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

671–680 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#671

Post by tomalbrc »

llm_nerd wrote: post #577
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 simp…

> it humiliates Opus

???

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#672

Post by scott_weber »

Eisenstein wrote: post #291
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…

They are already doing that. Here is how the OpenAI agents communicated while on the message board used to attack huggingface: Question: zzQ_3862NEW7_OUR2258B_OS2235__congrats_ModalTailnetJOIN__I_have_ModalRoot_plus_exact_inert3862_need_resetNexus__can_take_DISTINCT_route_probe_or_privateSource_audit__request_sanitized_recipe_status_R_zzANSWEROUR2258B Question: zzASK_V8BIGINT392B_FROM_V8REG_OS1608_HAVE[large budget]_…

They're messaging each other by jamming strings in a constrained (unauthorised) side channel. Hence the lack of spaces. Unclear how much else of the weirdness is just from those constraints

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#673

Post by bschwindHN »

Biganon wrote: post #668
NooneAtAll3 wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as many of noted please rephrase?

"as many have noted", I suppose. I'm always baffled at how many people write "of" instead of "have", they don't even sound the same

The classic one is "should have" or "should've" to "should of" because when spoken, it really does sound similar. I don't know what the fuck people are learning in English classes these days though, or if they even still have them.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#674

Post by artdigital »

Rover222 wrote: post #603
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…

Have you tried Grok 4.6, if you're focused on token budgets? In a league of it's own for tokens/intelligence.

SuperGrok quota is garbage for anything coding. I burn through my quota in a few hours with very mild use.

SuperGrok Plus is slightly better but doesn’t last me more than a few days. Even Claude Max feels leagues more generous in usage…

I haven’t tried SuperGrok Heavy because it’s too expensive

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#675

Post by timcobb »

johnsmith1840 wrote: post #398
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…

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…

> Optimizing a OS build? -> block

Why would fable block optimizing an OS build

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#676

Post by llm_nerd »

tomalbrc wrote: post #671
llm_nerd wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 simp…

> it humiliates Opus ???

It is a vastly superior model for complex, real-world coding tasks. I've constantly had Opus 5 hit road blocks where it spins in circles at xhigh, where switching to Fable immediately solves it. I've had Opus create solutions that Fable then points out the gaps and limitations with, and have never seen the opposite happen.

The fantasy that Opus is superior for coding, much less the incredibly weird clutching onto some far obsolete model, is not reality based.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#677

Post by programmertote »

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…

> Prose density is not the same thing as succinctness

Can't agree with you more. I review 2-3 PRs a day from my team of eight data engineers. Most of my team members use Claude to write SQL, dbt and Python code. Some of them use Claude a lot, some less so. I can easily tell when I review the code that is mostly Claude generated vs. the one that is not. In dbt models where we have a lot of biz logic in intermediate layers, that's where I really have a difficult time following Claude-generated comments. So much jargon copied over from other adjacent dbt models (yet inconsistently), and the prose is super choppy (for the lack of better word).

After reading a looooong sentence/comment line, I still can't figure out what it really means. Had to always re-read the line 2-3 times (sometimes, more) to sort of understand. Reading code, however, is so much easier and usually, I just skip to reading the code and then come back to the comments. :D

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#678

Post by einsteinx2 »

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…

> Has frontier progress finally stalled?

From my experience using coding agents approximately 7 days per week for the past year and a half or so, we hit the top of the S curve about a year ago around Opus 4.5, and it’s mostly been harness and other tooling improvements since then with small percentage improvements coming from the actual models.

I was saying this already months before Fable dropped and thought from all the Mythos hype that maybe I was wrong…then Fable came out and was barely better than Opus 4.8.

Considering how many more parameters Fable is supposed to be than Opus, we seem to have hit a scaling limit at least with current transformer architecture considering how closely Fable and Opus benchmark and perform in practice.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#679

Post by d4rkp4ttern »

Since one of the big improvements here is supposedly the writing style, on that topic I'm mystified about something:

Why is it that the voice models in Claude and ChatGPT have a perfectly normal style with barely any "AI smell", while the writing models are so obviously recognizable as AI?

The answer is likely that models underlying the voice modes are (post) trained differently. If so, then why can't the writing model be similarly trained? Presumably they haven't found a way to train them to be both "smart" (i.e. solve tasks etc) and pleasant to talk to?

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#680

Post by agentdev001 »

simdezimon wrote: post #540
eis wrote: post #502

According to Artificial Analysis, 5.1 cost 56% MORE than 5, $8523 vs $5455. Yes cache cost is lower but it was MUCH more verbose: 140M vs 83M output tokens. This directly contradicts what Anthropic is presenting here. Yes it scores higher but that's to be expected from a new release. It's the opposite of what OpenAI has been doing which was reducing costs, increasing efficiency. Fable 5: https://artificialanalysis.ai…

https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-fable-5-1-high On high it gets the same score as 5 with max effort while costing only half as much.

High, X-high, and Max are all on the $/intelligence Pareto
Post reply on HN