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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#991

Post by Thaxll »

enraged_camel wrote: post #748
Thaxll wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a serious engineering problem if you're not able to find the source of a crash after years.

You are either seriously naive, or have never worked on any large and complex legacy codebase.

Sorry but I don't buy it, any crash can be found and fix by one or more humans, if it was not it's either they're incompetent ( I doubt that ) or they did not beleive it was important enough to fix.

A crash is actually the easiest kind of problem to fix since you have a crash. It means stacktrace, core dump, kernel error etc..

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#992

Post by kimseungyong »

ipnon wrote: post #728
kimseungyong wrote: post #723

Fable is too expensive for general use I think this is why it hasn’t received as much attention as expected since Fable came out Developers always work while trying to find ways to work continuously for a 5-hour session without disconnecting. Fable has had the experience of using up all its tokens before I even realized it because the burn rate was too fast. Since then, I always use only Opus. For Fable to become a c…

Fable is much more expensive both in time and tokens for a marginal increase in productivity.

Yeah I agree. I used Fable 5.1 again and my token 30% suddenly gone. I usually develop with superpowers planing. And 30% is disappeared with only planning. I turned back to Opus directly

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#993

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#994

Post by andai »

verdverm wrote: post #343
andai wrote: post #320

The most remarkable thing here is just how close Opus 5 is on most of these benchmarks.

I'm not sure it is so remarkable, benchmark gains seem to be slowing, as some of us expect

What I mean is what's the point of paying twice as much for the same shit? Or is it actually better, and the benchmarks are nonsense?

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#995

Post by de6u99er »

I can confirm, that bullshitter mode has reached now Fable too.

I had to switch to Fable, because Opus has become completely unreliable. Just now while working on a specific task, Fable made changes completely unrelated to the task and introduced new regressions.

Fable now talks complete nonsense.

I do not understand why Anthropic is so focussed in squeezing a few fractions out of benchmarks, while at the same time making the life of developers insufferable. I am seriously considering ditching Anthropic and moving to something else.

The thing that I describe as bullshitter mode is starting to feel extremely unproductive for me. I spend more time making Claude code do what I want than before!

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#996

Post by kilroy123 »

zmmmmm wrote: post #972
kilroy123 wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm curious what your methodology is that results in that? Are you running multiple teams of agents all adversarially reviewing each others code? Lots of different projects in parallel? I've only rarely maxed things out and then it's t through doing extreme things.

Yup, it's a lot of reviewing. I'll have Claude do a very exhaustive review. It's the only way I can get it to produce decent results.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#998

Post by jjav »

velcrovan wrote: post #121
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…

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…

> packing lots of signal into fewer words

That is not descriptive of any AI output I've ever seen.

Massive walls of words that could've been expressed in 2-3 well-written sentences, that's the norm for AI.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#999

Post by ohyes »

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…

You forgot the “co-authored by Fable 5.1” line on your post.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#1000

Post by NewJazz »

madrox wrote: post #847
agile-gift0262 wrote: post #842

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

There are a lot of things in my toolchain pre-AI that I did not own and relied on to make a living. Mobile developers are in even worse shape, and iOS developers doubly so. The idea we were somehow less beholden before AI, I think, is silly. None of us can wholly do our trades without support. Local inference is a fun idea, but you'll be out-competed by the serfs, as you call them.

You listing things that make developers dependent doesn't mean they weren't less dependent before. Now they have all those things, and more.

It is debatable whether local inference is a competitive disadvantage. One key advantage is consistent performance. No unexpected model downgrades or yanks, no silly safeguards imposed, and no quotas is a lot of advantage.

And by the way, it is not an either-or decision. You can use local inference as your daily driver while still leaning on frontier models when you get stuck.

Post reply on HN