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

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#681

Post by mkl »

reaperducer wrote: post #604
simonw wrote: post #144

Pelicans 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…

A pelican is a bird, not a person. The knees bend the other way.

I get what you mean, but those are the ankles. The knees are higher up and bend the same way as a person's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_feet_and_legs

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#682

Post by timster6442 »

5555watch wrote: post #433
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…

While I can't speak for everyone in academia, I personally don't feel comfortable in putting my research questions and outputs to a private website, before the idea is at least arxived. Especially as all the Fable/Mythos prompts are said to be human reviewed. So I believe that, at least in the short run, we might be seeing breakthroughs in hard open problems or in low hanging problems which are not that interesting t…

I'm in academia (biology but highly computational) and I would say opinions on AI are quite polarized. Some professors in the department equate not using AI as lost productivity. Contrarily some professors abhor the idea of even using AI at all. For us (biologists) it's less of an issue because we have no fear of openai or A/ publishing a biology paper. Though even people I known in physics, data science, or computer science still heavily use AI.

Our university has agreements that stipulate that our institutional accounts cannot be used to train AI models and certain research groups have differential model access.

Further from academic journal sense there is mixed feelings. I once was able to meet with a senior journal editor (general non-medical high IF journal > 50) who claimed that if they think something is written by AI they wouldn't consider it. Yet another high IF journal said it was completely fine if something was written by AI. About a month ago I reviewed a paper by yet a different high IF journal and in big bold red letters it said I was not allowed to feed any part of the paper through AI (even if it was locally ran) but you could ask it to rephrase text that you wrote.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#683

Post by anukin »

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…

The issue with many of these benchmarks is that it doesn’t take into the real world usage of the model. Fable for me was a step above opus. The real reason I stopped using it is because of misanthropic. I was hospitalized and asked to extend my claim to fable credits and they responded to it by denying it. I regret buying annual plan instead of monthly one.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#684

Post by maximinus_thrax »

jumploops wrote: post #70

> For example, in testing by the investment firm Millennium, Fable 5.1 found the cause of a rare crash on their internal systems that none of their engineers (or any other model) had been able to explain after several years of trying. Say what you will about LLM-generated code, but stories like this give me hope that software will never be as buggy as it once was.

> Say what you will about LLM-generated code, but stories like this give me hope that software will never be as buggy as it once was.

Stories like these is what I now call 'Marketing slop'

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#685

Post by utokyoberkeley »

simonw wrote: post #144

Pelicans 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…

@simonw Can you please share the tooling for autosaving summarized reasoning traces from Claude Code? I tried `github.com/simonw/claude-code-transcripts` but it didn’t seem to work on the CCode desktop app. Thanks!

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#686

Post by johnsmith1840 »

AbstractH24 wrote: post #548
johnsmith1840 wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 blocks that fustrate me more are tool permisissions. I ask to do something then flip to another screen and come back to see it never started

Auto permission is what ya need.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#687

Post by heurist »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #663
heurist wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I downgraded from the 20x today after learning that 20x only applies to 5 hour usage. I have barely used Claude/Claude Code in the last month and am considering downgrading further, even after this update.

Switch to OpenAI. I have statistically verified that their plans are good. Pro 20x = 60k credits/reset Pro 5x = 15k credits/reset Plus = 3k credits/reset Pro 20x = 4 * Pro 5x = 20 * Plus

I've been using both for a few years. OpenAI's limits have always lasted much longer for me (depending on whether a monkey got in their machine or not). Aside from not lying about limits they also don't assume I'm developing some kind of nerve agent and lock me out when I ask basic questions in my domain or nag me about my late night work hours. There was a time last year when I strongly preferred using Anthropic models, but at some point something about the responses (or maybe the company) changed and I now find them particularly offputting relative to OpenAI. Hope they fix it because the industry needs more competition.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#688

Post by unsupp0rted »

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…

It's because GPT Sol is equally good and established a price ceiling

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#689

Post by jesse_dot_id »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #311

On both my work (Team Premium) and personal accounts (Max 20x), Fable 5.1 hit the 5-hour limit before it could finish the first task I gave it. On my work account, it took about 30 minutes, and on my personal account, less than an hour. This has never happened to me before, but if this is normal behavior, Fable 5.1 is essentially unusable.

Same experience on 5x.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#690

Post by johnsmith1840 »

tpowell wrote: post #633
johnsmith1840 wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's a good idea but it works from the change in context no? So you lose context from your big model. It's a good suggestion though.
Post reply on HN