[HN Gopher] Claude Opus 4.7 Model Card
___________________________________________________________________
Claude Opus 4.7 Model Card
Author : adocomplete
Score : 153 points
Date : 2026-04-16 14:32 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (anthropic.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (anthropic.com)
| bicepjai wrote:
| This card is a 272 page report. So now we are redefining names :)
| albert_e wrote:
| Does the model card fit in the model's context :)
| anonyfox wrote:
| well it will saturate your 5h limit window at least
| jmward01 wrote:
| Haiku 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 wrote:
| Isn't it pretty common for the smaller models to release a
| little while after the bigger ones, for all the big model
| providers?
| jmward01 wrote:
| The last update for Haiku was in October, or in startup land,
| 10 years ago.
| dkhenry wrote:
| The 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 wrote:
| absolutely not on par you're smoking
| lostmsu wrote:
| Just to be clear, did you notice the parent said 4.5?
| cmorgan31 wrote:
| They are also on par in a lot of classification tasks. I
| did have to actually use gemma4 and fine tune it a bit
| but that is part of the value add.
| make3 wrote:
| I did, what's your point?
| dkhenry wrote:
| You 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
|
| As Does this one 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/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 wrote:
| I 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.
| make3 wrote:
| if you look at the details of the numbers of the
| benchmarks that you shared, Sonnet 4.5 crushes gemma 4.
| Somehow the first link doesn't run Sonnet on the multi
| modal benchmark, that's why the top score looks close, it
| beats Gemma at every benchmark they actually ran. The
| arena in the second shows that it actually destroys Gemma
| 4 as well, not close
| mvkel wrote:
| It 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 wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| I'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 wrote:
| Google 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 wrote:
| This reads more like an advertisement for Mythos, on the first
| glance
| ModernMech wrote:
| That'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 wrote:
| I 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 wrote:
| This 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 wrote:
| $ pbpaste | wc -w 62508 $ pbpaste | grep -oi
| mythos|wc -w 331 $ pbpaste | grep -oi opus|wc -w
| 809
| aliljet wrote:
| Have 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 wrote:
| They 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.
| DonsDiscountGas wrote:
| Definitely 13x, at least for now
| ModernMech wrote:
| Feels like buying toilet paper.
| STRiDEX wrote:
| Dumb 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 wrote:
| WAG but I wonder if a hijacked LLM could also assist with
| figuring out how to obtain required materials, not just provide
| the recipe.
| Philpax wrote:
| Both. 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 wrote:
| The 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 wrote:
| Good. 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...
| chrisweekly wrote:
| "Smart people have economic opportunities that align them
| away from being evil"
|
| For some definition of evil, some of the time, ok. But as
| economic opportunities compound (looking at the behavior of
| the ultra-rich), it seems there's at least strong
| correlation in the other direction, if not full-on "root of
| all evil" causation.
| rogerrogerr wrote:
| Sure, but that's not "slaughter a stadium of people with
| drones" evil or "poison the water supply" evil or "take
| out unprotected electrical substations" evil.
|
| So much infrastructure is very soft because the evil
| people aren't smart enough to conceive of or conduct an
| attack.
| fwip wrote:
| I think you might find that, if you reconsider who the
| 'evil' people are, you might find that we're already
| doing that sort of thing.
| malcolmgreaves wrote:
| That's not quite true. Take a look at all the billionaires
| destroying society. Being evil is the surest way to get to
| get rich. In fact it's the only way to amass that level of
| capital: there's no ethical billionaire.
| mikek wrote:
| This feels like a wild overgeneralization. People can
| become rich without resorting to evil methods, especially
| now with global markets and software. Case in point:
| Minecraft was wildly successful, and now Notch is a
| billionaire.
| hxugufjfjf wrote:
| Eeeeh not the best example maybe?
| orneryostrich wrote:
| Pre-wealth, Notch was friendly, kind, and downright
| jolly! Even as he started to accumulate wealth, he was
| donating huge sums of money to various indie games.
