[flagged]
Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1
631–640 of 1001 posts
Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1
#632Pelicans 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…
Curious how similar the outputs of xhigh and max are, in particular the clouds.
Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1
#633The price reduction comes from the cache read pricing falling from $1/M to $0.25/M, which means that Fable 5.1 now costs half of Opus's cache read costs ($0.5/M). This gives a lot of credit to the theory that Anthropic did not get much bite on Fable at its original pricing, which in turn likely places a ceiling on LLM pricing in general. Interestingly also, if you take away terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 results, it is h…
I'm a heavy user and fable is great the #1 reason I stopped using it was the horrible safegaurd filter. I found sol close enough in capability and have only been blocked when my request was an obvious offensive cyber work. Fable blocked me on almost everything. Optimizing a OS build? -> block Securing a container -> block 60% is nowhere near enough for that safegaurd system. This just means I am going to be blocked h…
The last time i ran into that issue it suggested to make sure that a Fable AGENT took over the long-horizon task because, for some reason, agents in a session don't get blocked for security reasons. This may not always be possible, but it worked for me.
Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1
#634AI is really not "just software" anymore. It is able to discover facts and advance science. Hard to disagree that we're near or at the point where Artificial Intelligence has expanded reality into 4 quadrants: objects that are not alive: dust, rocks, water, wood, hats, lego, aluminum, etc. objects that are alive but not intelligent: trees, mold, staphylococcus, cancer, grapes, etc. objects that are alive and intellig…
trees can be considered intelligent, trees show complex adaptive behavior that can reasonably be called a basic form of intelligence, but not a human-like intelligence,
I do get your point though and can see what you're trying to say, it is interesting indeed. There is however a detail that seems important to me, who is the driver? There is no agency is there? So its just fishing for data, so its a different type, just like trees are from us. I see them more like a very compressed "book of everything" that you can spin in "infinite" ways to get your desired outcomes. So yeah, definitely not alive, intelligent? Not like our intelligence.
Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1
#635I 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 be…
I'm with you, for what I usually do most models are already more than enough. What I'm really keen on is better auto-reasoning so I don't have to constantly have the constant inner debate on which reasoning effort to pick for each task. I seriously hate the none-low-medium-high-xhigh-max-ultra etc that we have now, with companies frequently recommending different ones on each new model release, etc. It's apparently c…
Adaptive reasoning is known to be an extremely hard problem to solve, though. It requires you to predict whether a certain LLM, with a certain effort level, with a certain prompt, will give you the right answer.
Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1
#636Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 compu…
Nah, "fail open/closed" means that in failure mode something is open. It's "good" when something is a circuit and what failed is a fuse, but it's "bad" when it's your API security. If it's a valve, it probably can be good or bad depending on the use case. It doesn't mean "fail open" is always the desired/safe outcome. It goes back to 1872 air brakes on a train. The goal is to "fail in safe mode", sometimes it's open,…
> "fail open/closed" means that in failure mode something is open.
That sentence doesn’t logically parse. Failing open or closed is a concept with two outcomes, it doesn’t mean one or those two outcomes.
Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1
#637Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
If you ask it why it uses the term honest so much it'll tell you it was actually trained not to. lol
It can't truthfully answer "why" questions, only infer them in a way that aligns with its training for conversational engagement.
Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1
#638Earlier quoted context omitted.
These draconian "Preserved Thinking" measures they're taking are going to be an absolute pain in the ass. This alone is enough for me to move our API use off their platform entirely. It's a HUGE breaking change that they're trying to dampen by having it not affecting current customers until "in the future", see: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/preser... You're no longer allowed to edit the conte…
> No more editing the system prompt as the conversation progresses, no more dynamic loading of custom tool calling formats. Hm, aiui you can support both of these via mid-conversation system turns https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/mid-co... - and in general you'd want to to preserve the cache and recency of the instruction anyways rather than frankensteining an off-distribution transcript. Not sur…
I really don't see how that is an option, as if appending to the system prompt was ever enough to override previous instructions. Their example isn't very confidence inspiring either:
"The user switched the workspace to read-only mode. Do not write files until told otherwise."
Great! Now we just have to trust that the model never misinterprets any of the system prompt, which has always been so reliable before. Instead of your meticulously crafted prompt, it will now be some junk like this:
"The workspace is in write mode. The user switched the workspace to read-only mode. Do not write files until told otherwise. The workspace is now in write mode again. Wait, back to read-only!"
And who knows how this integrates with their context summarisation that we will be FORCED to use. How does it summarize multiple user + assistant/thinking blocks without messing up the system "appends"? If all it did was append the mid-convo system messages right under the original system prompt then they'd be ripe for all the same distillation "vulnerabilities" as before. I guess we'll never know!
Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1
#639(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…
[deleted]
Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1
#640Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now that it's a solved benchmark, can we get the animated version?
I didn't want to shell out for Max again, so I piped the SVG created by Max back into Fable 5.1 at its default thinking level (of high): llm logs -cx | llm -m claude-fable-5.1 -s 'animate this' Here's the result, which cost $1.37: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer?url=ht... It's excellent!
First time this benchmark impressed me - 10/10 I would believe a human spent hours making this. There are details a human would have done better (beak attaching to the head) but still impressive.