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

271–280 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#271

Post by a2ff6eeb0 »

sroussey wrote: post #192
sroussey wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"this watermark is invisible to anyone who does not have the detection API" 1. This is BS since i can detect it when it writes about my codebase 2. I do not want secret codes being written inside my codebase, or anyone else's codebase that i use. The constraints of how to code why eliminate it from code itself... but there is a lot riding on the word "may". And even if it is just comments, this might explain Claude's…

What did you score on https://sgoedecke.github.io/watermark-quiz/ ?

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#273

Post by moffkalast »

unshavedyak wrote: post #236
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…

And word on Opus 5.1 for writing style? I am on the edge of switching to OpenAI due to this horrid writing style. If Fable is better, great - but i can't even use that at work.

I'd like to know too, I mean GPTs are in their own class of cringe, but Opus is by far the worst of all Anthropic's models in terms of style, Fable 5.0 was already leagues better.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#274

Post by ceroxylon »

The thing with Fable-level models is that I will never feel comfortable using them for agentic tasks on a pay-as-you-go API pricing plan without monitoring them strictly, which becomes a chore.

I once caught Fable 5 spinning its wheels on a rendering issue, which evaporated 90% of my usage in a single prompt. I could never let Fable run free attached to a credit card without staring at it the whole time.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#275

Post by Taikonerd »

pixl97 wrote: post #174
velcrovan wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a pet theory that the Opus prose style/smell we all have grown weary of is due at least in part to the models writing more for themselves and each other than for humans. They're packing lots of signal into fewer words and they don't care if it sounds cringe because it works better as glue in long-running tasks. I'm also thinking of the 2017 novel "Void Star" where AIs who operate everything have long since lef…

>ceased bothering with human languages, Our current AIs would do this now except there is a lot of human pushback in training because of interpretability. Otherwise it's just an emergent behavior that models will encode shorter token strings to complex concepts because it saves tokens/compute when running making the system more efficient (supertokens). Of course these supertokens or other forms of language compressio…

This is like a plot point in the old sci-fi movie Colossus: the Forbin Project.[0]

In the movie, America and the Soviet Union have both developed an AI. The two AIs are linked, and they rapidly shift from speaking human languages, to speaking in sequences of numbers that the onlooking humans can't understand.

Spoiler alert: this all goes horribly wrong for humanity.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus%3A_The_Forbin_Project

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#276

Post by bryanlarsen »

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…

Does it fix my favorite pet peeve, the overuse of the wrong meaning of "fail closed"?

"Fail open" usually refers to a fuse that opens and kills power, meaning the system is inert and safe on failure.

"Fail closed" is the opposite -- system has power and is live.

Computer security people have appropriated the term but use it for the completely opposite meaning. When your work straddles electrical engineering and computer security the best way to avoid confusion is just to never use the term.

I can tell my Claude to never use the term, but of course now I'm seeing it everywhere in comments from other people and it drives me batty.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#278

Post by cflewis »

peab wrote: post #191
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…

I just can't stand how often Claude says something like "And the honest part? It's..." Like, were the other parts not honest? I don't understand how Anthropic let it get like this, it's been such a clear regression

Geminis is "it really is". The Notebook podcasters use it _constantly_.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#280

Post by lelanthran »

belval wrote: post #86
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…

As a fervent Claude Code user who made the switch to GPT 5.6 Sol over Opus 5 over hard-to-read prose this makes me happy. I love your product but the current models are very hard to work with if you need to do a lot of context switching. Brevity is key.

> Brevity is key.

I've found that models interpret "brevity" as "incomprehensible".

Post reply on HN