Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude Fable 5

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Fable 5

#511

Post by unshavedyak »

It's funny, i'm getting close to not caring anymore how much better a model is. I want it to be about as good as 4.8, but most importantly to be very good at following directions, style, etc. I really like Claude for that in general, but i've not measured in months so i'm not a good judge there.

I don't think i'll want to "hand off" code for several years, and so reviewing and iterating is becoming my #1 interest. A model that's as capable as 4.8 but 10x faster would be amazing for me.

Normally i'm first in line to try new models with Anthropic since i've clearly favored Claude in my personal tests, but this time i just don't think i care. 4.8 is capable, and even if the new one is more capable i don't want it to be slower (assuming it is). Note that i also (almost) use exclusively 4.8 on Max effort, so that also affects my speed comments.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#512

Post by girfan »

mohsen1 wrote: post #436

It seems like Fable will refuse to do any work when it comes to developing LLMs or even asking questions about topics related to LLM. Simple things like asking to explain a paper fails! From the model card: 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…

This is super annoying and imo, really limits the usefulness of this model. It speaks volumes about what Anthropic's position as a company and its priorities will be going forward. I doubt this kind of gatekeeping will prevent open-models or other innovation outside Anthropic to slow down. I would imagine these guardrails, if needed at all, should be done at a legal framework level and students should not be a part of this blanket approach to limiting the usage of these models.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#514

Post by RandyRanderson »

Fable is 2x latest Opus:

  ┌─────────────────┬──────────────┬───────────────┬────────────────────┬──────────────────────┐
  
  │ Model           │ Input ($/MTok)│ Output ($/MTok)│ Batch Input (−50%) │ Batch Output (−50%)│
  
  ├─────────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼────────────────────┼──────────────────────┤
  
  │ Haiku 4.5       │    $1.00     │     $5.00     │       $0.50        │        $2.50         │
  
  │ Sonnet 4.6      │    $3.00     │    $15.00     │       $1.50        │        $7.50         │
  
  │ Opus 4.7        │    $5.00     │    $25.00     │       $2.50        │       $12.50         │
  
  │ Opus 4.8        │    $5.00     │    $25.00     │       $2.50        │       $12.50         │
  
  │ Fable 5         │   $10.00     │    $50.00     │       $5.00        │       $25.00         │
  
  └─────────────────┴──────────────┴───────────────┴────────────────────┴──────────────────────┘
Prompt caching: −90% on input tokens (all models)

US-only inference (Fable 5): +10% on input and output

Output is always 5× the input rate across all models

(I have not idea how to format this properly but the ASCII is fine)

Re: Claude Fable 5

#515

Post by skerit »

mohsen1 wrote: post #436

It seems like Fable will refuse to do any work when it comes to developing LLMs or even asking questions about topics related to LLM. Simple things like asking to explain a paper fails! From the model card: 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…

That's strange... I've been tinkering with a little LLM-from-scratch project for a while now, and Fable is just continuing it without a problem

Re: Claude Fable 5

#516

Post by foolserrandboy »

mohsen1 wrote: post #436

It seems like Fable will refuse to do any work when it comes to developing LLMs or even asking questions about topics related to LLM. Simple things like asking to explain a paper fails! From the model card: 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…

This is just marketing that Anthropic is building the singularity.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#517

Post by doginasuit »

I'm still happy with Opus 4.6 and not impressed with all the models that have come out since then. They seem to use significantly more resources with similar or worse results. Hopefully Anthropic will continue to support this tier of model and offer it in their subscriptions, but in any case, there are plenty of viable alternatives.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#518

Post by hgoel »

eggbrain wrote: post #24

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…

How much more clearly do they need to explain the resource constraints?

If they didn't announce it, you guys would be complaining about slowed progress.

If they didn't release it, you guys would be complaining about fake promises and marketing.

If they released it without limits, the complaints would be about slow responses and outages.

If they didn't add to susbcription plans, the complaints would be about phasing out subscriptions.

If they added to subscriptions with cost reflecting their resource availability, the complaints would be about how quickly it eats limits.

So they choose the middle ground of providing some initial access and assessing if they can satisfy demand, only to still be ignored and accused of trying to get users hooked?

We've already seen that they don't have enough compute, thus the deals with SpaceX for their GPUs. It's very reasonable that they just don't have the capacity to support the subscription userbase on this model.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#519

Post by YumpiLumpus »

port11 wrote: post #486
dannyw wrote: post #255

Impressions from testing Fable 5 prior to launch: • My most noticeable immediate jump was in how its frontend design was much more intentionally crafted, and delightful without feeling like 'AI vibe coded'; with better end-user usability too. • In some internal agentic harnesses, it achieved better results with about half the tokens, making it cost the ~same as Opus 4.8 price-wise! The real price increase is less tha…

I’ve had it go through a 50-page PDF of dense, inter-connected specs, and it correctly flagged everything that was done, somewhat done, and missing. It went into a lot of detail and explained where the code deviated from the spec. It felt, at least for me, light an impressive step up. Opus 4.8 was already very thorough; but sadly verbose and ‘loopy’ when you push back on its plans. Fable is what I’d use all day if I…

How do you know if it was done correctly if it's 50 pages of dense specs?

Re: Claude Fable 5

#520

Post by DonsDiscountGas »

mips_avatar wrote: post #251
bkjlblh wrote: post #220

> 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 restrictio…

It's bad that Anthropic can determine what this means. If you're building a modern app you're likely training your own embedding models and now anthropic can just silently sabotage your training pipelines?

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Unless your training pipeline involves actively querying one of Anthropic models, no they can't. And if it does you're distilling their model.
Post reply on HN