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

571–580 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#571

Post by reasonableklout »

pkulak wrote: post #477
flaghacker wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Text watermarking has no effect on output quality, it just works by changing the explicit source of randomness that is in practice always present in LLM output sampling. See for example https://www.seangoedecke.com/ai-text-watermarking-is-not-a-b... .

> Text watermarking has no effect on output quality It has an effect, and it's negative. It's hoped that the effect is negligible, and it probably is, but the whole point is that it has an effect.

It seems fine to me. The model is still solving my problems and writing code that works as well as any other.

Google has been watermarking text with SynthID for a while now and nobody complained about it. Why all the fuss about Claude?

It feels like the real reason behind most complaints is that people want to use AI for writing and not have others find out?

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#573

Post by vlovich123 »

> In part, this is because Fable 5.1 can now be used to discover software vulnerabilities—though not to develop exploits for them

Generally once an exploit chain is described, developing the exploit is trivial.

If you're so inclined, discover the exploits using Fable 5.1 and then give that exploit to a model that doesn't have such compunctions (e.g. local LLM or an uncensored cloud model / model that's easier to jailbreak). I don't think Anthropic is really mitigating here anything in the real world other than PR narratives where media can report "Anthropic's model was used to develop the latest cyber attack".

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#574

Post by ceejayoz »

rplnt wrote: post #552
onidj wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean fable is useless?

(not op) It cannot be used to develop applications. Every application needs to be secure in some way, and any such mention in a review triggers Fable's upsell feature.

Mythos and Fable are the same cost, aren’t they?

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#575

Post by ordersofmag »

adastra22 wrote: post #301
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 someone working in science, this belief confuses me. How (by what means) do you think Fable 5.1 will be able to make further progress in scientific domains? The problem with science is that there is no agentic harness. The agent can't test things. At best it can hallucinate something and ask if that hallucination "makes sense", but this doesn't work in science.

Sounds like a very narrow view on what constitutes science. There are many fields of science where there is existing data against which new ideas can be tested without additional 'real-world' measurements. Newton's theory of gravitation relied entirely on pre-existing astronomical data for which there was no existing unifying theory. He made progress by putting forward a theory which explained that data. Now you can argue that it's not really science unless you include the original data collection and subsequent real-world measurement validation steps. But I'd be comfortable saying that Newton was indeed a scientists and did make progress in science despite only doing what some might say is the 'middle' part of the process. There are plenty of modern analogs where work like this sits out there waiting to be done using existing data.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#576

Post by lokelow »

rplnt wrote: post #552
onidj wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean fable is useless?

(not op) It cannot be used to develop applications. Every application needs to be secure in some way, and any such mention in a review triggers Fable's upsell feature.

Agreed. I was trying to get it to review some auth refactoring in my app recently, and it appeared to find some vulnerabilities. as it was aggregating the results it was flagged and restarted the whole process with Opus 4.8 and all of my usage credits were gone.

Anthropic told me to use their `security-review` tool - as this was the exact scenario the tool is for - and it still got flagged.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#577

Post by llm_nerd »

exabrial wrote: post #419

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…

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

I certainly don't take AI advice from HN, but this is amazing.

Useless? Yes, the safeguards are ridiculous and obnoxious, though I can say that 5.1 greatly relaxes them (just doing a hardening of a project parallel with this comment, which 5.0 refused to do...so did Sol and Gemini, fwiw. The Gemini one is a laugh, because 3.1 pretending like it's a dangerous tool is simply ridiculous at this point), however Fable is extraordinarily useful.

It is, far and away, the most powerful programming model, in my experience. Like, crazily so. It absolutely annihilates Opus 4.6, which I mention given the incredibly weird reminiscing people are doing here.

And for that matter it humiliates Opus 5.0 as well. Opus 5 somehow seems like it's neck in neck in the major benchmarks, but there is simply no reality where that is true. Opus stumbles over everything that Fable just blazes through.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#579

Post by kevinmalone »

velcrovan wrote: post #121
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…

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…

I blame the decades of 50 character limit commit message

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#580

Post by comicjk »

mixedbit wrote: post #533

I'm afraid watermarking could restrict applications where LLMs can be safely used to assist with writing. If I write something myself and use an LLM to proofread it, without watermarking I can confidently say that corrections done by LLMs are small and insignificant enough to claim that the text is still authored by me, not by the model. With watermarking, however, I will never be sure if the result will not be flagg…

Watermarking will not flag something you wrote unless the AI rewrote significant chunks of it. AI watermarking works by exploiting the fact that lengthy phrases can be expressed in exponentially many ways, such that the selection of a single sequence from the exponential space is practically unique. For proofreading by contrast, if the AI is only changing isolated words in work that's otherwise yours, there are not enough exponentially branching options for the watermark to distinguish anything.

*Some might see a parallel with the old game Adventure, in which wording differences like "twisty little passages" and "little twisty passages" were used to build a maze of room descriptions, with the same meaning but still distinguishable to the attentive player.

Post reply on HN