8 ms·
Claude Opus 4.7 Model Card
- bicepjai 5mo agoThis card is a 272 page report. So now we are redefining names :)
- jmward01 5mo agoHaiku not getting an update is becoming telling. I suspect we are reaching a point where the low end models are cannibalizing high end and that isn't going to stop. How will these companies make money in a few years when even the smallest models are amazing?
- blixt 5mo agoIsn't it pretty common for the smaller models to release a little while after the bigger ones, for all the big model providers?
- jmward01 5mo agoThe last update for Haiku was in October, or in startup land, 10 years ago.
- dkhenry 5mo agoThe Gemma models are at this point. A 31B model that can fit on a consumer card is as good as Sonnet 4.5. I haven't put it through as much on the coding front or tool calling as I have the Claude or GPT models, but for text processing it is on par with the frontier models.
- make3 5mo agoabsolutely not on par you're smoking
- lostmsu 5mo agoJust to be clear, did you notice the parent said 4.5?
- dkhenry 5mo agoYou make a compelling argument, but thankfully I have data to back up my anecdotal experience This comparison shows them neck and neck https://benchlm.ai/compare/claude-sonnet-4-5-vs-gemma-4-31b https://benchlm.ai/compare/claude-sonnet-4-5-vs-gemma-4-31b As Does this one https://llm-stats.com/models/compare/claude-sonnet-4-6-vs-gemma-4-31b-it https://llm-stats.com/models/compare/claude-sonnet-4-6-vs-ge... And the pelican benchmark even shows them pretty close https://simonwillison.net/2026/Apr/2/gemma-4/ https://simonwillison.net/2026/Apr/2/gemma-4/ https://simonwillison.net/2025/Sep/29/claude-sonnet-4-5/ https://simonwillison.net/2025/Sep/29/claude-sonnet-4-5/ Also this isn't a fringe statement, you can see most people who have done an evaluation agree with me
- jmward01 5mo agoI think one area I find hard to get around is context length. Everything self hosted is so limited on length that it is marginal to use. Additionally I think that the tools (like claude code) are clearly in the training mix for Anthropic's models so they seem to get a boost over other models pushed into that environment. That being said, open source and local inference is -really- good and only going to get better. There is no doubt that the current frontier biz model is not sustainable.
- mvkel 5mo agoIt seems to be a rule that older models are more expensive than newer ones. The low end models have higher $CPT and worse output. I wonder if the move is to just have one model and quantize if you hit compute constraints
- deaux 5mo ago> It seems to be a rule that older models are more expensive than newer ones. It isn't. Gemini has gotten more expensive with each release. Anthropic has stayed pretty similar over time, no? When is the last time OpenAI dropped API prices? OpenAI started very high because they were the first, so there was a ton of low hanging fruit and there was much room to drop.
- mvkel 5mo agoI'm talking about gross margins, not revenue. It's well known that GPT-4 is much more expensive to operate than the GPT-5 family. Of course they won't drop the prices; it's pure profit if they make models more efficient.
- qingcharles 5mo agoGoogle is putting a lot of research into small models. Most of my AI budget is now going to small models because I am doing lots of tiny tasks that the small models do great with. I would think a decent chunk of Goog's API revenue probably comes from their small models.
- koehr 5mo agoThis reads more like an advertisement for Mythos, on the first glance
- ModernMech 5mo agoThat's why I don't like these "model cards" being presented as if they are some sort of technical document -- they're marketing materials.
- Uehreka 5mo agoI never understand these critiques. If something is useful and you’re selling it, does that mean any technical document describing its usefulness becomes marketing? I guess maybe, but then do those documents lose value as technical documents? Not necessarily at all, so I don’t see the point. How are you supposed to describe a useful technical thing to users?
- parsimo2010 5mo agoThis is supposedly the Opus 4.7 model card. It's okay for it to be marketing for Opus 4.7 and describe what it can do, and even okay for it to talk about what it does better than the last generation. GP was saying it sounds like marketing for Mythos (a different and unreleased model). I don't want the Opus 4.7 model card to be advertising for something else. For context, the word "Mythos" appears 331 times in a 221 page document. "Opus 4.6" appears 240 times, so a reference to a model that nobody has really used happens more often than the reference to the last generation model.
