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

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#691

Post by zarzavat »

skolos wrote: post #246
precision1k wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've developed a habit of adding into my prompts "please keep your response concise and succinct" or "I'm trying to cram, please only provide the minimum level of technical detail necessary to understand this topic" I find it helps immensely but it'd be nice if I didn't have to do that.

why so many people add 'please' when asking machine to do something? Was there actually research that when you SCREAM or curse it follows your instructions better? P.S. Although my wife insists that I should stay polite in case AI overlords remember how I treat them ...

I'm polite to LLMs. It's not for the models it's for myself. If I start being rude to models then I might accidentally start being rude to other people as well.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#692

Post by razster »

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…

Still not going for it. Once I learned I can train Qwen3.8 27B with my style of writing/grammar. Also more succinct. I cannot force myself to Claude or OpenAI outputs anymore. Its too much. Honestly don't think I will ever go back to paid.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#694

Post by loloquwowndueo »

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…

What’s your honest take on how load-bearing its use of em-dashes is now? Measured, not guessed.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#695

Post by ddahlen »

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…

The writing style has significantly improved, however the token burn rate for tasks I have been working on seems to have skyrocketed. It definitely appears more capable (though I am unclear how much of that is just me liking the English it writes now vs actually more performant). I was using Fable 5 for some mathematical analysis assistance and redoing a part of it with 5.1 burned 60% of my session at a much faster rate.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#696

Post by 8cvor6j844qw_d6 »

> On complex asynchronous workloads, though, nudge it not to end its turn before the work is done. Without the nudge, the model sometimes describes what it would do next instead of doing it ("Next, I'll …") or stops to ask permission for a step the original request already covered ("Shall I apply this?"). [1]

Interesting behavior. The docs also provided recommended prompt [1] to mitigate this behavior if undesired.

Wondering if anyone has encountered it yet?

[1]: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/build-with-claude/prompt...

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#697

Post by [deleted] »

kbrannigan wrote: post #426
EliasWatson wrote: post #308

To 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…

The human brain is fascinating Three years ago The idea of having A robot writing production level code in 10 minutes that would have needed a team of 5 people and 2 months. Was pure Scifi Now it's boring , not good enough Wow there should be a term of that .

[deleted]

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#699

Post by jmann99999 »

ddahlen wrote: post #695
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…

The writing style has significantly improved, however the token burn rate for tasks I have been working on seems to have skyrocketed. It definitely appears more capable (though I am unclear how much of that is just me liking the English it writes now vs actually more performant). I was using Fable 5 for some mathematical analysis assistance and redoing a part of it with 5.1 burned 60% of my session at a much faster r…

This. It seems to light my usage of my max plan on fire. I’ve gone back to opus because I run out of usage in my five hour window so much more quickly.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#700

Post by [deleted] »

eamag wrote: post #467
5555watch wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I can't speak for everyone in academia, I personally don't feel comfortable in putting my research questions and outputs to a private website, before the idea is at least arxived. Especially as all the Fable/Mythos prompts are said to be human reviewed. So I believe that, at least in the short run, we might be seeing breakthroughs in hard open problems or in low hanging problems which are not that interesting t…

Isn't it showing a problem with an academia? "I don't want to live in a world where someone else makes the world a better place than we do."

[deleted]
Post reply on HN