but not enough hardware. What's a little further tweaking of the model when you've already had to dumb it down due to constraints.