611–620 of 1001 posts
It really feels as though my 20 year career as a front end developer is coming to a very abrupt end; at least as I have know it these past two decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's another test of a cyberpunk ramen shop website. One thing I've found LLMs have a lot of difficulty with is angular cuts / elements that aren't easily representable with CSS. Cyberpunk aesthetics are generally a great test of that, since they have a lot of microglyphs / window decoration. Design source of truth: https://image.non.io/9d5fed20-b476-49d3-841b-37eb553fb88e.we... Opus 5 build: https://html.non.io/ne…
God damn, we are living in the future. I love this so much. Designs like this would never have seen the light of day in the cellphone incrementalism / corporate memphis era of tech. Now people can be weird and awesome again. This is 1980's cyberpunk / late-90's Matrix / early-00's sci-fi UI. Great ideas that died to frutiger aero (which isn't a bad design aesthetic) and flat design (which is). This is fun and it's go…
They were an accessibility nightmare, but you use what you got. I tried so hard as a kid to understand flash, but had to settle on MS Frontpage to publish my first RPG page.
What's old is new again.
My excitement about Anthropic had fabled-out dramatically when they suspended my pro account about two weeks ago within just 12 hours of fair use. I was really mind-blown when I tried Fable 5 for the first time to help me improve a game I was working on but shortly, they decided that I had a suspicious activity and suspended my account without a clear reason. I submitted a an appeal describing that I am 100% sure I h…
[flagged]
Doing testing with it now, specifically for image->html conversion. Previously Fable was the best at this, followed by Gemini 3.1 pro (a surprising #2, but Google has great vision models). Opus' results seem to be more accurate than Fable, following the design source of truth better. Example results: Design source of truth: https://image.non.io/73e239a3-880f-4793-b65f-4810be2d9378.we... Opus 5 build: https://html.non…
I wonder if there exists a benchmark for that.
From the prompting guide https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt... >: > Claude Opus 5's default user-facing responses run longer than prior Opus models'. The benchmarks do show Opus 5 as slightly more expensive than 4.8, although the scores are much higher. This still feels like a step in the wrong direction, though, especially with OpenAI making so much progress with the efficiency of their mod…
I think the most important thing here is not absolute performance. It's that organizations now have access to a Fable-ish model without Fable's 30-day data retention requirement[0]. > "Consistent with prior Opus models, Opus 5 does not have data retention requirements for general access."[1] On the Opus model release page, the reason why Fable doesn't have an ARC-AGI score is because of that retention policy[2]. 0: h…
It's not that important in most cases, but yes, on the aggregate, it's a concern
I think the most important thing here is not absolute performance. It's that organizations now have access to a Fable-ish model without Fable's 30-day data retention requirement[0]. > "Consistent with prior Opus models, Opus 5 does not have data retention requirements for general access."[1] On the Opus model release page, the reason why Fable doesn't have an ARC-AGI score is because of that retention policy[2]. 0: h…
I've yet to understand why they call a 190 page PDF a "card". Calling something a card invokes a small, quick rundown of pertinent details, not every single possible detail.
I compared the writing style of Opus 5 vs Fable 5, and Opus 5 continues many of the "Claude-isms" of its 4.8 predecessor in a way that Fable broke away from. Opus 5 still uses "carry the argument", "worth stating plainly", ", and the trap", "The X matters more", the use of "move" We need an "annoying English" benchmark. - Fable 5 Max: https://gist.github.com/deet/3d97f854b48eac6658d642fa18bb24d... - Opus 5 Max: https…
I found 4.6 more amenable than 4.8 to style directions, we'll see how 5.0 does. Super-small-sample-size: I think part of its "Claude-ism" style comes from its propensity to try and "proactively" move the conversation/work along. Not sure how this would fare in non-obviously-productive environments, I'd guess "it's still annoying" considering your evidence. I'm also thinking of another benchmark: (quantified) stylisti…