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

721–730 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#721

Post by [deleted] »

johnsmith1840 wrote: post #398
GodelNumbering wrote: post #139

The price reduction comes from the cache read pricing falling from $1/M to $0.25/M, which means that Fable 5.1 now costs half of Opus's cache read costs ($0.5/M). This gives a lot of credit to the theory that Anthropic did not get much bite on Fable at its original pricing, which in turn likely places a ceiling on LLM pricing in general. Interestingly also, if you take away terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 results, it is h…

I'm a heavy user and fable is great the #1 reason I stopped using it was the horrible safegaurd filter. I found sol close enough in capability and have only been blocked when my request was an obvious offensive cyber work. Fable blocked me on almost everything. Optimizing a OS build? -> block Securing a container -> block 60% is nowhere near enough for that safegaurd system. This just means I am going to be blocked h…

[deleted]

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#722

Post by glub »

aniceperson wrote: post #269
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.

add to your system prompt?

It only sticks to the instruction for maybe 3-4 turns. This is why when Anthropic released "concise output style" feature in claude code, it basically spams the model's context with "be concise" system reminders every other turn.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#723

Post by k1m »

pkulak wrote: post #477
flaghacker wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Text watermarking has no effect on output quality, it just works by changing the explicit source of randomness that is in practice always present in LLM output sampling. See for example https://www.seangoedecke.com/ai-text-watermarking-is-not-a-b... .

> Text watermarking has no effect on output quality It has an effect, and it's negative. It's hoped that the effect is negligible, and it probably is, but the whole point is that it has an effect.

It reduces diversity, which they don't talk about much. Wrote about it here. https://blog.keyvan.net/p/ai-text-watermarking-and-quality

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#724

Post by xdennis »

krm01 wrote: post #546
1970-01-01 wrote: post #500

AI is really not "just software" anymore. It is able to discover facts and advance science. Hard to disagree that we're near or at the point where Artificial Intelligence has expanded reality into 4 quadrants: objects that are not alive: dust, rocks, water, wood, hats, lego, aluminum, etc. objects that are alive but not intelligent: trees, mold, staphylococcus, cancer, grapes, etc. objects that are alive and intellig…

SH is in the wrong bucket

Am I missing something? There's no SH in what GP said. What does SH even mean?

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#725

Post by kimseungyong »

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 common coding environment, it will have to reduce token consumption significantly compared to now

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#727

Post by illusive4080 »

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…

How aware internally are employees that Opus 5’s language is incomprehensibly complicated? Please fix with Opus 5.1.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#728

Post by chillfox »

rplnt wrote: post #552
onidj wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean fable is useless?

(not op) It cannot be used to develop applications. Every application needs to be secure in some way, and any such mention in a review triggers Fable's upsell feature.

I never actually managed to use fable successfully even once on a pretty standard mvc/microservice app.. It would always find the endpoint permission checks and revert to opus 4.8.

I also had glm 5.3 flash fix an issue that opus 5 could not solve. glm took 4 times as long and a sub-agent tried to cheat (sleep; echo ...), but in the end it actually solved the issue. opus 5 never figured it out.

I think the safeguards might be cooking the anthropic models.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#729

Post by indemnity »

madrox wrote: post #405

I am finding that I am now less interested in better models than I am in token budgets. My issue with Anthropic models now is that I don't feel like I can rely on them as a daily driver because they'll dry up before my quota resets. I am becoming dependent on AI to make a living, and I need predictable spend on it. If I know I can't use a model regularly all month, my enthusiasm is limited. I urge Anthropic to get be…

I am on the Claude Max 20x plan, and this still happens when using Fable 5/Opus 5. I would run out of weekly quota in 2 days, whereas Opus 4.8 would last the entire week, and sit at about 80-90% at the end.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#730

Post by ipnon »

kimseungyong wrote: post #725

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.
Post reply on HN