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

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Fable 5

#871

Post by witx »

larodi wrote: post #792
simonw wrote: post #534

I've spent enough time with this now in Claude Code (and Claude.ai and Claude Code for web) to have an opinion on Fable 5: it's a beast. I'm throwing some VERY difficult problems at at - things I've been dragging my heels on for months - and it's crunching through them very happily. One that I'm willing to share (albeit from just a week ago) - I built a Python library last week that bundles MicroPython compiled to WA…

One thing I can tell you is you are either favored by Anthropic, or your version of the CLI does not exhaust limits, or there's some major bug, as two people around me (myself included) claim it took half an hour to hit the ceiling. Which makes it practically unusable, where the same workflow a day ago produced a good 5-6 hours of workload with several agents.

They are most likely shills from Anthropic, there's quite a few here everytime new models come out.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#872

Post by evilturnip »

niborgen wrote: post #827

It kicked me out of Fable 5 and switched to Opus 4.8 for this prompt: "csetibius water clock why two stage gear system why not just one stage" which has nothing to do with cyber security or biology/chemistry

Probably thinks you were talking about two-stage ICBMs.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#873

Post by zylepe »

teiferer wrote: post #769
simonw wrote: post #534

I've spent enough time with this now in Claude Code (and Claude.ai and Claude Code for web) to have an opinion on Fable 5: it's a beast. I'm throwing some VERY difficult problems at at - things I've been dragging my heels on for months - and it's crunching through them very happily. One that I'm willing to share (albeit from just a week ago) - I built a Python library last week that bundles MicroPython compiled to WA…

> It's possible Opus or GPT-5.5 could have done this too, I've not tried the exact same sequence. The Fable vibes are good here, though. And that's the thing. These comparisons are all gut feelings. I'm missing objective unbiased measurements to actually have real comparisons between different models, their different generations, or even just the convention that everybody adds "you are an expert software engineer" an…

Vibes are all that matter. As soon as you start measuring it, that measurement becomes a target and vendors start optimizing for it at expense of the general usefulness of the model. We’ve seen plenty of models with great benchmark scores flop when people start using it.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#874

Post by jstummbillig »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #869

My job these days is listening to Opus 4.8 (max effort) and Codex 5.5 (max effort) talk back and forth, particularly to generate/review/revise plan files. Fable 5 has been a major improvement in high-level reasoning, like taking a plan file that has been optimized to the point where neither Opus nor Codex can find anything to change about it (neither in direction nor impl-detail), and Fable 5 will find high-level dir…

How do you arrive at that split? Real world is more like senior high level planning, implementation to juniors, review senior. Does this not translate?

Re: Claude Fable 5

#875

Post by f055 »

The PR buzz convinced me so I subscribed today to Pro. Running two tasks simultaneously with Fable and Opus 4-8 on ultra reasoning, analysing a single smart contract file used all my 7h usage within 20mins and didn’t produce any results. Pretty useless. I think Anthropic has plenty of room to optimise the interactions and token use but that would cut their income quite a lot, I doubt there’s any will to do it pre-IPO.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#876

Post by busch_j »

caleblloyd wrote: post #762

I recently switched off Max flat rate to Enterprise API pricing and I went from 200/mo to 10k/mo with the same usage pattern on Opus. They don’t offer flat rate to enterprises. So Fable would cost me 20k/mo at Enterprise rates. That’s around the average cost of a loaded SWE in the USA. “But I’m >2x more productive” doesn’t justify doubling the opex of the Software/IT department for most companies when revenue isn’t e…

I work at a smaller tech company (Our top user is at 10k a month, but the next highest is $2,000.

I would say the average is around $1,000-$1,500 for a developer.

We have completely unrestricted access to Claude, Codex, and Cursor.

Funny enough, the guy spending 10k is not even a dev by trade but an SME in what we work on that just vibe codes apps and somehow has not been cut off yet lol.

I have a single thread of GPT 5.5 medium running basically all work hours and I am around $1,500 a month in spend on Enterprise pricing.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#878

Post by jstummbillig »

olelele wrote: post #870

All this talk of frontier models and replacing developers leaves me wondering how energy efficient this all is compared to just using human labor. The costs of R&D has to be calculated into the equation, especially considering global warming. I get a sense we are cooking the planet doing this. Anyone smart enough here to make the comparison?

In the "it works"* case: It's not even close. I did the math at some point (but I encourage you to talk it through with the LLM of your choice, there is obviously a lot of things to consider and weigh).

Anyhow, my research summary: Individual humans are so fucking expensive to train and upkeep (and this includes everything from before womb, where another human already limits their ability to work) You retain ~zero knowledge after death and start all over again for another measly 15 years of effective, productive work. Model training/r&d in relation, when deployed and used at scale, rounds to zero, even with the current retraining regime.

*Of course, the ratio can go to negative infinite if one assumes that models are doing 0 useful work currently and never will

Re: Claude Fable 5

#880

Post by alecco »

teiferer wrote: post #769
simonw wrote: post #534

I've spent enough time with this now in Claude Code (and Claude.ai and Claude Code for web) to have an opinion on Fable 5: it's a beast. I'm throwing some VERY difficult problems at at - things I've been dragging my heels on for months - and it's crunching through them very happily. One that I'm willing to share (albeit from just a week ago) - I built a Python library last week that bundles MicroPython compiled to WA…

> It's possible Opus or GPT-5.5 could have done this too, I've not tried the exact same sequence. The Fable vibes are good here, though. And that's the thing. These comparisons are all gut feelings. I'm missing objective unbiased measurements to actually have real comparisons between different models, their different generations, or even just the convention that everybody adds "you are an expert software engineer" an…

> These comparisons are all gut feelings.

https://simonwillison.net/about/#disclosures

"I have not accepted payments from LLM vendors, but I am frequently invited to preview new LLM products and features from organizations that include OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini and Mistral, often under NDA or subject to an embargo. This often also includes free API credits and invitations to events."

But I'm totally unbiased on my gut-feeling posts, trust me bro.

-- AI influencers.

Post reply on HN