Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#181

Post by alasano »

Someone1234 wrote: post #92
tarr11 wrote: post #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…

One thing I've noticed and HATE, is that when you increase thinking-effort, that seemingly increases response-length. Meaning that X.High is longer than High, which is longer than Medium, etc. Which is kind of the inverse of how people work; a really smart person can condense difficult ideas into simple[r] terms. Whereas people who struggle speak a lot but say very little. High/X.High do seem to deliver better qualit…

It's so bad I've made myself a Pi extension that rewrites responses in side by side view using models on Cerebras (insanely fast tps)

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#182

Post by sidrag22 »

rybosworld wrote: post #61

Instead of a new model that's going to have unreasonably shallow usage limits, I wish they would: 1) address the claude 20x plan usage being only 6-7x the ceiling of the claude pro plan 2) either fix opus 5, make it completely free, or delete it entirely

Kinda surprised not to see their next update being an Opus 5.1, even if its minimal changes, they've already had to address it with the concise mode or whatever.

So my current usage as a Pro subscriber... Not able to even consider using "Sota" unless i shell out for 100$ a month, (lately i've been a bit burned out i am literally struggling to use 50% of my pro plan per week). Beyond that, I have given up entirely on the top Opus model and reverted back to 4.8. If i have work i deem somewhat complicated, i now have an openai 20$ sub, and i just toss out sol after planning with 4.8. Both subscriptions not anywhere close to capping my usage per week, one of them says i can't use their Sota unless i pay for 5x more usage, and the "best" model they do allow me to use, they are neglecting and its by far the worst model I've interacted with in 2026.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#184

Post by [deleted] »

321ahT wrote: post #116
felixrieseberg wrote: post #69

(I work at Anthropic) Beyond all the benchmarks, I think Fable 5.1 is a big improvement in writing style. It sounds a lot less stereotypically like other Claude models, has (imho) a much more natural style, and responds to my style instructions more reliably. More work to be done (and we will!) but reading better prose makes me so much happier. Another point I expect not to get much attention until it all happens at…

How is it possible that all models from xAI, OpenAI, Anthropic, Qwen etc. win all benchmarks on each release? Tomorrow all of the above (except Anthropic of course) will bump version numbers and be at the top of HN winning all benchmarks. Science breakthroughs incoming? First of all, you are already restricting science in Fable, secondly, we have been hearing the same for several years now.

[deleted]

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#185

Post by tyrabound »

sroussey wrote: post #104
felixrieseberg wrote: post #69

(I work at Anthropic) Beyond all the benchmarks, I think Fable 5.1 is a big improvement in writing style. It sounds a lot less stereotypically like other Claude models, has (imho) a much more natural style, and responds to my style instructions more reliably. More work to be done (and we will!) but reading better prose makes me so much happier. Another point I expect not to get much attention until it all happens at…

Please bring to the other models, and also please only apply the AI text watermarking only to EU citizens. I may not be able to tell when Claude writes about things i don't know, but in CC it writes about my code and it is obvious.

You’re probably better off organizing a campaign to pressure Congress to prohibit American corporations imposing foreign laws on Americans, which is what this text watermarking is, regardless of how you feel about it. I think it’s a precedent we really don’t want to go down if you believe in democracy and self-determination.

It also clearly establishes or the very least moves in the direction that you don’t actually own or control the output of AI in any manner whatsoever, you’re just paying for it since Anthropic in this case can simply essentially brand/tag all your output that is based on not directly your own words, but a higher level process or methods that you use, including your instructions and how you structure your information and what your overall objective and goal is.

Anthropic is branding it on the behest of the EU lew, which already is an entity that is diametrically opposed to democracy and self-determination based on its structure even if you ignore the fact that it violates the most fundamental concepts of self-determination in its direct contradiction of the UN Charter and implicitly the Universal Declaration of Human rights.

What people done seem to be catching onto is that the EU is becoming the world dictatorship because the USA has simply had too many onerous people and that stupid constitution and its amendments that keep roadblocks world domination for the ruling class vampire.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#186

Post by jdgoesmarching »

skiing_crawling wrote: post #103

All the benchmarks in the world don't matter if the model just straight up refuses to do mundane things. Claude has too much of an attitude.

All the benchmarks in the world don’t matter if the subscription forces you into a walled garden of slopcoded apps. I’ll stick with Codex and, increasingly, open source SOTA models.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#187

Post by alasano »

vablings wrote: post #142
jumploops wrote: post #70

> For example, in testing by the investment firm Millennium, Fable 5.1 found the cause of a rare crash on their internal systems that none of their engineers (or any other model) had been able to explain after several years of trying. Say what you will about LLM-generated code, but stories like this give me hope that software will never be as buggy as it once was.

Software will be buggier than ever but also way less buggy.

Good software will be good-er. Bad software will be nightmare fuel.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#188

Post by hungryhobbit »

MadsRC wrote: post #55

I was looking forward to using Fable for cybersecurity work, but kept getting bumped to Opus… Signed my org up for CVP, went through the trouble of procuring a separate team plan from our main org as Anthropic can only disable cyber safeguards for an entire org and not individual users… After months of trouble dealing with KYC and procurement I finally got CVP for my security org and today I found out that CVP (which…

Some of this is Anthropic, and some is the Trump administration ...

... but some is definitely Anthropic, so I'm not trying to let them off the hook; I'm just pointing out that the government is partly responsible.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#189

Post by rirze »

sva_ wrote: post #19
nezhar wrote: post #2

This time it came with a usage reset

Great, my usage reset is in 10 hours ... And my 5 hour window was due to be reset in 2 hours (barely used), now its in 5 hours - so this reset effectively gives me 1 less 5 hour reset for this weekly cycle.

Same... I think this timing aligns with a reset they gave months ago.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#190

Post by unglaublich »

eckr wrote: post #143

"Claude Mythos 5.1 is identical to Fable 5.1, but it offers more permissive safeguards for vetted individuals and organizations" Then why does it have separate datapoints for Terminal Bench, and score higher? Something doesn't add up here??

Maybe they do that opaque degradation trick that whenever it's asked something questionable, it'll route to a worse model instead.
Post reply on HN