Maybe don't use any LLM to do your writing for your Master's thesis?

Suggest you get 4.6 to use the text to generate a writing skill and then give it to 4.7 to align. From their launch docs they do indicate that prompts have to change to get the best out of 4.7

There were a lot of pitchforks back when Sonnet 4.5 was accidentally down for a few hours: https://www.reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1rlz7kw/sonnet_45...

It goes to show that there's a very large and vocal user base using it for writing, and yet it's not part of the benchmark for Anthropic.

Anyway, try Sonnet 4.5 while it's still available?

Opus 4.7 seems to reach ChatGPT levels of verbosity in code and loves to overcomplicate the most simple things.

This is something it spit out just now (trimmed a 9 line comment though):

        let keepSize = 0;
        let overBudget = false;

        await this.items.orderBy('[priority+dateUpdated+size]')
            .reverse()
            .eachPrimaryKey((primaryKey, cursor) => {
                if (overBudget) {
                    evictKeys.push(primaryKey as string);
                    return;
                }

                const key = cursor.key as [number, number, number];
                const itemSize = key[2];
                const contribution = itemSize > 0 ? itemSize : 0;

                if (keepSize + contribution > maxSize) {
                    overBudget = true;
                    evictKeys.push(primaryKey as string);
                    return;
                }

                keepSize += contribution;
            });

        let totalSize = 0;

        await this.items.orderBy('[priority+dateUpdated+size]')
            .reverse()
            .eachPrimaryKey((primaryKey, cursor) => {
                const key = cursor.key as [number, number, number];
                const itemSize = key[2];
                const contribution = itemSize > 0 ? itemSize : 0;

                totalSize += contribution;

                if (totalSize > maxSize) {
                    evictKeys.push(primaryKey as string);
                }
            });

Worst Anthropic model i have used. It fabricates a lot. It is worst at reasoning and writing. Everyone should avoid it for reasoning, analysis and writing.

I have noticed this as well. It feels like they tuned it so hard for logic and coding that it lost its soul for actual writing. Stick with the previous one for the thesis work if you can.

I see a lot of complaints on X about 4.7. Boris just dropped a post on how to use Opus 4.7 in Claude Code.

I guess they broke continuity with a 0.1 in model version change in some ways.

So far, from source code perspective, I see good results. Things that yesterday Opus 4.6 was not able to fix in multiple iterations, today Opus 4.7 fixes immediately.

It is not only the model that affects the end results. Good technical specification, architecture documents, rules, lessons learned, release notes, proper and descriptive prompting are also important.

My experience writing code is that it’s more terse and specific, even in its own voice. I find it catching bugs more often during implementation more too, comparing directly against 4.6. I think I prefer its style because it seems to be way less verbose

> Similar experiences?

Regardless of which one. They're too verbose. They repeat information. They lack cohesion. Overly agreeable. The flaws are part of the tool.

I’ve noticed this with model upgrades too: sometimes they improve the “thinking” but lose the tightness of the writing.

It's lovable when people use a wrench to hammer a nail in. Watch your thumb.

Meaning: You managed your ways around the system prompt and usage intention - Congrats! Now it doesn't work any more - Bummer!

Have you tried opus 4.7 in comparison to 4.6 with a general purpose / writing system prompt in the app? Thats where this would make more sense.

You can always use `/model claude-opus-4-6` in Claude Code to go back to 4.6.

i've noticed this too. i suspect they either did weight surgery on the model and distilled it from Mythos Preview, or they are currently not saving it correctly / having another adaptive thinking bug.

i asked it to look at writing research (especially from NN/g) and come up with some alternatives for a heading that is roughly supposed to convey:

"this app lets you create custom shortcuts for all mac apps, even sophisticated ones, mouse wheel ones, ..."

it came up with the following headlines:

  1. ONE APP, MANY MAC APPS
  2. ONE INSTALL, MANY APPS ONE APP.
  3. ONE PACK PER MAC APP.
  4. ALL YOUR APP SHORTCUTS IN ONE PLACE
  5. [app name] IS ONE APP. PACKS COVER THE REST.

  1. The Shortcuts Your Apps Are Missing
  2. What Your Apps Still Don't Let You
  3. Do The Parts You Still Do by Hand
  4. When Built-In Shortcuts Run Out
  5. Where Your Apps Stop Short

that's not something even GPT-3.5 would come up with.

"one install, many apps" ........huh???

4.7 is unusually verbose

just downgrade... to 4.6

LLMs are so 2025. Move on

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]