4 ms·

The title is a misdirection. The token counts may be higher, but the cost-per-task may not be for a given intelligence level. Need to wait to see Artificial An

The title is a misdirection. The token counts may be higher, but the cost-per-task may not be for a given intelligence level. Need to wait to see Artificial Analysis' Intelligence Index run for this, or some other independent per-task cost analysis. The final calculation assumes that Opus 4.7 uses the exact same trajectory + reasoning output as Opus 4.6. I have not verified, but I assume it not to be the case, given that Opus 4.7 on Low thinking is strictly better than Opus 4.6 on Medium, etc., etc.

watsonL1F7 7mo ago
[dead]
aray07 7mo ago
im running some experiments on this but based on what i have seen on my own personal data - I dont think this is true "given that Opus 4.7 on Low thinking is strictly better than Opus 4.6 on Medium, etc., etc.” Opus 4.7 in general is more expensive for similar usage. Now we can argue that is provides better performance all else being equal but I haven’t been able to see that
unpwn 7mo ago
Very unlikely that the article is wrong. the 4.7 intelligence bump is not that big, plus most of the token spend is in inputs/tool calls etc, much of which won't change even with this bump.
- namnnumbr 7mo ago
  IMO, you're incorrect: 1. In my own use, since 1 Apr this month, very heavy coding: > 472.8K Input Tokens +299.3M cached > 2.2M Output Tokens My workloads generate ~5x more output than input, and output tokens cost 5x more per token... output dominates my bill at roughly 25x the cost of input. (Even more so when you consider cache hits!) If Opus 4.7 was more efficient with reasoning (and thus output), I'd likely save considerable money (were I paying per-token). 2. Anthropic's benchmarks DO show strictly-better (granted they are Anthropic's benchmarks, so salt may be needed) https://www.anthropic.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww-cdn.anthropic.com%2Fimages%2F4zrzovbb%2Fwebsite%2Fff97ab0f2a5f3a243da02398f97dec1ac99b526a-3840x2160.png&w=3840&q=75 https://www.anthropic.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww-...
bisonbear 7mo ago
yep, ran a controlled experiment on 28 tasks comparing old opus 4.6 vs new opus 4.6 vs 4.7, and found that 4.7 is comparable in cost to old 4.6, and ~20% more expensive then new 4.6 (because new 4.6 is thinking less) https://www.stet.sh/blog/opus-4-7-zod https://www.stet.sh/blog/opus-4-7-zod
- cced 7mo ago
  So they nerfed 4.6 to make way for 4.7? Progress. /s
  - bisonbear 7mo ago
    > they nerfed 4.6 to make way for 4.7? > Progress. /s pretty much, lmao. my theory is 4.6 started thinking less to save compute for 4.7 release. but who knows what's going on at anthropic
    - kirubakaran 7mo ago
      "but who knows what's going on at anthropic" People at Anthropic, of course
    - GorbachevyChase 7mo ago
      A fun conspiracy theory I have is that Mythos isn’t actually dangerous in any serious sense. They just can’t reliably serve a 10T model. So they have to make up a reason to limit customers.
namnnumbr 7mo ago
Following up on "strictly better" via plot in release announcement: https://www.anthropic.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww-cdn.anthropic.com%2Fimages%2F4zrzovbb%2Fwebsite%2Fff97ab0f2a5f3a243da02398f97dec1ac99b526a-3840x2160.png&w=3840&q=75 https://www.anthropic.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww-...
alach11 7mo ago
I ran an internal (oil and gas focused) benchmark yesterday and found Opus 4.7 was 50% cheaper than Opus 4.6, driven by significantly fewer output tokens for reasoning. It also scored 80% (vs. 60%).
- stingraycharles 7mo ago
  That’s just adaptive reasoning, not related to the increased tokenizer costs.
  - simianwords 7mo ago
    Why would I as a user be concerned about one over the other?
    - stingraycharles 7mo ago
      Because it teaches you cause and effect in terms of costs and quality. Unless you want to keep complaining about the model being nerfed.
dang 7mo ago
(Submitted title was "Claude Opus 4.7 costs 20–30% more per session". We've since changed it to a (more neutral) version of what the article's title says.)
- jofzar 7mo ago
  I think it's time to have previous titles show as a edit * icon that can show the previous title. This is not the first time where the more neutral (which imo is better) has caused me to be confused why everyone is saying something different in the comments.
  - dang 7mo ago
    That's probably too much ceremony for HN but petercooper made a really nice HN title edit tracker which is probably still running. Let me see if I can dig it up for you... Edit: hmm - maybe not: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21617016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21617016.

