581–590 of 1001 posts
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…
I wish I could just go back to the days before AI and cell phones. The world seemed to move fast then, but it really hadn't yet.
Doing testing with it now, specifically for image->html conversion. Previously Fable was the best at this, followed by Gemini 3.1 pro (a surprising #2, but Google has great vision models). Opus' results seem to be more accurate than Fable, following the design source of truth better. Example results: Design source of truth: https://image.non.io/73e239a3-880f-4793-b65f-4810be2d9378.we... Opus 5 build: https://html.non…
I was curious to see how open weight models would do on this task so I passed in a screenshot of your source of truth and here's what 2 of the best code-generation models that allow image inputs do: Inkling (not too great): https://cdn-uploads.huggingface.co/production/uploads/608b8b... Kimi 2.7 (really well, esp. note that this is the predecessor model, not the latest Kimi3): https://cdn-uploads.huggingface.co/produ…
Opus 5 is considered the most intelligent model[0], while it's half the price of Fable 5[1], and Anthropic is still positioning Fable 5 as the most capable model[2]. Is it because maybe Anthropic engineered Opus 5 to work well on benchmarks and didn't do the same thing to Fable 5, or is there another reason? [0]: https://artificialanalysis.ai/#intelligence [1]: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing…
That’s what I understand looking at what has been released, but it’s not really clear. The pricing is lower than I expected, I’m wondering what their margin is
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Easy enough to explain: they're benchmaxxing. Fable is intelligent but not benchmaxxed. Opus is less intelligent but benchmaxxed.
Honestly that's the simplest explanation and thus likely the correct one.
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…
I've found Opus 4.8 and Fable 5 both difficult to learn from purely because of how annoying their writing style is. I'm finding GPT 5.6 Sol to be much better for this.
Half the price of Fable 5 and useable with 100% of your subscription means roughly 4x the usage using Opus 5, presuming similar token use for solving problems. Not that they should get credit for giving you only 50% of your plan worth of Fable usage but still.
There is a expiring soon 50% boost to your usage limits, so I think its 2.7x not 4x what you are seeing right now. I think, but its convoluted :)
Doing testing with it now, specifically for image->html conversion. Previously Fable was the best at this, followed by Gemini 3.1 pro (a surprising #2, but Google has great vision models). Opus' results seem to be more accurate than Fable, following the design source of truth better. Example results: Design source of truth: https://image.non.io/73e239a3-880f-4793-b65f-4810be2d9378.we... Opus 5 build: https://html.non…
Please share your prompt to convert image to html!
Tried it, Opus 5 is just as conceited and incompetent and Opus 4.8 (and always ego-tripping when facing it's contradictions), think I'll stay with Fable who behaves like a professional without a fragile ego. Sonnet 5 is probably safer for high-assurance applications due to it's non-ego-fragility.