| Whenever a Humble Bundle dropped he would top the
| leaderboard for the amount he paid for the games. Things
| took a major turn for the worse after the acquisition and
| after he left Mojang. That's when he ran out of purpose
| and turned to drugs and conspiracy theories.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| > 1. Smart people have economic opportunities that align
| them away from being evil
|
| for now
| rgbrenner wrote:
| In the same way that all coding docs are available publicly
| dcre wrote:
| LLMs can tell you exactly how to acquire the materials and
| manufacture the materials. They might even come up with novel
| formulations that rely on substances that are easier to get.
| There might be information about this stuff online but LLMs are
| much better than random idiots at adapting that information to
| their actual situation.
|
| On top of LLMs reducing the cost/difficulty, the other reason
| biological and chemical weapons are such a worry is their
| asymmetric character -- they are much much easier and cheaper
| to produce and deploy than they are to defend against.
| Aboutplants wrote:
| It's marketing, Fear is one of the most effective marketing
| tools. That and purpose of government attention
| somesortofthing wrote:
| They contain broad overviews(throw some disease-causing
| bacteria in a sort of rainbow arrangement of increasingly more
| effective antibiotics, you'll usually get something that's at
| least very deadly even if it doesn't have pandemic potential)
| but executing in a real lab takes a ton of trial and error to
| figure out the details. The issue is that the details ~all
| exist somewhere in the training dataset already, discovered and
| documented over the course of unrelated, benign biology
| research. Ability to quickly and accurately search over that
| corpus translates to large speedups in the physical development
| process.
| Nicook wrote:
| Probably also a bit of liability. After all its been trained on
| a dataset that includes a long running joke of trying to trick
| people on the internet to unknowingly create chlorine gas.
| joeumn wrote:
| I'm actually surprised at how it performed compared to 4.6 and
| also compared to mythos. Will be fun to use.
| il-b wrote:
| Ironically, the website is down
| Symmetry wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| So 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 wrote:
| Agreed, 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 wrote:
| Could 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 wrote:
| Opus 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 wrote:
| Thanks, 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 wrote:
| what's all this mean in real world use?
| jzig wrote:
| At what point along the 1M window does context become "long"
| enough that this degradation occurs?
| daemonologist wrote:
| The benchmark GP mentioned is measuring at 128k-256k context
| (there's another at 524k-1024k, where 4.6 scored 78.3% and
| 4.7 scored 32.2%).
|
| The longer the context the worse the performance; there isn't
| really a qualitative step change in capability (if there is
| imo it happens at like 8k-16k tokens, much sooner than is
| relevant for multi-turn coding tasks - see e.g. this old
| benchmark https://github.com/adobe-research/NoLiMa ).
| film42 wrote:
| To be honest, I think it's just a more honest score of what
| Opus 4.6 actually was. Once contexts get sufficiently large,
| Opus develops pretty bad short term memory loss.
| tomaskafka wrote:
| You can support very long context windows if you don't mind
| abysmal recall rate.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| A year ago it felt like SoTA model developers were not
| improving so much as moving the dirt around. Maybe we're in
| another such rut.
| the13 wrote:
| Be brief. No one wants AI boyfriend users who drone on & on
| about their day.
| enraged_camel wrote:
| No: https://x.com/bcherny/status/2044821690920980626
| NickNaraghi wrote:
| 232 pages is bullshit. _Longer_ than the Mythos system card? What
| are you hiding.
| nothinkjustai wrote:
| How much do you want to bet this is Mythos, and Anthropic
| released it as Opus to avoid embarrassment after all the hype
| they whipped up...
| deflator wrote:
| Model 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.
| kube-system wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| Gotta prime those Government fears!
| msla wrote:
| PDF, because it isn't marked.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| It's not 1998 any more. All browsers read PDFs now.
| vessenes wrote:
| This 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 wrote:
| What 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 wrote:
| There 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 wrote:
| Yeah, the section expanding on how they evaluated Mythos
| internally is a bit baffling considering how irrelevant it is.
| nullc wrote:
| The 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 wrote:
| So LLMs are destroying the economy and the environment but at
| least "catastrophic risk" is still low. Ok then...
| Rekindle8090 wrote:
| Can 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?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-04-16 23:01 UTC)