521–530 of 1001 posts
I think the most important thing here is not absolute performance. It's that organizations now have access to a Fable-ish model without Fable's 30-day data retention requirement[0]. > "Consistent with prior Opus models, Opus 5 does not have data retention requirements for general access."[1] On the Opus model release page, the reason why Fable doesn't have an ARC-AGI score is because of that retention policy[2]. 0: h…
What's the point of 150 pages description of a model that's going to be replaced in a couple months? Who even reads this? I know it's cheap to generate text with LLMs, but this is just noise at this point.
Not just in what the models can or might want to do, but how they treat the operators they interact with.
If you look carefully, this card shows the addition of a new benchmark for "condescension" as a character trait.
I think a lot of people would like to see a comparable system card for the unannounced model that escaped openai last week.
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?
Their communication is confusing. They say "Opus 5 is not more capable overall than Fable 5", but their blog post proceeds to list how much better Opus 5 is than Fable 5 on __most__ benchmarks listed. Then system card goes on to "Its AI R&D capabilities are comparable to those of Claude Mythos 5", which is supposed to be fable minus restrictions.
Easy enough to explain: they're benchmaxxing. Fable is intelligent but not benchmaxxed. Opus is less intelligent but benchmaxxed.
I have a personal benchmark suite of 14 real, non-public tasks. Opus 5 and Fable tied on 10, Opus won on 3, and Fable won on 1. It's a really strong model.
Wait, 30% on ARC-AGI-3! I definitely didn't expect that jump so soon. Are there any rumors of what they are changing in architecture that is leading to this?
Seems to me the purpose of all these releases, credits, pricing changes, harness changes, unpredictable token usages for the same task, etc. is to keep customers completely befuddled so that it's impossible to compare AI products. It's like hiring a consultant who sends invoices every month that aren't related to hours worked or project progress, but are whatever the consultant feels like billing, and you're expected…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Switch to K3 and you won’t look back, I promise!! I got so fed up with Claude and finally bit the bullet to switch and it’s amazing
I really want to, but I don't have the cluster at home, and I don't use token-based billing except at DeepSeek prices.
I compared the writing style of Opus 5 vs Fable 5, and Opus 5 continues many of the "Claude-isms" of its 4.8 predecessor in a way that Fable broke away from. Opus 5 still uses "carry the argument", "worth stating plainly", ", and the trap", "The X matters more", the use of "move" We need an "annoying English" benchmark. - Fable 5 Max: https://gist.github.com/deet/3d97f854b48eac6658d642fa18bb24d... - Opus 5 Max: https…
Fable might be using those phrases less, but its writing is still terrible and exhausting to read.
I compared the writing style of Opus 5 vs Fable 5, and Opus 5 continues many of the "Claude-isms" of its 4.8 predecessor in a way that Fable broke away from. Opus 5 still uses "carry the argument", "worth stating plainly", ", and the trap", "The X matters more", the use of "move" We need an "annoying English" benchmark. - Fable 5 Max: https://gist.github.com/deet/3d97f854b48eac6658d642fa18bb24d... - Opus 5 Max: https…