We never got updated Haiku model and it's a shame. Not everyone and everything needs PHD level knowledge/reasoning, in fact it's really rare you need Fable level of knowledge/reasoning for vast majority of users...
Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
351–360 of 740 posts
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#352It does seem like diminishing (perceptual|valuable) returns to intelligence is antithetical to exponential capitalization growth. Even if we can get the models to Einstein level, maybe we just don’t need that to, say, mow the lawn.
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#353Wow the sentiment here is so negative. I'm on the $200 plan (work pays) and I also have the $20 OpenAI plan (I pay) and keep a balance on OpenRouter. There is nothing as good as Fable, not even close. I recently had it run a 18 hour autonomous rebuild of a project (moving from Spark to Pandas for performance/data size trade off issues). It orchestrated Opus sub-agents flawlessly for 18 hours. It even did a great job…
You could just write decent specs, or generate decent specs and get this done in 1/5th of the time with smaller models. Complete waste of electricity to run $500k in GPUs full throttle, if not more, for 18 hours straight to migrate from spark to pandas. Maybe try using your brain.
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#354For 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 fo…
While there's no linter for writing contracts, my experience (as a commercial lawyer) is that frontier LLMs are far better and error checking and far quicker at writing than the average senior lawyer. The main thing holding back further deployment (in my jurisdiction) are concerns around data residency, privilege and how fundamentally it will break an industry that is so heavily reliant on time based billing.
But isn’t “writing a linter for contracts” the thing we need and probably would solve?
Coding agents are great because they have compilers, linters, test cases etc to ground themselves in.
With tools like OKF I’m sure most knowledge work would be distilled to its core data - it’s AST if you will, and then allow models to guard against hallucinations.
Checking if a case law exists is a tool call, you can demand provenance, it’s all _buildable_.
Hallucinations are “solvable” this way, so the rest is just time and adoption…
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#355I’m constantly disappointed by Anthropic’s models.
I become more disillusioned every day.
It seems like, by having the models write Python code, they tend to write Python code like an average developer. Which is to say, quite bad.
Add in the complete failure of the models to adhere to instructions in Claude.md, memory files, and added multiple times in prompts, I’m wasting huge amounts of time fixing bad design decisions that the model just slips in.
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#356Wow the sentiment here is so negative. I'm on the $200 plan (work pays) and I also have the $20 OpenAI plan (I pay) and keep a balance on OpenRouter. There is nothing as good as Fable, not even close. I recently had it run a 18 hour autonomous rebuild of a project (moving from Spark to Pandas for performance/data size trade off issues). It orchestrated Opus sub-agents flawlessly for 18 hours. It even did a great job…
I think you need to spend more time with Sol. If you think there is nothing even close to as good as Fable - my guess is you haven’t spent as much time getting as familiar with working with those models as you have with Claude’s. Codex is more token efficient and tends to get better results than Fable with less need for extreme token burning shenanigans like 18 hours of subagents. I spend 10+ hours a day in both agen…
My sense is that Fable 5 has “taste”. But Sol gets to work and gets shit done. I reserve Fable for when things need a refresh or if I want a flawless front end. Sol does the majority of actual work. I max out two of each at the Max/Pro level every week.
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#357Wow the sentiment here is so negative. I'm on the $200 plan (work pays) and I also have the $20 OpenAI plan (I pay) and keep a balance on OpenRouter. There is nothing as good as Fable, not even close. I recently had it run a 18 hour autonomous rebuild of a project (moving from Spark to Pandas for performance/data size trade off issues). It orchestrated Opus sub-agents flawlessly for 18 hours. It even did a great job…
> $200 plan (work pays) so violating the TOS? Or work pays for a plan you cannot use at work?
I have no idea what you think violates the TOS here?
I was doing work at work on a work task using a plan paid for by work.
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a weird non-sequitur. P.S. batteries are the answer, hope this helps
Yeah just had a power engineer and physicist out for lunch and batteries are the answer (according to them)
Funny I'm a physicist and worked as a power grid quant.
Batteries aren't the answer.
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#359Wow the sentiment here is so negative. I'm on the $200 plan (work pays) and I also have the $20 OpenAI plan (I pay) and keep a balance on OpenRouter. There is nothing as good as Fable, not even close. I recently had it run a 18 hour autonomous rebuild of a project (moving from Spark to Pandas for performance/data size trade off issues). It orchestrated Opus sub-agents flawlessly for 18 hours. It even did a great job…
> $200 plan (work pays) so violating the TOS? Or work pays for a plan you cannot use at work?
What are the consequences? This likely doesn’t matter to most
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#360My company still hasn’t been able to deploy wide access to Fable because it’s not available on a ZDR basis. This wasn’t mentioned in the article but I imagine this factor is not irrelevant.
The same for my organization. It's explicitly forbidden in my organization because it's not available with ZDR.
I get where it's coming from but I think it is also very funny if someone actually believes their claims (except as a CYA strategy)
The AI companies have already shown how little they care about other peoples intellectual property and they won't care about their customers either if it stands between them and the promises they made to their investors.