//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
ProfilePosts








Loading...
These will need to be extracted, but it should not be necessary. Opus 4.6 understood its role, and got on with it. 4.7 feels like I have to get lawyers in to negotiate on what is or is not a valid specification while the LLM just shouts "YAGNI" and sits down for a cup of tea.
I would say Opus 4.7 no longer understand the Software Dev Lifecycle - but I'd go further to say it no longer understands what the order of operations are in relation to real-world time.
Anther example of Opus 4.7 going to shit. It is struggling to distinguish basic scopes of user interaction. It confuses our requirements as a developer/agent pair with that of the eventual post-deployment user of the system. I have to explain the difference... We haven't built it yet, Claude! 🫠
This is so satisfying.
And now, Opus 4.7 has just flagged a discussion about business funding strategy as being potentially harmful and ended the chat. What on earth??