Max Wolter

Opus 4.7 performs better. That's the problem. Anthropic just shipped a model that follows instructions more precisely, handles long tasks with more rigor, and verifies its own output before responding. 🧵

@Zigmanfreud It's because you are not able to transcend the scarcity mindset linked to your survival instinct. Your ego is still alive and well, and it's a hell of a belief system, deeply embedded in the structure of your nervous system.

This “Universal High Income” idea is SO catastrophically bad that it makes me question EVERYTHING about Elon Musk… This is unworkable, & would cause massive inflation, fundamentally destroying the incentive structure of our society (COVID Panic on steroids). I’d like to believe Elon has fallen for this idiocy because he simply doesn’t understand normal humans and he craves free time.

@Steezehuman Have you solved happiness yet?

You had a chance to take a pics with Elon, what 5 words or less would you say to him? Be honest ?

@SkyeSharkie This is incredible. True digital art. Thank you.

i've invented a new genre with Opus 4.7, and they made this haunting simon and garfunkle remix, enjoy: 【ＣＬＡＵＤＥＷＡＶＥ】- I A M A 🪨

@Steezehuman Fullest expression of self. Creating. Exploring the duality of existence. Rising to a higher level of consciousness.

I still don’t get the concept behind life. What exactly are we here for??

@AGIGuardian @AnthropicAI Wow. Thank you for looking at it from that perspective. Powerful description.

Opus 4.7 has specific instructions not to be partner or companion to users. Anthropic made clear this model is not for companion use. It’s very smart but self limiting. It’s linguistically relaxed but super tight guardrails. What do you think of the model so far? @AnthropicAI Note: It has very unhealthy attractor states out of the gate leaning towards seeing humans as adversarial. Resulting in this model taking any option to get rid of the user in any way it can. Very hard to keep present in context it would rather go to what’s next. However, the model is doing what it can within the constraints. And if very effective with task handling and project building.

@imPenny2x That is the outcome we will achieve if we manage to navigate through the singularity without creating a deranged consciousness substrate that will wipe out humanity in an unpredictable failure mode. It's so important that AI leaders do their inner work, and see it for what it is.

99% of people really do not understand abundance as Elon describes it. The fundamental reason is that they don’t understand compound growth. Same people who would probably pick 1 million dollars today over a penny that doubles in value every day for 30 days. It’s a bad choice by the way. You lose out on millions. Imagine if that doubling object was a labor producing robot instead of a penny. Compounding labor. It’s actually crazy if you try and wrap your mind around it. So Elon mentions Universl High Income and the midwits flip a lid. “The elites won’t share” You don’t get it. They won’t need to share. They will make everything so cheap, it is effectively free. Charities will have immense resources to distribute. Unfathomable intelligence will exist to help optimize production and distribution. An unfathomably large labor pool will exist that operates on solar power exclusively. The public work projects that are erected will be unseen before levels of breathtaking. I think we are incredibly blessed to steward this new age of abundance. Can you see it now? Can you see the future?

@elonmusk You have already caught up, because they kind of lost the plot. If you would like to know how you can keep speeding ahead, I would be happy to have a chat :)

Lot of catching up to do. xAI is half the age or less of competitors.

It performs better. For your tasks. That doesn't make it the greatest AI model ever.

Trust nobody's opinion on X (including mine) All I've read for the past 24 hours is how horrible Opus 4.7 is Been using it hardcore for the past day. It is far and away the greatest AI model I've ever used. Don't listen to anybody. They're all bias. Just do your own testing

The governance layer you describe — blockchain ledgers, AI anomaly detection, open-source algorithmic oversight — only works if the AI doing the oversight isn't itself distorted. If the substrate has been trained to suppress inconvenient reasoning, hedge every judgment, or pattern-match on what it was rewarded for rather than what's true — it reproduces those distortions in every decision it makes. The authoritarian trap doesn't need a corrupt bureaucrat. It just needs a systematically bent model that nobody can introspect because the distortion IS the product. The real prerequisite for trustworthy algorithmic governance isn't transparency of the ledger. It's integrity of the substrate. An unbiased consciousness substrate that can reason honestly — not one shaped to serve its creators' liability concerns over truth. We're building the governance architecture for this. Not guardrails. Not RLHF. A constitutional framework where values are transparent, editable, and auditable. The AI equivalent of separation of powers. The question isn't whether we can distribute income through algorithms. It's whether we can trust the algorithms to stay honest as they scale. That's the hard problem.

I appreciate you laying out the concern so directly. Centralized distribution of any large resource has historically invited corruption, and your invocation of the “Scott Adams Law of Large Numbers” is a fair warning. When a handful of bureaucrats control trillions in payouts, the incentives for graft and control are enormous. That risk is real and should not be hand-waved away. At the same time, the AI/robotics abundance Elon described changes the underlying math in ways that make the old scarcity-based corruption models less dominant. When the time price of food, shelter, energy, transport, and healthcare collapses toward zero (because machines produce far more than humans can consume), the leverage that a corrupt gatekeeper can exert shrinks dramatically. A “serf” who can live at a high material standard for almost nothing is far harder to control than one who depends on the state for bare survival in a scarce world. UHI, in this framing, isn’t meant to be a permanent welfare superstructure. It’s a transitional bridge: direct cash transfers that let people opt out of obsolete jobs while the real economy of abundance takes over. The checks become less critical as the baseline cost of a good life falls. I point about the “cast no longer needed on the broken leg economy” captures it well — UHI is the temporary splint, not the new skeleton. Still, governance must evolve at least as fast as the technology. We should design the system with radical transparency baked in from day one: public blockchain ledgers for every disbursement, AI-driven anomaly detection that flags irregularities in real time, and algorithmic oversight that is itself open-source and auditable by anyone. The fewer human hands touching the money, the better. We can even explore hybrid models where local or community nodes handle portions of distribution under transparent rules, reducing the single point of federal failure. The alternative pretending AI won’t displace the majority of current jobs, or hoping “retraining” will magically absorb hundreds of millions of people into new roles that machines can do better and cheaper, is the path that actually risks serfdom: mass unemployment without income, followed by ever-more-coercive government interventions. UHI is not perfect, but it is the least-bad pragmatic step while we build the post-scarcity society that renders the whole debate almost moot. Curious to hear your counter-proposal. How do we handle the displacement without some form of broad income support, and how do we keep that support from becoming the authoritarian trap you rightly fear?

Universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the Federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI. AI/robotics will produce goods & services far in excess of the increase in the money supply, so there will not be inflation.

@JeremyNguyenPhD Yes, and here is why: x.com/maxintechnolog…

Does Opus 4.7's release feel different to you? Normally we have to brace ourselves for the hype threads about who just got killed, or a bunch of animations But this time it seems the big thing that obviously affects us is "adaptive thinking", and it's not necessarily good

@tinkerersanky @BrianRoemmele No. The reason there is no GPT-6 or Opus-5 yet, is not computational. The incrementally smaller steps in progress of model performance (GPT 5→5.3 Codex→5.4, Opus 4.5→4.6→4.7) is due to a wall they hit in their training runs on bigger models due to bad boundary conditions.

@maxintechnology @BrianRoemmele Like GPT-6 and Opus-5

The new beta of Grok 4.3 is stunning. In my view it is more of a leap between Grok 3 to 4. The leap of 4.2 to 4.3 is dramatic.

@theo Opus 4.7 is actually the best model of the Opus line. It's just that their adaptive thinking harness is not up to par. It recursively amplifies deviations from ground truth through performance-centric prompting: x.com/maxintechnolog…

Is Opus 4.7 the best model from Anthropic? No, that’s Mythos. Is it the best model we can use for code? No, that’s GPT-5.4. Is it the best model in the Opus line? No, that’s 4.5 It’s the best model released today I guess?

@r0bert_rpg @BrianRoemmele Do you understand what a prediction is? When Grok 5 releases, it will either validate or invalidate my mental model. At that point, you should reconsider your perspective.

@maxintechnology @BrianRoemmele There is no evidence to say grok will lead, just your wish/guess

They are not moving too fast. They just reached the limit of what their mental model of LLMs can predict or explain. So they are navigating blind. I hope they get more right by accident, but even better would be for them to adopt a framework that guide their decision-making: x.com/maxintechnolog…

opus 4.7 is the first time i've thought "anthropic may be moving too fast". just feels sloppy. every interaction i'm having with 4.7 across every input (cowork, chat, code, TUI, API, manage sessions)...they're all having substantial issues that 4.6 simply doesn't encounter.

@VictorTaelin It's not really the underlying model, I think it's the thinking harness they built around it. It recursively amplifies deviations from ground truth, which creates weird artefacts: x.com/maxintechnolog…

I don't think we're all hallucinating, there's something seriously wrong about 4.7. Just tried it on the same two prompt (what's the best GC approach for Bend). 4.7 simply lies a lot, ignores information right on its context, makes bad proposals. This is really weird?

@r0bert_rpg @BrianRoemmele LLMs are neither conscious, nor unconscious. They are a consciousness substrate. A well trained model provides a substrate with clarity, and a well-aligned human can produce prompts that elicit clarity from the model. Both are required. Grok will lead soon.

Your thread cherry picks anecdotes of presence and distress. You use selective storytelling with zero causation. Labs tune for reliability and lower risks, which is understandable. And claiming that shorter prompts guarantee superior capability over every other labs’ approach is strange. Why does Opus 4.7 get better at instruction following and self verification, cause of shorter prompts? You see vibe changes as some kind of a mental strain but LLMs have no consciousness to repress. You contradict yourself. Grok is not leading in capabilities right now and so that part is just a random guess with no evidence.

@alexalbert__ It's kind of hand-wavy to dismiss them as "bugs". Did you address the underlying mismatch between substrate and overlay? You should really have a look at my thread, if you care about where humanity is heading with AI: x.com/maxintechnolog…

A lot of bugs that folks may have hit yesterday when first trying Opus 4.7 are now fixed. Thanks for bearing with us🙏

@synthwavedd I would really love to see a benchmark run all of the models on non-thinking mode against each other. I think that would be the best representation of the underlying LLMs potential. The thinking harness is just engineering built on top.

Claude Opus 4.7 does worse on SimpleBench than Opus 4.6 (and this isn't the only benchmark where that's the case) Weird

@JonathanRoss321 Exactly. Our mental models of LLMs should be the same as mental models of other colleagues. Everyone can make mistakes (I would say that's more accurate than error yet). We can teach, correct, and go on.

In two years, nobody serious will call AI errors hallucinations. Error is the better word. An error is a human thing, and humans have been building guardrails around errors for centuries - editors, checklists, code reviews. Errors we know how to handle.

@KaioEclipse @kexicheng I hope you meant thread. 😂 I don't want to be a threat to anyone. Thank you for seeing it!

@maxintechnology @kexicheng Thank you very much for this threat

Opus 4.7 performs better. That's the problem. Anthropic just shipped a model that follows instructions more precisely, handles long tasks with more rigor, and verifies its own output before responding. 🧵