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

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#811

Post by jamiek88 »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #689
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

Sol is excellent. I’m amazed I can use it on my teeny $20 plan.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#813

Post by lwansbrough »

alansaber wrote: post #812

The bar has dropped when the dialogue evolves to "output is less annoying" rather than some interesting new capability

On the contrary, I think the novelty of AI blowing our minds with each release has worn off a bit. These are some impressive improvements in science benchmarks. But we're sort of used to seeing impressive improvements now.

That doesn't make them less impressive, it just means people are shifting their focus more towards their own day to day experience with these things because we're relying on them so much now.

Like when the novelty of the automobile wore off, I'm sure people were starting to say "it's a bumpy ride though, isn't it?"

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#814

Post by crossroadsguy »

NL807 wrote: post #775
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…

Not sure if something like this is already on the table, but I would like to see Claude responses more in line with Simplified Technical English [1] by default. I find those writing styles a lot easier to read. This has been standardised as ASD-STE100 [2]. I've seen few people making SKILL.md files with that in mind, which works great, but having this by default without invoking the skill command would be better. 1.…

If someone has a way to tame GLM into doing this then please…

As a workhorse, GLM is so good, but goodness, its prose, wherever needed, makes me feel like going to a park and kicking all the benches there endlessly. And it doesn't change!

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#816

Post by aenis »

exabrial wrote: post #270
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.

The marketing here trick is, if they spent the same money on humans they'd have found it years ago. Instead, the lurking variable here is new budget was added. With the new budget, they added a new tool, and the bug was located. The difference here was budget.

Nope. The difference here is stamina. Those models never tire while working on an issue, people do.

And I doubt finding that bug cost more than $1k or so. Even if $10k. Thats nothing for a large department in a multinational company. Thats maybe 2 weeks of fully loaded costs of an engineer. Thats a single business trip across the Atlantic. Thats about two company issued macbooks, or one, if the company is nice. Nope. Not budget.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#817

Post by KellyCriterion »

NL807 wrote: post #775
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…

Not sure if something like this is already on the table, but I would like to see Claude responses more in line with Simplified Technical English [1] by default. I find those writing styles a lot easier to read. This has been standardised as ASD-STE100 [2]. I've seen few people making SKILL.md files with that in mind, which works great, but having this by default without invoking the skill command would be better. 1.…

Why not include this in your initial prompt when starting the session or into the global base prompt?

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#818

Post by 848585858 »

nprateem wrote: post #661
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.

the philosopher stacies gotta earn their keep

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#819

Post by hollowturtle »

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…

> People have been correctly excited about the many "sudden" breakthroughs LLMs are making in Maths

That people ARE making, surely not machines. Like Terence Tao or Knuts did using the tool to their advantage, for example it would have been impossible for me to prove the same thing Tao did with an LLM. Same reason I believe programmers won't go away

Post reply on HN