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

Fable 5 is Back

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 438 posts

Re: Fable 5 is Back

#131

Post by Natfan »

echelon wrote: post #64
aroman wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes me think they really are quite capacity constrained at the moment. I had assumed they were primarily limiting it to entice people to upgrade, but I feel like these limits are so low and so temporary (especially over July 4th weekend in the US) that people will barely get a chance to get "used to it" and then think: "man, I can't live without this, I'll pay for API pricing".

If it's API pricing, I'm going to ditch Claude Code and switch to a harness that can jump between GLM and Claude Code. Cheap pricing is why I use Claude Code. The minute they fumble that, I'm using Chinese models for 90% of the work.

how can a harness switch between glm (a model) and claude code (another harness)?

Re: Fable 5 is Back

#132

Post by HeckFeck »

fishgoesblub wrote: post #8

Was confused, thinking I somehow missed the release of the game Fable 4, only to be disappointed when I saw this is about Claude LLM crap.

Peter Molyneux continues to re-invent himself. His newest "god game" claims to have the ability to code any game you like, on demand. Just as you'd expect from an omnipotent deity!

Re: Fable 5 is Back

#134

Post by AtNightWeCode »

bushido wrote: post #13

The loss of trust in using US based model's is unlikely to come back though. Anthropic with it's hyped doomsday messaging, and the administration falling for it (at best), has eroded a lot of trust and has triggered an arms race of sorts.

On the other side. What would happen if Anthropic did not communicate like they did and Fable was used to hack Pentagon? Dario would swing from a tree.

Re: Fable 5 is Back

#135

Post by atonse »

timpera wrote: post #63
aroman wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes me think they really are quite capacity constrained at the moment. I had assumed they were primarily limiting it to entice people to upgrade, but I feel like these limits are so low and so temporary (especially over July 4th weekend in the US) that people will barely get a chance to get "used to it" and then think: "man, I can't live without this, I'll pay for API pricing".

That's strange, because they were seemingly way less capacity constrained lately, raised limits and removed the peak hours usage. It's crazy to think that even spending $1.25 billion a month to rent GPUs from SpaceX didn't do much to improve the situation.

I don't know, I feel like for a few weeks before the SpaceX datacenter, I was just constantly checking my weekly limits. And now after that miraculously, I rarely even come close to hitting my weekly limits. and I still have 5-7 claudes open a day (defaulting to Opus 4.8 xhigh, sometimes ultracode).

So I feel that the additional datacenter caused them to just ease up a bit. But demand is also insane, so who knows...

Re: Fable 5 is Back

#136

Post by jatora »

matltc wrote: post #111
stavarotti wrote: post #80

I'll be using it tonight but grudgingly so. Grudgingly because after July 7th, I'm not going to all of a sudden, start paying API prices (and maybe that's the problem) when I'm used to a subscription that gives me multiples in comparative value. Perhaps this is the fabled "token economics will come for everyone this year" that I've been reading about? In any case, I'll use the hell out of it to extract as much as I c…

I locked my default model to opus 4.6 around the time of the nerfs. Such better results compared to 4.7+ That's enshittification for ya I guess

The claims of 4.6 or 4.7 being superior genuinely make me laugh. Adapt your workflow if needed and use the superior model instead of just kneejerk believing they actually enshittified a model with zero evidence except vibes on an undeterministic model output. Jesus.

Re: Fable 5 is Back

#138

Post by unshavedyak »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #94
maldev wrote: post #86

It won't even review a cyber security blog post I wrote. Absolutely worthless and pitiful guardrails.

I'm having it review a project Opus 4.8 created. No security review, just "look for general issues, performance problems, missing features, etc." It spawned about twenty background tasks. It's still going, but so far, one has completed, and four have failed with guardrail messages. Nothing special, just stuff like reviewing the API: Fable 5's safeguards flagged this message ( https://www.anthropic.com/legal/aup ). Th…

It's honestly kinda interesting. Now we're at a point where SOTA model companies aren't the ones who release the best tech, but who release the best and actually usable tech.

A worse product could win right now if it simply does as its asked.

Re: Fable 5 is Back

#139

Post by metadata »

ritzaco wrote: post #102
InsideOutSanta wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm having it review a project Opus 4.8 created. No security review, just "look for general issues, performance problems, missing features, etc." It spawned about twenty background tasks. It's still going, but so far, one has completed, and four have failed with guardrail messages. Nothing special, just stuff like reviewing the API: Fable 5's safeguards flagged this message ( https://www.anthropic.com/legal/aup ). Th…

yeah I'm also getting this for standard dev work, anything with kubernetes etc completely nerfs the model because you can't let it do stuff over a few hours unattended because 90% it's going to switch to opus in first 10 minutes anyway so seems best thing now is to have it write plans and then default to using opus for work anyway?

It is nerfed even just for plans. It switches to Opus in the first few minutes of me trying to build a plan to extract a component out of my larger codebase.

Trying to minimize privileged access codebase and was careful not to mention security explicitly.

Re: Fable 5 is Back

#140

Post by pheggs »

I was wrong, I thought they would only go for B2B already. But instead they will remove it from the subscription and price it at 50$/mtok. Compared to GLM-5.2 for 4.40$ that's quite a gap
Post reply on HN