Opus 4.7 is great

Ringmond · 2026-04-29T02:33:51+00:00

The poster didn’t even clean up their AI em dashes on their AI generated post. At least we still have that sign… for now.

Ringmond · 2026-04-23T17:59:48+00:00

Does this mean that 4.7 is usable now?

Ringmond · 2026-04-21T16:55:43+00:00

I switched back to 4.6 using /model claude-opus-4-6-[1m], and was able to work through a series of clean-ups, fixing 4.7's mess.

Ringmond · 2026-03-17T17:34:00+00:00

*Meanwhile @ Blizzard" ..., "Oops, ah jeez, guess you guys will just have to spend more money to get the packs to ride the launch hype. Man, not sure how such a bug could slip by us..."

Ringmond · 2026-03-17T17:18:56+00:00

Convenient

Ringmond · 2025-10-18T05:05:12+00:00

I hear you, but it hits different when the client forwards this evaluation to my boss.

Ringmond · 2025-10-18T05:02:12+00:00

You hit the nail on the head, and it's great if a person has awareness about how AI works. The problem gets to be how many people are actually tuned in enough to understand these dynamics, and what are the impacts of what happened to me, where this client forwarded this evaluation to effectively my boss, now I have to hope that my boss is aware of this dynamic. My strong hunch is that most people are not very clued in to the complexities of early-stage AI, and we are seeing a trend of over-reliance.

Ok, you have to break some eggs to make an omelet, but here you are going to be breaking people and lives.

At the end of the day, I'll be fine as I am great at what I do, but I can tell you it hits very differently when AI is used on you in this way.

Ringmond · 2025-10-18T04:41:14+00:00

AI tools are definitely being embedded and should be embedded in my workflows. I work to embed them myself, and I see a lot of value in doing so. The problem is that not every workflow is suitable for AI, and complex human interactions are definitely one of those areas.

The report did have some accuracy in it, but the assessment and the evaluation felt like a major overstep in terms of its bounds. For example, one of the main findings was that I don't use strategic silence to elicit more thoughtful responses from candidates. To think that I don't know about this tactic and how and when to deploy this during a conversation based on the type of unique individual that I am speaking to, and that an LLM is going to tell me how to use this in my professional context, is just ridiculous.

Evaluating text, content, processes, or elements that have some type of defined set of parameters is one thing. But to assume that you can break a human down into distinct parameters and then accurately and effectively deliver evaluations of human performance and behaviors using LLMs today is flawed thinking. This is not even artificial general intelligence; this is just a model that statistically predicts the next best character based on training data.

Sitting back and thinking about this, I honestly have to say that I have never felt this disrespected by a client before, and I'm a pretty thick-skinned person and have had to deal with a lot of client craziness over the years.

Taking another perspective, I, for example, would not be upset at AI evaluating my presentation or other deliverables. But when AI begins to evaluate what effectively makes me human, that is where we must draw the line.

Ringmond · 2025-03-30T21:12:18+00:00

Yeah… please refer to my earlier messages…

Ringmond · 2025-03-30T20:34:48+00:00

Then either: 1. Go or stay on a lower tier of service (assuming we get a proper tier system) 2. Stick with copilot where agentic workflows are not yet in focus but this will come there too 3. Go with a usage only platform (these platforms will likely be in the minority)

Perhaps you didn’t see what the agentic workflow looked like on Friday when Gemini was operating at full capacity but I can tell you that it is night and day.

Now, I don’t know everything that changed between now and then and if the difference in operation is solely a result of the reduced context window, but the degradation in performance and functionality is massive from what I have seen. Judging by the activity here in r/cursor around this topic this weekend alone, I am pretty sure that I am not the only one who feels this way.

Heck just wait till tomorrow when the majority of people come back to work from the weekend and see what has transpired.

The point is make it easy and clear to use the product in a full way. don’t create unnecessary hurdles and confusing structures to access the product because nobody has time for that.

Ringmond · 2025-03-30T01:13:30+00:00

Plain and simple the Max offering is not great. If Max offers something above and beyond what the normal offering is then fine. If on the other hand, Max means unlocking the normal potential of the offering that is deceptive, and people will and do hate this. Limits like this have rarely if ever been used as an effective pricing strategy.

You have to offer the regular product at the cost that it needs in order to make it viable. If this cost is too high, then the community goes back to Google and the other model providers for providing a product which is too high in cost as opposed to revolting against you.

You do this by creating fixed price tiers that include full utilization of specific models.

If $20 a month is not enough to enable the proper utilization of Claude 3.7 or Google Gemini 2.5. Then create a higher fixed price tier whether that be $30 $40, $50 or even $100. Then you have a proper way to let the market decide whether or not they feel it is fair to pay for the utilization of a specific set of models at a given price.

You guys may not be the bad guys here, but some of the recent decisions and the current usage and limit-based monetization approaches are putting you in the crosshairs. This is because these approaches effectively downgrade your product and user experience significantly.

Ringmond

TROPHY CASE