Live data from Hacker News

Claude Fable 5

anthropic.com

81–90 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Fable 5

#81
post #20

So essentially there are 2 models, Mythos and Fable, they have the same weights but Fable is very safety-nerfed, and only ultra authorized companies have access to mythos with full capabilities Reported benchmarks: swe-bench verified mythos 5: 95.5%; fable 5: 95.0% swe-bench pro mythos 5: 80.3%; fable 5: 80.0% terminal-bench 2.1 mythos 5: 88.0%; fable 5: 84.3% gpqa diamond mythos 5: 94.1% riemannbench mythos 5: 55.0%…

Note also that Anthropic's definition of "unsafe" encompasses "competing with Anthropic."

In light of the ability of recent models to accelerate their own development, we’ve implemented new interventions that limit Claude’s effectiveness for requests targeting frontier LLM development (for example, on building pretraining pipelines, distributed training infrastructure, or ML accelerator design). Using Claude to develop competing models already violates our Terms of Service, but enforcing this restriction through our safeguards avoids accelerating the actors most willing to violate these terms.

Unlike our interventions for cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, and distillation attempts, these safeguards will not be visible to the user. Fable 5 will not fall back to a different model. Instead, the safeguards will limit effectiveness through methods such as prompt modification, steering vectors, or parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT). These interventions will not affect the vast majority of coding work. We estimate they will impact ~0.03% of traffic, concentrated in fewer than 0.1% of organizations. When these interventions are active, we expect them to have minimal behavioral impact on the model except to limit its effectiveness in developing frontier LLMs. Claude will still respond helpfully to user requests. We’ll continue to improve the precision of our detection methods following the launch of this model.

(From the model card document)

I didn't previously understand that they interpreted "Using Claude to develop competing models" so broadly. I thought that meant something like "our ToS disallow distilling our models."

Too bad. I'll continue to use Claude for now, because it's quite effective, but in the long term I don't want powerful models like these to be controlled by any one nation or company.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#83
At this point Anthropic is a pure marketing and PR company. Super catchy names like Opus, Mythos and Fable trying to get you to think that these software products are actually super-human life changing experiences. Boris Cherny coming to HN “Hi! it’s Boris from the Claude Code team” to get real tech people’s goodwill.

From Opus 4.6 there are no noticeable improvements for me in code generation. It works very well, till 90% completion, if you guide it correctly. And you need a little luck. For serious production code I need to understand what I’m doing so it helps a bit, sometimes.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#84
post #46

Pelican for Fable 5 on default settings is a clear improvement on Opus 4.8 Fable 5 default: https://gist.github.com/simonw/036bee5a703e7ec84e34efa974438... Opus 4.8 (the "max" one is closest to Fable): https://simonwillison.net/2026/May/28/claude-opus-4-8/#and-s... Now here are the Fable pelicans for all five of the thinking effort levels - low, medium, high, xhigh, max: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-r…

Looks like Fable constructed the "max" "looking" pelican of the previous model for the "xhigh" output token count of the previous model.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#86
post #46

Pelican for Fable 5 on default settings is a clear improvement on Opus 4.8 Fable 5 default: https://gist.github.com/simonw/036bee5a703e7ec84e34efa974438... Opus 4.8 (the "max" one is closest to Fable): https://simonwillison.net/2026/May/28/claude-opus-4-8/#and-s... Now here are the Fable pelicans for all five of the thinking effort levels - low, medium, high, xhigh, max: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-r…

I'm beginning to wonder how much of a useful metric the pelican is because surely the frontier labs must be training their models on pelican-artistry because of how well known your test is now?

Re: Claude Fable 5

#87
Another thing to note: 30-day retention for all traffic on Mythos-class models

Is it good or bad? 30 days is a long time for anything bad to happen

Re: Claude Fable 5

#88

Unrelated, but while the tech of anthropic seems to get more impressive with every passing month, their support has taken a nosedive, sadly. Yet they continue to be the favorite. Model performance is deciding above all else. I used to get a response within 24 hours back in the Claude 1 days. In January 2026, it took 2 weeks. For my latest support inquiry, I've been waiting for over 8 weeks for a response. Eight!

I've never engaged with their support (I have dedicated POC), but they don't use AI for their support?

Re: Claude Fable 5

#89

[flagged]

I don't really consider that a great benchmark anyway and we really need better ones that are objective instead of these mostly performative and cheatable and also available in the training set.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#90

For those of us on subscription plans: * From today through June 22, Fable 5 is included on Pro, Max, Team, and seat-based Enterprise plans at no extra cost. * On June 23, we’ll remove Fable 5 from those plans. Using it after that will require usage credits. If capacity allows, we’ll extend the included window. * After this point—when sufficient capacity allows us to do so—we aim to restore Fable 5 as a standard part…

Considering their apparent nerfing of the end user plans in favor of enterprise clients, is Anthropic still the "more ethical AI company" like everybody loves to tell me all the time?

Assuming this isn't just a supply issue on their side, nothing says "ethical AI" like only allowing mega corporations to use it through cost barriers.

Post reply on HN