- 100ms 5mo ago$ pbpaste | wc -w 62508 $ pbpaste | grep -oi mythos|wc -w 331 $ pbpaste | grep -oi opus|wc -w 809
- aliljet 5mo agoHave they effectively communicated what a 20x or 10x Claude subscription actually means? And with Claude 4.7 increasing usage by 1.35x does that mean a 20x plan is now really a 13x plan (no token increase on the subscription) or a 27x plan (more tokens given to compensate for more computer cost) relative to Claude Opus 4.6?
- computomatic 5mo agoThey have communicated it as 5x is 5 x Pro, and 20x is 20 x Pro (I haven’t looked lately so not sure if that’s changed). They have also repeatedly communicated that the base unit (Pro allotment) is subject to change and does change often. As far as I can tell, that implies there is no guarantee that those subscriptions get some specific number of tokens per unit of time. It’s not a claim they make.
- msikora 5mo agoI think as far as the maybe more important weekly allotment Max 5 is 10x Pro and Max 20 is 20x Pro. For the 5 hour window it is as the names would suggest though.
- DonsDiscountGas 5mo agoDefinitely 13x, at least for now
- ModernMech 5mo agoFeels like buying toilet paper.
- STRiDEX 5mo agoDumb question but why are chemical weapons always addressed as a risk with llms? Is the idea that they contain how to make chemical weapons or that they would guide someone on how? Would there not already be websites that contain that information? How is an llm different, i guess, from some sort of anarchist cookbook thing.
- CodingJeebus 5mo agoWAG but I wonder if a hijacked LLM could also assist with figuring out how to obtain required materials, not just provide the recipe.
- Philpax 5mo agoBoth. There's the risk of them instructing a user on how to produce a known formulation (the Anarchist Cookbook solution, as you say), which is irritating but not that problematic. The bigger issue is that they are potentially capable of producing novel formulations capable of producing harm, and guiding someone through this process. That is, consider a world in which someone with malicious desires has access to a model as capable at chemistry / biology as Mythos is at offensive cybersecurity abilities. This is obviously limited by the fact that the models don't operate in the physical world, but there's plenty of written material out there.
- rogerrogerr 5mo agoThe world has been blessed by two connected things: 1. Smart people have economic opportunities that align them away from being evil 2. People who are evil tend not to be smart. We're breaking both of these assumptions.
- Der_Einzige 5mo agoGood. This is how we will force the world to reckon with the isolated, the disgruntled, and "lone wolf" terrorist. Real "sigma males" actually exist, and when they decide "society has to pay" we are all worse off for it. If Ted Kaczynski (quintessential example of a real actual sigma) had been in his prime operating right now, he'd have mail-bombed NeurIPS and ICLR already. I'm not cool with being in crowds of AI professionals right now for physical security reasons given the extreme anti-AI sentiment that exists from nearly everyone outside of the valley: https://jonready.com/blog/posts/everyone-in-seattle-hates-ai.html https://jonready.com/blog/posts/everyone-in-seattle-hates-ai...
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- joeumn 5mo agoI'm actually surprised at how it performed compared to 4.6 and also compared to mythos. Will be fun to use.
- il-b 5mo agoIronically, the website is down
- Symmetry 5mo ago> The technical error that caused accidental chain-of-thought supervision in some prior models (including Mythos Preview) was also present during the training of Claude Opus 4.7, affecting 7.8% of episodes. >_>
- bachittle 5mo agoSo Opus 4.7 is measurably worse at long-context retrieval compared to Opus 4.6. Opus 4.6 scores 91.9% and Opus 4.7 scores 59.2%. At least they're transparent about the model degradation. They traded long-context retrieval for better software engineering and math scores.
- freedomben 5mo agoAgreed, I appreciate the transparency (and Anthropic isn't normally very transparent). It's also great to know because I will change how I approach long contexts knowing it struggles more with them.
- RobinL 5mo agoCould this be because they've found the 1m context uneconomical (ie costs too much to serve, or burns through users quota too quickly causing complaints), and so they're no longer targeting it as a goal
- Someone1234 5mo agoOpus 4.7 is also worse at 256K context. Go look at page 195 and page 196. It is across the board regression, not just 1M context.
