I went to 4.7, didn't have a choice, found it unsatisfactory, then Claude quietly added in the option to use 4.6, so I'm back on 4.6, and I'm not the only one in my company.
I had far more hallucinations with 4.7 than 4.6.
I'll try it again after a few more months for them to get it right, but 4.6 is what changed my mind on LLMs as a tool, and 4.7 felt like a step backwards, so for now I'm sticking with something that has delivered me value, instead of arguing with a model ostensibly better that was making shit up 1 - 2 times a day. It was really disappointing.
I can give examples if needed, I screenshotted the most aggravating ones, but what worries me is which ones I didn't recognise.
How did you manage to do that?
/model command returns only 4 choices for me: Opus 4.7, two Sonnet options and Haiku.
loading story #48247207
loading story #48247694
loading story #48247074
loading story #48247052
Opus 4.7 went through a major degradation a few weeks ago (way more hallucinations and rabbit holes than usual). Anthropic fixed it. Give it another shot.
loading story #48248928
Opus 4.7 seems very smart but the adaptive reasoning makes me always uncertain how hard it is actually trying. And it is far too argumentative. It seems to think it HAS to contradict you in ever response.