Live data from Hacker News

Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

ft.com

101–110 of 740 posts

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#101
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had Fable bail on me because I used the word autopilot on a project. Changed to something unrelated, and off we went.

I haven’t hit the Fable guardrails a single time after substantial usage. And I’m working on a ML project (a game AI). I don’t doubt people are hitting it… shrugs

I’ve only hit it twice. First time was a code review. Fair.

2nd time was literally me being lazy and telling it to commit and open a PR.

Very strange.

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#102
For many coders including myself, LLM based coding agents work well enough to be useful, and in some cases worth paying for.

What I don't see is vast areas of industry finding $10s to $100s of billions of value in LLMs. There's no lint or compiler that can check for correctly constructed contracts. So LLMs, which should be useful to law firms, incur a lot more manual checking of their work than coding agents.

Less formal document production in other industries is likely to have less structure. That might not matter in some settings but I'm having trouble thinking of an example off the top of my head.

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#103
post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not agree. Fable is the only model I can leave unattended and give me results for part of my work which is just devops related tasking. I can hand hold opus but I would rather just ask fable to do it and give me the result that I review and works. Opus will waste tokens and still require me to help nudge it in the right directions. I think the next gen models from china will put us in a spot that the cost can pl…

I second the parent comment. 5.6 sol xhigh is not only better than fable I can also run it forever without worrying about limits. The frontend has gotten much better too with the plugins that come with codex.

Agreed. I have the highest individual plan for both. I run out of Fable credits midweek, while I usually have some credit with Chatgpt left despite it having to carry Fables load for the second half of the week.

Also, Sol doesn't refuse constantly and speaks like an engineer rather than a deranged academic.

Opus 5 is legitimately terrible and can't or won't follow instructions. It is of negative utility and does more harm than good to my codebase.

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#104

Fable is just way too expensive and limited compared to GPT 5.6 Sol, and the only task that requires that level of intelligence is frontier scientific research. I use GPT/Codex primarily for coding and usually keep Claude on Sonnet 5 most of the time as I use Claude primarily to debug/brainstorm/make frontends as a supplement to GPT.

In a frontier scientific research environment, funding is often limited, so personal subscriptions are more common. Fable can hit a 5-hour usage limit on the Max subscription tier before it finishes a single complex math prompt. Most of the time you get one or two if you reduce context and question complexity. Most of my colleagues are cancelling their subscriptions because of that, and just using Sol instead, which is virtually unlimited on the Pro tier.

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#105

"Almost Nobody Is Using Anthropic’s Fable 5" - https://analyticsindiamag.com/ai-features/almost-nobody-is-u...

I'd use it if I could get through a 5 hour session without exhaustion my usage limit.

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#106
post #70

I’m not sure if the underlying data is counting subscription use for Fable, which is where a lot of people are using it because token pricing is very expensive. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was counting enterprise token usage only. As rich as enterprise customers are, they’re not exactly willing to double the cost of SWE salaries on tokens. Either way, a model used to solve the top 10% of problems that people use…

Very much agree on Fable. Over the past month or so it has shown to be the only Anthropic model that can understand a largish dbt model codebase. Opus 5 gets almost everything wrong. (High reasoning on both)

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish Fable were as good as you make it sound. A plan created by Fable is good, but in my case, it always contain issues caught only when it's reviewed again (whether by itself, Opus, Sol etc.). That's (almost) not different from plans created by Sol, GLM 5.3 etc. The one thing where it's genuinely better is the front-end, but then again it's far from perfect, it just needs less iterations.

Fable does far better at considering the whole picture, weighing options, and making suggestions during architecture or refactoring discussions. It’s more reliable and makes less dumb errors than Opus. It still messes up, of course. But for my working style, I definitely prefer it.

Exactly. Use Fable to draft the plan and make decisions. Less capable models to implement the plan.

That said, Opus 5 is broken. Use 4.8 or another vendor for the build agent.

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#108

im using fable almost exclusively, i just buy a new 200$ license if i run out of capacity. its so much better, easily worth it given how much work I get done. I built a code, deploy, e2e test loop with my full aws infra, fable just implements linear tasks constantly, 5 at a time, tests the whole thing end to end if people dont see why they need a model this smart, they probably arent using ai enough

People have realized you don't always need a Fable level model. Majority of my work is sufficient with ChatGPT Luna which has effectively unlimited usage on the $100 ChatGPT plan.

I am not doing awfully complex tasks though. I imagine a lot of other people are in a similar boat, either switching from Claude to ChatGPT or even just min-maxing DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 or similar.

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#109
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had Fable bail on me because I used the word autopilot on a project. Changed to something unrelated, and off we went.

I haven’t hit the Fable guardrails a single time after substantial usage. And I’m working on a ML project (a game AI). I don’t doubt people are hitting it… shrugs

It tends to bail occasionally for me once auth-related code comes into play.

Nowadays Codex handles the bulk of the implementation and Fable/Opus on the planning.

Not sure if Anthropic patched it, but early on its release the web UI Fable guardrails will trip if you mention you're a biologist.

Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive

#110

GLM series has made it very practical to self host. If the new update for Deepseek flash holds up, I think it would be silly for some companies to not self host.

We're spending 225k a year on tokens. No reason not to buy the hardware necessary to run DS4 at this point.
Post reply on HN