- RobinL 5mo agoThanks, interesting. Does this make it more surprising that the other benchmarks have improved? I'm not sure I understand the benchmarks well enough - but I'm wondering whether with agentic workflows it's possible to get away with a smaller more focussed context (and hence lower cost) whilst achieving the same or better performance, because of agentic model's ability to decide what the put in context as they work
- timvb 5mo agowhat's all this mean in real world use?
- NickNaraghi 5mo ago232 pages is bullshit. Longer than the Mythos system card? What are you hiding.
- nothinkjustai 5mo ago[flagged]
- deflator 5mo agoModel Welfare? Are they serious about this? Or is it just more hype? I really don't trust anything this company says anymore. "We have a model that is too dangerous to release" is like me saying that I have a billion dollars in gold that nobody is allowed to see but I expect to be able to borrow against it.
- hgoel 5mo agoMaybe referring to it as welfare is odd, but these points are important. It isn't a good look to have a model that tends to get into self-deprecating loops like one of Google's older models, it's an even worse look and potential legal liability if your model becomes associated with a suicide. An overly negative chat model would also just be unpleasant to use. With the weights being mostly opaque, these kinds of evaluations are an important piece of reducing the harm an AI model can cause.
- deflator 5mo agoI feel that anthropomorphizing the model is also potentially very harmful. We've seen that in the LLM interactions that end in tragedy. It's the wording that bothers me.
- kube-system 5mo ago> Chemical and biological weapons threat model 2 (CB-2): Novel chemical/biological weapons production capabilities. A model has CB-2 capabilities if it has the ability to significantly help threat actors (for example, moderately resourced expert-backed teams) create/obtain and deploy chemical and/or biological weapons with potential for catastrophic damages far beyond those of past catastrophes such as COVID-19. That's an interesting choice of benchmark for measuring the risk of "Chemical and biological weapons"
- Aboutplants 5mo agoGotta prime those Government fears!
- pukaworks 5mo ago[dead]
- msla 5mo agoPDF, because it isn't marked.
- marginalia_nu 5mo agoIt's not 1998 any more. All browsers read PDFs now.
- msla 5mo agoDo you think your comment adds anything?
- marginalia_nu 5mo agoYes.
- vessenes 5mo agoThis is an interesting document, in that it reads like a Claude Mythos model card that was hastily edited to be an Opus 4.7 model card. I surmise that someone at the top put the Mythos release on hold, and the product team was told "ship this other interim step model instead. quickly." I wonder if 4.7 will be seen as a net step-up in quality; there are some regressions noted in the document, and it's clearly substantially worse than Mythos, at least according to its own model card. Should be an interesting few months -- if I were at oAI I'd be rushing to get something out that's clearly better, and pressing for weakness here.
- the13 5mo agoWhat makes you think that? "it reads like a Claude Mythos model card that was hastily edited to be an Opus 4.7 model card"
- vessenes 5mo agoThere are more mentions of Mythos than 4.6. Mythos results are nearly everywhere, and vastly exceed 4.7's capacity in almost every case. There are sections that report only research on Mythos, none on 4.7. E.g. user surveys about how beneficial Mythos is internally at Anthropic.
- barneybooroo 5mo agoYeah, the section expanding on how they evaluated Mythos internally is a bit baffling considering how irrelevant it is.
- nullc 5mo agoThe model card doesn't mention if this revision will continue to make up and fan vicious conspiracy theories like the prior one does. I've getting a small but steady stream of harassment from mentally ill people who get spun up on crazy conspiracy theories and claude is all too willing to tell them they are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, encourage them to TAKE ACTION, and telling them that people who disagree are IN ON IT. The other major AI LLM services will shut down the deflect to be less crazy or shut down conversation entirely, -- but it seems claude doesn't. Anthropic is probably the worst about prattling on about safety but it seems like their concern is mostly centered on insane movie plot threats and less concerned about things with more potential for real harm. I've complained to anthropic with no response.
- gignico 5mo agoSo LLMs are destroying the economy and the environment but at least “catastrophic risk” is still low. Ok then…
- Rekindle8090 5mo agoCan someone please explain the point of these incremental upgrades? Just release one model. Then maybe do a .5. Then do the next version. What is the justification for .4.5.6.7.8.9 when the difference isn't measurable and it destroys productivity because they test the next increment on the previous one without customer consent?