"With Opus 4.6, extended thinking was a toggle you managed: turn it on for hard stuff, off for quick stuff. If you left it on, every question paid the thinking tax whether it needed to or not. Now, with Opus 4.7, extended thinking becomes adaptive thinking. "
You want extended thinking? It's not adaptive thinking and opus will turn it on if it thinks it needs to. But it probably won't, according to user reports as tokens are expensive. Except opus 4.7 now uses 35% more and outputs more thinking tokens.
I am getting pretty good performance. Even on trivial questions it seems to go through the thinking process end. If they are using adaptive thinking, it seems to work much better than before. I will see how my experience goes with more usage.
Not when you want extended thinking - you select extended thinking and opus decides if you get it with apativenthinking.
"With Opus 4.6, extended thinking was a toggle you managed: turn it on for hard stuff, off for quick stuff. If you left it on, every question paid the thinking tax whether it needed to or not. Now, with Opus 4.7, extended thinking becomes adaptive thinking. "
I've gotten quite a bit of work done on claude.ai and the mobile app though. It's been good for code review. The GitHub connector is a bit clunky but it works.
"Opus 4.7 thinks more at higher effort levels, particularly on later turns in agentic settings. This improves its reliability on hard problems, but it does mean it produces more output tokens. "
That's a good point. AA's Cost Efficiency section says the opposite: you can hover to see the breakdown between input, reasoning and output tokens.
I'm not sure where that discrepancy comes from (is Anthropic using different benchmarks?).
There's a few different theories but all we have now are synthetic benchmarks, anecdotes and speculation.
(Benchmarks are misleading, I think our best bet now is for individuals to run real world tests, giving the same task to each model, and compare the quality, cost and time.)
The input cost inflation however is real, and dramatic.
I would have expected them to lower input costs proportionally, because otherwise you're getting less intelligence per dollar even with the smarter model. Think that would be the smartest thing for them to do, at least PR wise. And maybe a bit of free usage as an apology :)
Show us some reciepts in the form of a exported session. I've been a heavy user of Claude up untill the end of feb, but switched to Codex because it's better at handling large code bases, following the "plan", implementing the backend changes in Zig. If you ask Claude to do a review of the code and suggest fixes, then let it Codex review it, then again ask Claude, it will 99% of the time say. Oh yes you are right, let me fix that.
Either you are using it wrong or you are working in a totally different field.
There are MANY accounts of claude degradation (intelligence, limits) over the past week on reddit and here with many posts describing people moving. Nothing is changing. You'd think they'd at least give a statement.
reply