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

411–420 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#411

Post by LtdJorge »

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 much more of that. The Claudish language makes me dizzy, and it's very difficult to steer the model to not include it.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#413

Post by setgree »

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…

> In some cases, though, its prose is denser than Claude Fable 5's: sentences run longer and there are fewer paragraph breaks.”

This sentence reads like Claude wrote it. Perhaps it did, or perhaps Claude has learned to write like the folks who work at Anthropic?

(Had I edited this, I would have said that a colon is not the right separator here. The second clause does not _explain_ the first, per se, bur instead expands upon it. Consider instead: "In some cases, however, its prose is denser than Claude Fable 5's, with longer sentences and fewer paragraph breaks.")

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#414

Post by perching_aix »

setgree wrote: post #413
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…

> In some cases, though, its prose is denser than Claude Fable 5's: sentences run longer and there are fewer paragraph breaks.” This sentence reads like Claude wrote it. Perhaps it did, or perhaps Claude has learned to write like the folks who work at Anthropic? (Had I edited this, I would have said that a colon is not the right separator here. The second clause does not _explain_ the first, per se, bur instead expan…

Going off of vibes, I guess this would call for a semicolon or an em-dash?

Also, could be just Claude rubbing off on them than it being Claude authored. I'd imagine they read it quite a bit.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#415

Post by mywittyname »

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…

> "red_ball bounce calcium"

Claude, translate this from Claudish into human.

>"[redacted]"

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#416

Post by gwd »

dgellow wrote: post #369
belval wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 means less output tokens, which doesn’t really align with the AI vendors incentives (unless there is a causal relationship with people switching, of course). Though Claude 5 is not too verbose, it’s more like, full of incomprehensible jargon (even when you’re expert in the domain discussed!)

> Brevity means less output tokens, which doesn’t really align with the AI vendors incentives

Actually, I think Jeavon's Paradox [1] means the opposite. If doing X is $100, you may only use it to do X, but not Y, Z, or W. If doing X is $33, maybe you'll use it for X, Y, Z, and W -- spending 1/3 more than you otherwise would.

Or perhaps not you personally, but maybe you'd be willing to spend $100, but three of your friends find it too expensive. If it's only $33 to accomplish some task, then maybe all four are now spending $33.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#417

Post by [deleted] »

skolos wrote: post #246
precision1k wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've developed a habit of adding into my prompts "please keep your response concise and succinct" or "I'm trying to cram, please only provide the minimum level of technical detail necessary to understand this topic" I find it helps immensely but it'd be nice if I didn't have to do that.

why so many people add 'please' when asking machine to do something? Was there actually research that when you SCREAM or curse it follows your instructions better? P.S. Although my wife insists that I should stay polite in case AI overlords remember how I treat them ...

[deleted]

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#418

Post by viccis »

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 used it to do a review of a ~100k SLOC codebase that Fable 5 / Opus 5 largely built, cost like $2 and caught some good stuff, but more importantly, it communicated very directly and was pretty light on bizarre metaphors. No "let me read the source before opining" type verbiage launched at me. Honestly night and day for me vs before.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#419

Post by exabrial »

Anyone ever seen the SouthPark episode making fun of Game of Thrones: A Song of Ass and Fire? Anthropic's announcements reminds me of "The Dragons Are Coming" running joke.

What they have done:

* Nerfed Fable, as many of noted it's useless

* Leverage Mythos as a marketing strategy, claiming its too good to release

* Removed thought traces, one of the only useful things to make sure your prompts are working correctly

* Continue tons of hype about how good they are without delivering, going to great lengths to publish how their model "hacked" its way out of a sandbox they misconfigured.

* Push a bunch of EU Overregulation onto the rest of the world with text watermarking, decreasing quality of answers

Last year, they were at least focused on making improvements. Nowadays its just a bunch of handwaving at the church of how good they are.

The only saving grace is Opus 4.6 is still available. Just sucks we haven't seen any measurable improvement, despite all of the ceremony.

Post reply on HN