Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had Fable bail on me because I used the word autopilot on a project. Changed to something unrelated, and off we went.
I haven’t hit the Fable guardrails a single time after substantial usage. And I’m working on a ML project (a game AI). I don’t doubt people are hitting it… shrugs
Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
191–200 of 740 posts
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the biggest factor. FT (or the analysts it cites) fumbled the ball in this article.
> Data retention rules imposed by the Trump administration have also hampered Fable’s adoption, according to Ara Kharazian, chief economist at Ramp. This is in the article.
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
I kind of still chill out on Opus 4.6 too. 4.8 is good too. I go between them. Opus 4.8 is a little smarter some of the time. Their use of language is both very different from Opus 5. Some of the time I have a hard time believing Opus 5 is even related to Opus 4.6 and 4.8.
I'm going to be sad when they retire 4.6. It's not my daily driver but it's still my go-to when the other models are being stupid in one way or another (either being too verbose, or lecturing me about how what I'm asking for is evil and bad).
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#194Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#195Of course I echo the universal: Opus 5 sucks. But what also sucks is still using 4.8. Are you all seeing this? It's like the older models got dumber just before Fable and Opus 5 were coming out? I've heard the theory that it's because 4.8 is getting put on older hardware? And I imagine that just ratchets down reasoning time then possibly? Sometimes I'm just trying to sus out if I'm truly seeing things these days or g…
So what you are paying for may vary on a day by day basis, which is quite undesirable, even if their main goal is simply to make a better model. When it comes to a tool, I'd rather have consistent mediocrity than instability.
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#196I mean, who says "screw you" to requests to get 35+ year old vintage computers working? Claude, that is who. Its guard rails are so stupid. I hear people trying to do simple mailing list management hit it too.
I am just about done with them.
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#197Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm going to be sad when they retire 4.6. It's not my daily driver but it's still my go-to when the other models are being stupid in one way or another (either being too verbose, or lecturing me about how what I'm asking for is evil and bad).
I tested all recent Opus versions and 4.6 and 4.7 were both fine FWIW. Seems 4.8 is when something started to go wrong.
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#199The US government basically told them they can't sell "Fable" and so they aren't. That's probably 90% of the story. Once the government stepped in, their 5th generation was effectively killed. They either had to lock it up (Mythos), neuter it (Fable), or leave people with the perception they were overpaying for a weaker model (Opus 5). Hopefully Anthropic has learned to anticipate this risk and has a plan for rollout…
Re: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive
#200For many coders including myself, LLM based coding agents work well enough to be useful, and in some cases worth paying for. What I don't see is vast areas of industry finding $10s to $100s of billions of value in LLMs. There's no lint or compiler that can check for correctly constructed contracts. So LLMs, which should be useful to law firms, incur a lot more manual checking of their work than coding agents. Less fo…
> What I don't see is vast areas of industry finding $10s to $100s of billions of value in LLMs. Translation between languages. That value dwarfs all programming value that can be had. Economically, culturally, scientifically, spiritually.