watsonL1F7 7mo ago

[dead]

aray07 7mo ago

im running some experiments on this but based on what i have seen on my own personal data - I dont think this is true "given that Opus 4.7 on Low thinking is strictly better than Opus 4.6 on Medium, etc., etc.” Opus 4.7 in general is more expensive for similar usage. Now we can argue that is provides better performance all else being equal but I haven’t been able to see that

unpwn 7mo ago

Very unlikely that the article is wrong. the 4.7 intelligence bump is not that big, plus most of the token spend is in inputs/tool calls etc, much of which won't change even with this bump.

namnnumbr 7mo ago
IMO, you're incorrect: 1. In my own use, since 1 Apr this month, very heavy coding: > 472.8K Input Tokens +299.3M cached > 2.2M Output Tokens My workloads generate ~5x more output than input, and output tokens cost 5x more per token... output dominates my bill at roughly 25x the cost of input. (Even more so when you consider cache hits!) If Opus 4.7 was more efficient with reasoning (and thus output), I'd likely save considerable money (were I paying per-token). 2. Anthropic's benchmarks DO show strictly-better (granted they are Anthropic's benchmarks, so salt may be needed) https://www.anthropic.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww-cdn.anthropic.com%2Fimages%2F4zrzovbb%2Fwebsite%2Fff97ab0f2a5f3a243da02398f97dec1ac99b526a-3840x2160.png&w=3840&q=75 https://www.anthropic.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww-...

bisonbear 7mo ago

yep, ran a controlled experiment on 28 tasks comparing old opus 4.6 vs new opus 4.6 vs 4.7, and found that 4.7 is comparable in cost to old 4.6, and ~20% more expensive then new 4.6 (because new 4.6 is thinking less) https://www.stet.sh/blog/opus-4-7-zod https://www.stet.sh/blog/opus-4-7-zod

cced 7mo ago
So they nerfed 4.6 to make way for 4.7? Progress. /s
- bisonbear 7mo ago
  > they nerfed 4.6 to make way for 4.7? > Progress. /s pretty much, lmao. my theory is 4.6 started thinking less to save compute for 4.7 release. but who knows what's going on at anthropic
  - kirubakaran 7mo ago
    "but who knows what's going on at anthropic" People at Anthropic, of course
  - GorbachevyChase 7mo ago
    A fun conspiracy theory I have is that Mythos isn’t actually dangerous in any serious sense. They just can’t reliably serve a 10T model. So they have to make up a reason to limit customers.

namnnumbr 7mo ago

Following up on "strictly better" via plot in release announcement: https://www.anthropic.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww-cdn.anthropic.com%2Fimages%2F4zrzovbb%2Fwebsite%2Fff97ab0f2a5f3a243da02398f97dec1ac99b526a-3840x2160.png&w=3840&q=75 https://www.anthropic.com/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww-...

alach11 7mo ago

I ran an internal (oil and gas focused) benchmark yesterday and found Opus 4.7 was 50% cheaper than Opus 4.6, driven by significantly fewer output tokens for reasoning. It also scored 80% (vs. 60%).

stingraycharles 7mo ago
That’s just adaptive reasoning, not related to the increased tokenizer costs.
- simianwords 7mo ago
  Why would I as a user be concerned about one over the other?
  - stingraycharles 7mo ago
    Because it teaches you cause and effect in terms of costs and quality. Unless you want to keep complaining about the model being nerfed.

dang 7mo ago

(Submitted title was "Claude Opus 4.7 costs 20–30% more per session". We've since changed it to a (more neutral) version of what the article's title says.)

jofzar 7mo ago
I think it's time to have previous titles show as a edit * icon that can show the previous title. This is not the first time where the more neutral (which imo is better) has caused me to be confused why everyone is saying something different in the comments.
- dang 7mo ago
  That's probably too much ceremony for HN but petercooper made a really nice HN title edit tracker which is probably still running. Let me see if I can dig it up for you... Edit: hmm - maybe not: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21617016 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21617016.