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

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#651

Post by kilroy123 »

madrox wrote: post #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 be…

I literally only make it halfway through the week until my weekly usage runs out. This is using only Opus, no fable, and I'm on the max x20 plan. It's become ridiculous.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#652

Post by throw03172019 »

simonw wrote: post #304
swalsh wrote: post #248

Earlier 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!

He looks very happy riding along the beach. I love the basket fish animation as well. Impressive!

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#653

Post by cantalopes »

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…

Thank you for the trust me bro benchmark but i will be honest, fable 5.0 did even worse thsn 4.8 opus

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#654

Post by usef- »

Zigurd wrote: post #365

What I don't see in the comments: "I had a specific problem I couldn't solve with the previous version of this LLM. But the improvements in this version unlocked the solution for me." What I do see in the comments: subjective improvement in text generation, possibly lower cost, some optimism about code generation, but some skepticism too. I use coding agents. To me they are very useful. But what I spend on them isn't…

Commenters here likely haven't used it long enough to give non-superficial reactions. The customer quotes on the release page are all about it solving new problems, fwiw. We'll likely find out in the next few days how it really performs.

But yes, we might end up hitting the issue of "most jobs aren't solving hard problems" increasingly. The bigger potential benefit is higher trustworthiness, reliability/thoroughness, and squishy human things; people will likely continue to pay large premiums for those. "Solve it well and save time, long term". Those can be harder to see on a benchmark.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#655

Post by frabcus »

exabrial wrote: post #553
karelpeeters 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... .

This is hilarious this keeps being repeated by the true believers ad nauseam. Also, don't apply EU law to the world. It's a knee jerk reactionary regulation by a bunch of aging ding dongs that can't print their emails.

You're on Hacker News - I suggest you have technical curiosity and actually understand this very unusual and innovative algorithm, before you claim things about it that aren't true.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#656

Post by bayganyo »

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

Me too. And it does it so often, that I've added a stop hook that detects "honest*" in its response and forces it to regenerate without the banned word.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#657

Post by digitaltrees »

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 that’s what changes the whole game — Claude

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#658

Post by [deleted] »

rxyz wrote: post #346
GodelNumbering wrote: post #139

The 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…

Anthropic did not get much bite because they don’t offer zero data retention with fable

[deleted]

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#659

Post by emdash »

anony-123 wrote: post #373
_kidlike wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know if Opus 5.1 is coming and will have improvements in writing style too?

OPUS 5 is piece of trash and I don't think they would want to build the Opus 5 better than Fable, because fable 5 take more tokens and have 50% limit or runs on credits.

Opus 5 is so bad it made me cancel my subscription. It flags so many dumb things as security/ safety risks and refuses to answer

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#660

Post by nprateem »

kccqzy wrote: post #520

I’ll be very excited to try it out and see the actual improvement in writing style. The denser writing style probably won’t bother me. Anthropic seems to be listening to community complaint on HN about how the writing style is grating. And apparently the solution from Anthropic is to add this block to every conversation!? > Mannered prose substitutes metaphor and flourish for direct statement. Instead of "a parameter…

Christ. With such waffly garbage in its system prompt no wonder its output is shit.
Post reply on HN