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

Department of Commerce has lifted export controls on Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 736 posts

Re: Department of Commerce has lifted export controls on Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5

#301

Post by aenis »

qingcharles wrote: post #244
artisin wrote: post #224

Silly me for hoping they'd actually honor their original 14-day promise. Per their latest blog post, they've generously slashed the timeline to 7 days, but wait there's more! It's now limited to 50% of your weekly usage: > Fable 5 will be available starting tomorrow, Wednesday, July 1, to users globally... Fable 5 will be included for up to 50% of weekly usage limits through July 7, after which it will be available v…

Yeah, this seems a bit Scrooge-y after all the trouble which was essentially of their own making. I was expecting them to come back with a better deal as an apology, not a worse one.

I assume what they saw during the first coming of Fable gave them pause. Lots of people I know were using it non stop to the point of serious sleep deprivation. I managed to burn 6k in 3 days on it, and was myself using it from the minute it landed till the minute it was shut off. (Yes yes, I know, I am just saying there were stupid people like me swarming the available capacity)

Re: Department of Commerce has lifted export controls on Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5

#302

Post by SwellJoe »

felipeerias wrote: post #290
rafram wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4.6 was released at the beginning of February, so if the Chinese models only "tickle its tail," that means they're >5 months behind.

That comparison is also misleading because Opus 4.6 was probably not Anthropic's frontier model. We got the first news about Mythos in March, so it is likely that it was already close to ready by the time Opus 4.6 was released. So the actual gap is the time elapsed between March (or April for the official announcement) and whenever Chinese models can match Mythos.

The post-training process of a model that size is months, though it "works" before that. It is a big chunky model before it's released to the world and probably does some amazing things, sometimes...but, it wasn't done (else why wouldn't they release it and soundly trounce their competitors). I would assume that Chinese AI companies have a pipeline and what we see is a couple/few months behind their newest model, as well. Like, the new base model is cooked, but they're still plating it for service.

Why would Anthropic get the benefit of pre-release models counting toward their lead, if nobody else gets to count their pre-release models?

Re: Department of Commerce has lifted export controls on Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5

#303

Post by dgellow »

cjbgkagh wrote: post #92
brazukadev wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

do you think your current operation and niche is so optimized that not using Fable would put you out of business? Or is this a hope that using Fable will allow you to stay in business?

I am on track to commoditize my niche industry, and I hope I can do it before anyone else beats me to it. I'm working at panic speeds.

So, no moat right?

Re: Department of Commerce has lifted export controls on Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5

#304

Post by miki123211 »

Aurornis wrote: post #269
drevil-v2 wrote: post #29

The damage is done. You cannot build a business critical function on top of American SOTA frontier model. Especially not with the current crew in charge. Now whether AI tech is in the same league as say Nuclear tech and therefore by any reasonable standard should be regulated is a different question. We hit the slippery slope on a random day in June 2026 and there is no putting the genie back in the bottle. Any exec…

> The damage is done. You cannot build a business critical function on top of American SOTA frontier model. Especially not with the current crew in charge. The switching costs of changing LLM providers is as low as it gets. All the individuals and startups I know try different models all of the time, even down to the level of choosing which provider to use based on the task. Bigger companies move slower but only beca…

Exactly!

Even if you won't be able to use some model tomorrow, you can still make money by using it today!

And in the age of limited compute, spiky workloads and constant outages, building a mechanism to fallback to a weaker model when your primary choice isn't available is smart anyway.

Re: Department of Commerce has lifted export controls on Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5

#305

Post by eru »

benjaminwootton wrote: post #174
jasondigitized wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any competitive business will accept this risk if it gives them any type of edge no matter the duration of that edge. This is no different that using an exotic raw material.

Every big business in the world biases towards risk reduction and cost reduction over getting an edge.

Different businesses have different biases.

