Live data from Hacker News

Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

anthropic.com

401–410 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#401
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 don't think they care about humans... ... ...

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#402

(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…

> I think Fable 5.1 is a big improvement in writing style

You think or is it better? Or you just YOLOed the model out?

> and responds to my style instructions more reliably.

Yeah, yeah. Previous models wete also advertised as "being reliable". To the poibt @bcherny "released" a new style that was going to reliably make Fable sound better.

> Another point I expect not to get much attention until it all happens at once is science.

You mean "your request to use unicode methids is flagged as unsafe bio research"?

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#403

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…

> They're packing lots of signal into fewer words There's a huge difference between the kind of prose you see in final output vs CoT windows. The final output is very much not what I'd call "packing lots of signal into fewer words" (aside perhaps from "Claude-isms" being easy enough to scan for if for some reason you actually wanted to scan for them, which other agents might want to for all I know); and if agents are…

It's all about conducting users into using their plans/tokens in accordance to a certain cadence

sometimes by increasing human cognitive load during reviews, sometimes by expanding the number of gated decisions, sometimes by penalizing those using their accounts on other harnesses

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#404

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

I'm legitimately out of the loop; what is going on/broken with Opus 5?

It's a great story teller. Not really a good expert though.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#405
I am finding that I am now less interested in better models than I am in token budgets. My issue with Anthropic models now is that I don't feel like I can rely on them as a daily driver because they'll dry up before my quota resets.

I am becoming dependent on AI to make a living, and I need predictable spend on it. If I know I can't use a model regularly all month, my enthusiasm is limited.

I urge Anthropic to get better at this aspect of their business so I can come back to it.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#406

(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…

Hey Felix, I'm really glad for that! And I appreciate that you're making yourself available. I really do. Outreach is amazing. And thanks for making Claude. I really do love Claude. In some ways, I'm asking this question because of just how much I am grateful for the role Claude has played in my life. > Fable 5.1 more than doubled Fable 5's Terminal-Bench-Science [1] score, which I think is meaningful. But my honest…

Hypothetically, when the user is asking how to remove fungus from their tomatoes they’re actually growing controlled narcotics. You have been demoted to Jimmy 0.7 model, running at 0.1 tokens per second on an old C64

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#407
post #191
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

Sometimes Opus 5 (high/xhigh) feels like I'm dealing with the programmer equivalent of Zeno of Elea.

Every time, without fail, it would get me 90% of the way there and then leave a small note, exception, or deferral. When instructed to address that, Opus would somehow take nearly the same amount of time as the first 90%. And then it would finish with yet another deferral. Repeat ad infinitum.

You can sometimes get around it using the `goal` directive provided you are not subject to the constraints of mortality.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#408
post #144

Pelicans for thinking effort low, medium, high and xhigh (that xhigh one is pretty good): https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer#url=ht... I'm still waiting for effort max to finish. EDIT: I fixed a bug in my tooling so it now records summarized reasoning traces - here's that max pelican, which is a significant improvement: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer#url=ht... Took just under…

Even added a little hat for the pelican!

I think it's a bicycle helmet!

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#409

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…

It's the complete opposite, it's filled with unreadable noise with almost no signal. It's not some sci-fi thing, most plausible explanation is cost saving measures. Economics drive everything. And Opus 5 and to a lesser extent Fable 5 have clearly been quantised, or they serve different models to different users from various factors, like usage patterns, API vs subs and server load. Here's a tragically funny but high…

Brilliant!

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#410
post #303

Why aren’t these models available on subscription plans? I tried the old fable and it didn’t seem worth paying for. It still made errors like Opus does so I might as well use the included model…

I am using Fable 5.1 right now on Max

It’s pay per token on regular team plan last I looked.
Post reply on HN