Live data from Hacker News

Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

anthropic.com

31–40 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#31

Has anyone been able to get anything substantial done with Fable in the first place? I more or less had totally given up on using it since the alignment checks were so sensitive that it pretty much always threw me back to Opus.

Nope.

And the lack of thought traces make it utterly useless.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#32

Has anyone been able to get anything substantial done with Fable in the first place? I more or less had totally given up on using it since the alignment checks were so sensitive that it pretty much always threw me back to Opus.

Most of the work I've done with pgrust hasn't had issues with Fable. The only time I've had issues is when building a fuzz tester to find bugs

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#34

Has anyone been able to get anything substantial done with Fable in the first place? I more or less had totally given up on using it since the alignment checks were so sensitive that it pretty much always threw me back to Opus.

Useless for reverse-engineering the software that talks to a ten-year-old video cam + DVR system I was given, really nice for things I actually do in my day job (web dev at an agency).

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#35
“ Claude Fable 5.1's writing is generally a step up from earlier Claude models, with fewer stock phrases and less unexplained jargon. In some cases, though, its prose is denser than Claude Fable 5's: sentences run longer and there are fewer paragraph breaks.”

I cancelled my pro max Claude subscription last week; codex is much more succinct. I am curious if this is getting better.

I don’t think Anthropic realizes that humans have a token limit too and it can be exhausting to read Claude’s output. Prose density is not the same thing as succinctness.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#36
post #13

Has anyone been able to get anything substantial done with Fable in the first place? I more or less had totally given up on using it since the alignment checks were so sensitive that it pretty much always threw me back to Opus.

I hear this a lot and I believe it because I've heard it from so many people, but I have never run into this in my work, and neither has anyone I know in real life. I don't use Fable for a ton of implementation work, but I use it a lot for planning, so maybe that's related to it. For planning though, I've had a very good experience with Fable and implementing with Opus.

You can easily trip it up if you're doing reverse engineering work. From memory, the moment Fable 5 saw anything loosely related to "linux seccomp" it threw a fit.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#37
post #13

Has anyone been able to get anything substantial done with Fable in the first place? I more or less had totally given up on using it since the alignment checks were so sensitive that it pretty much always threw me back to Opus.

I hear this a lot and I believe it because I've heard it from so many people, but I have never run into this in my work, and neither has anyone I know in real life. I don't use Fable for a ton of implementation work, but I use it a lot for planning, so maybe that's related to it. For planning though, I've had a very good experience with Fable and implementing with Opus.

I don't mean to sound like I'm dismissing your experience, but are you sure? I've (semi regularly, most of the time I'm even trying to use Fable) started with Fable, proceeded through my planning, and then at some point in the future realized it had kicked me back to Opus without me knowing. It obviously _said_ it had happened, but I didn't realize and just continued. This might primarily be a result of the project I'm working on (anything network related seems to gets kicked back).

I'd guesstimate that ~80% of the time I thought I was using Fable, I wasn't actually. It's also led me to just... not even try, and just start with Opus regardless.

I've found Fable unusable; not because it's bad, but because it... can't be used.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#40
post #17
post #6

Tbh with that price , not even willing to try . What are the benefits for a regular coding agent ? I barely have any errors already with 4.8 level , eg grok 4.6 , gpt 5.6 sol/terra behind router . Why do I need to pay so much money for this ? Any reason ?

Maybe you don't! It is very possible that your problems don't actually need frontier-level artificial intelligence.

I can't tell if this is insulting or not lol
Post reply on HN