We went for 16% intelligence bump according to artificial analysis for +82% of the cost. Interesting.
Comparing 4.8 Opus with Fable 5.1
Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1
881–890 of 1001 posts
Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1
#882To be honest, these frontier model releases have become boring for me. Opus 4.8 was already good enough for most of my use cases. I don't have any projects right now that I would use Fable for instead of Opus. So when I see announcements like this I just think "that's cool I guess" and then go back to using weaker/cheaper models. What's far more exciting right now is models like DeepSeek V4 Flash and GLM 5.3 Flash. T…
GLM 5.3 Flash has been a relevation for me. It's practically impossible to spend more than $5-$10 per day if you're only working on a single project -- but $10 is a full-day of continuous churn. First I was super sceptical about it, and always used Fable to instruct it, but now I realised that even with complex coding, it's reasonably good.
I feel like most of the latest big Chinese lab models are good enough now. If I had to pick a difference it feels like sol goes further towards 1 shotting things and needs less babysitting. But if I am actively prompting and reading the results can get just as far on a lesser model.
Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1
#883(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.…
Eh? STE is designed for procedural writing, e.g. "if you have a problem, press this button". I generally don't ask advanced AI to give me step-by-step instructions.
Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1
#884Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone working in science, this belief confuses me. How (by what means) do you think Fable 5.1 will be able to make further progress in scientific domains? The problem with science is that there is no agentic harness. The agent can't test things. At best it can hallucinate something and ask if that hallucination "makes sense", but this doesn't work in science.
Sounds like a very narrow view on what constitutes science. There are many fields of science where there is existing data against which new ideas can be tested without additional 'real-world' measurements. Newton's theory of gravitation relied entirely on pre-existing astronomical data for which there was no existing unifying theory. He made progress by putting forward a theory which explained that data. Now you can…
shouldn't an entity performing science understand what it's doing
Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1
#885I 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 am becoming dependent on AI to make a living IMO, if you depend on AI to make a living, I'd invest in hardware for local inference, and learn on how to effectively make a living using AI inference you control, on hardware you control. Sure, economically speaking it's way cheaper to use one of these heavily subsidised services (for now), and their models are faster and more capable, but if your livelihood depends…
It's okay to be a prepper, but you don't have to be. Assuming access to internet, water, electricity and increasingly AI is a entirely fine way to live. It might not be anthropic which you will want to use but current capability models will be abundant and access readily available.
Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1
#886[dead]
Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1
#887(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.…
[dead]
Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1
#888(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…
As someone working in science, this belief confuses me. How (by what means) do you think Fable 5.1 will be able to make further progress in scientific domains? The problem with science is that there is no agentic harness. The agent can't test things. At best it can hallucinate something and ask if that hallucination "makes sense", but this doesn't work in science.
> As someone working in science
No you don’t. Bad liar
Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1
#889“ 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 wasted a lot of tokens last month asking "Please explain the meaning of this sentence in plain language"
Kimi K3 is the best explainer. I switch to that for code review and insights.
Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1
#890Pelicans 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…
Now that it's a solved benchmark, can we get the animated version?
Not to be "that" person but it's not solved. The feet are reversed and isn't accurate bird anatomy. In real life, what people think of as bird's feet is actually their toes, and their "knee" is actually their tarsal (ankle bone), and their actual knee is almost hidden in their feathers.