371–380 of 1001 posts
That's a crazy arc 3 score. What do people think of this? Are models actually developing fluid intelligence like what the creators claim to be measuring? Is it jus do to training for it? Is the benchmark flawed?
Wake me when they deliver Opus 4.8 level performance for $5 per million tokens.
The naming system is so confusing. Is Opus better than Sonnet? Where does Haiku fit in? How can you tell from the name? I can't keep track of all these names or make guesses from the names. Suggestion for a better naming system: use the words "Pro", "Plus", etc.: Claude 5 Pro, Claude 5 Standard, Claude 5 Fast, Claude 5 Mini.
Fable is better than Opus which is better than Sonnet which is better than Haiku. They’re basically just sizes. Though it gets even more confusing because they also have effort levels so it’s not really possible to call one fast and one slow since Fable on Medium will be faster than Opus on Max. I agree it’s confusing, and now OpenAI is following Anthropic’s lead with their new naming (Sol, Terra, Luna).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like how they highlighted Opus 5 as the best for “Agentic Coding” even though the number is slightly lower than Fable. Close enough for marketing, I guess!
Best can describe multiple things. Almost as good for half the cost is something I'm very comfortable describing that way.
It's also not unusual in this context - many people describe the Chinese models as "best", because it's 80% as good for 20% of the price (or similar).
Is Fable 5 just Opus 5 with some additional long-context management modifications for extended self-directed work? Or are they actually truly different models?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Model Routing will always be done better by models themselves. Plus routing loses context making it more expensive and less reliable. Model Routing is just Bitter lesson. The models themselves will get better at this and frontier companies will simply give that capability
This doesn’t seem obviously true, eg an Anthropic model will never route to Kimi even if it were best suited for a particular task.
Isn’t it just hilarious that a model that seemed so superior to Fable but didn't get doomsay marketing from Anthropic got released without any issues? In theory, this was supposed to be AGI level according to Anthropic, yet here we are, just a normal Friday.
So unless doomsday actually happens then you're unhappy with the warning - is that right? You see false promises of apocalypse as marketing?
It creates the MacBook svg way better than 4.8, yet only fable can make it perfect without visual defects. Results similar to Kimi K3.