What time exactly tomorrow is Anthropic making Fable 5 available? (It's already July 1st in Australia!)
Redeploying Fable 5
31–40 of 59 posts
Re: Redeploying Fable 5
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Opus isn't nothing! I think the 5x subscription is here to stay - I'd bet they make money on that from lots of people not using it. The 20x is already unavailable in Teams plans.
Opus is at the same level as open weights models now. Okay, maybe a tiny bit better. So basically "nothing" - I don't see the point of using closed weights if there is an equivalent open weights model.
Opus is still significantly better than open weight models.
GLM 5.2 comes close on agentic tasks, but doesn't code as well.
Kimi 2.6 and Deepseek v4 Pro write great code but lose track when doing agentic workflows. They were better than Sonnet 4.6 but not as good as Opus. I haven't compared them to Sonnet 5 yet.
Re: Redeploying Fable 5
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean that's the software playbook, get users addicted by offering it cheap and once you have them hooked, you raise the prices. There is no reason to think any non american company wouldn't follow this strategy. It's a different matter than the export control issue entirely and one that is systematic to software in general.
> There is no reason to think any non american company wouldn't follow this strategy. This is generally true, but there are some providers offering inference at relatively stable prices. They aren’t Opus-tier models, but some appear to be at or close to Sonnet 4.5 or so. For much of the work I do, this is fine. Essentially if you aren’t at the frontier, you can find cheaper tokens that aren’t about to be rug-pulled o…
> there are some providers offering inference at relatively stable prices
for now. Once they get enough customers, why will they not jack up prices is my point.
All businesses will act in that manner because it serves their interests. That is not going to change if you're OpenAI or ChineseAI or BelgiumAI.
Again, this is different from the export control issue because it's a fundamental business thing.
You will always want more money from customers not less and there is no noble business that exists just to make your tokens cheap while they give up potential profits unless they have something to gain from tokens being cheap.
They will gradually up their prices as well and squeeze as much as they can like most first-gen AI providers are gradually doing since they got a lot of people hooked already.
Re: Redeploying Fable 5
#34What time exactly tomorrow is Anthropic making Fable 5 available? (It's already July 1st in Australia!)
I bet the start of the hegemon's day is what counts here
Re: Redeploying Fable 5
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Opus is at the same level as open weights models now. Okay, maybe a tiny bit better. So basically "nothing" - I don't see the point of using closed weights if there is an equivalent open weights model.
Opus is still significantly better than open weight models. GLM 5.2 comes close on agentic tasks, but doesn't code as well. Kimi 2.6 and Deepseek v4 Pro write great code but lose track when doing agentic workflows. They were better than Sonnet 4.6 but not as good as Opus. I haven't compared them to Sonnet 5 yet.
I use GLM 5.2 routinely for coding and agentic tasks. It is not without its quirks, but generally I find it on the level of Opus 4.7 or so. But without all these "cybersecurity" rejections.
Re: Redeploying Fable 5
#36Stunning marketing campaign. I mean, if it's banned it must be good.
Re: Redeploying Fable 5
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Opus is at the same level as open weights models now. Okay, maybe a tiny bit better. So basically "nothing" - I don't see the point of using closed weights if there is an equivalent open weights model.
Opus is still significantly better than open weight models. GLM 5.2 comes close on agentic tasks, but doesn't code as well. Kimi 2.6 and Deepseek v4 Pro write great code but lose track when doing agentic workflows. They were better than Sonnet 4.6 but not as good as Opus. I haven't compared them to Sonnet 5 yet.
> GLM 5.2 comes close on agentic tasks, but doesn't code as well.
> Kimi 2.6 and Deepseek v4 Pro write great code but lose track when doing agentic workflows.
Here is an idea: can GLM 5.2 and Kimi 2.7 be combined in some way? Maybe GLM doing planning and Kimi doing coding.
Re: Redeploying Fable 5
#38It’s nice to have access again, but I’m hesitant to include it in my workflow now. In fact I’d rather not use American models at all if I could. I have the sense that this limited usage model will persist, Opus at its current token price will gradually be phased out, and eventually the cost of these models will be unsustainable and impractical. I’d rather not play this game anymore and seek out more reliable provider…
> more interested in harnesses. Claude Code is not the best on the market
What is the best harness right now?
Re: Redeploying Fable 5
#39This post has been marked as a dupe, but it provides a lot more details than the other announcements of Fable's re-enablement provide: > The export control directive on June 12 came after the government became aware of a report in which Amazon researchers had found a method of bypassing Fable 5’s safeguards: prompting it so that it identified a number of software vulnerabilities. In one case, the model produced code…
> 2) Anthropic - in particular Dario - really needs to learn government relations better. Most of the problems Anthropic has had with the government seem to stem from Dario's attitude rather than actual facts. (Eg, the DoD debacle seems to have ended up with OpenAI signing almost the same contract Anthropic already had, just worded differently)
This may be in Anthropic's benefit. Autonomous killer drones will be widely deployed by the US military, and at that time, Anthropic can point to them and say "see, we were trying to avoid that"
Re: Redeploying Fable 5
#40It's 14:35 here in Eastern Europe and Fable is still not accessible for me, neither on the web UI nor inside Claude Code.
Any exact times when we can expect it? The beginning of workday Pacific time, maybe?