Re: Department of Commerce has lifted export controls on Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5

#306

Post by AdieuToLogic »

CookieCrisp wrote: post #280
AdieuToLogic wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice strawman[0], but you avoided answering my core question: Speed of what? With ad hominems and a non sequitur. How about I narrow the question with the hope it engenders a relevant response: How do LLMs increase the speed of a person understanding what needs to be done? 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

This argument feels like A: The sky is blue! B: No it's not. A: Yes, it is, please look up. B: No, you must prove it to me through reason. A: But, if you would just pretty please look up. B: No. I run a company, I've been running it for 10 years, we do alright. I'm a shitty manager. Every time I've hired developers, the business freezes. The business isn't anything super important, the main consequence of bugs is tha…

This is a great case for the benefits of using GenAI, in that you already possess an understanding of what you want to achieve. You know what it is you want to prototype, what is on your "giant list of 'maybe somedays if I ever get to breathe' list", what you want to end up delivering.

My point is and remains:

  A) GenAI did not give you this understanding.
  B) GenAI can only assist in your expressing this
     preexisting understanding.
  C) GenAI is a statistical token (text) generator and
     cannot, by definition, "make" a person understand
     what they want/need to do.

Re: Department of Commerce has lifted export controls on Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5

#307

Post by solenoid0937 »

rvz wrote: post #156
toddmorey wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I predict we all be using the hell out of fable until the next great model comes around and in two weeks we won’t be talking about the export controls anymore. We just don’t have the attention span. Nobody should be putting loadbearing weight on Amazon or Microsoft with their ruthless monopoly ambitions, yet here we are

> I predict we all be using the hell out of fable until the next great model comes around and in two weeks we won’t be talking about the export controls anymore. Until it goes down, or Anthropic raises prices again. Fable is already expensive to use compared to GLM and they want you to use the API as much as possible so you get a worse deal.

Why would you compare Fable to GLM? What a bizarre comparison. They're at least two generations/tiers of intelligence apart. GLM is great and I use it often but it might as well be Sonnet when compared to Fable.

Re: Department of Commerce has lifted export controls on Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5

#308

Post by marcus_holmes »

mlyle wrote: post #266
SwellJoe wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What range of numbers do you believe "a few" represents?

Opinions vary, but: A couple: usually 2, though not always A few: 3, 4, 5 Several: 4, 5, 6, or 7.

> A couple: usually 2, though not always

I had to explain this to my German friend. In my understanding this isn't about the actual number, it's about the certainty. If it's absolutely and definitely two, then I say two. If I'm uncertain but it's probably two, or if a non-integer, somewhere around two, then I say couple.

And few is more likely to be 3 than 5, because 5 is getting close to a "half-dozen or so", or (as you say) several.

Many is very context-sensitive, as the meme has it.

So I would agree that the open models are a few months behind, definitely more than a couple of months behind, possibly several months behind, maybe a half-dozen months or so behind, but not many months behind.

Re: Department of Commerce has lifted export controls on Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5

#309

Post by meowface »

bluepeter wrote: post #202

Fable 5 apparently can't be used for coding? (This is from Anthropic's announcement.) > After a series of productive conversations with the US government, we're redeploying the model with a new set of classifiers to target and block more cybersecurity tasks. In the near term, some routine tasks like coding and debugging will fall back to Opus 4.8. Edit: the above was from their tweet announcement at https://x.com/Ant…

Yes, I am pretty sure it was simply poorly worded.

They almost definitely mean "you will notice even more false positives during seemingly routine coding/debugging tasks than you did at the initial launch". Which is not surprising, given the ordeal they've been put through. Hopefully it won't be too bad.

The main depressing thing for me is it's now only 7 days on the subscription, and then full API pricing, with no mention of even a plan to bring it back to the subscription in the future. (The initial launch mentioned two weeks of subscription, then API pricing, then a hope to return it back to the subscription not long after.)

Re: Department of Commerce has lifted export controls on Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5

#310

Post by watwut »

satvikpendem wrote: post #142
cedws wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have plenty of experience with LLMs and use them daily but definitely wouldn't call generated code "quality code." Often looks like complete vomit.

If you're an enterprise (including startups), you worry about customers, not code quality. There are famously many startups that gained traction despite shit code and then eventually got around to fixing it, to whatever extent was possible, like Facebook HHVM, Stripe's Sorbet, etc.

Startups failed because they cound not untangle own code after 4 months. Literally true stories (plural).
Post reply on HN