Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Claude Fable 5

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

801–810 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Fable 5

#801

Post by sexylinux »

simonw wrote: post #534

I've spent enough time with this now in Claude Code (and Claude.ai and Claude Code for web) to have an opinion on Fable 5: it's a beast. I'm throwing some VERY difficult problems at at - things I've been dragging my heels on for months - and it's crunching through them very happily. One that I'm willing to share (albeit from just a week ago) - I built a Python library last week that bundles MicroPython compiled to WA…

It still does make errors, yes? Because it is not usable, if we need to verify everything. AI is only interesting if it can do things that humans can not do. If you can verify results because you can do it yourself, then why use AI? It will just bind highly skilled people to do verification work. Instead these people should do the actual work, results will come quicker.

So AI is only interesting to you / your org / humans if it can do things that you can not achieve. But if it still does errors, how could we ever know that super-invention by AI is not wrong?

If we can not rely on the correctness of the result, it is not usable at all. AI must create reliable and correct results always. That was a very fundamental requirement for computing. This problem has not been solved.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#802

Post by misja111 »

sexylinux wrote: post #801
simonw wrote: post #534

I've spent enough time with this now in Claude Code (and Claude.ai and Claude Code for web) to have an opinion on Fable 5: it's a beast. I'm throwing some VERY difficult problems at at - things I've been dragging my heels on for months - and it's crunching through them very happily. One that I'm willing to share (albeit from just a week ago) - I built a Python library last week that bundles MicroPython compiled to WA…

It still does make errors, yes? Because it is not usable, if we need to verify everything. AI is only interesting if it can do things that humans can not do. If you can verify results because you can do it yourself, then why use AI? It will just bind highly skilled people to do verification work. Instead these people should do the actual work, results will come quicker. So AI is only interesting to you / your org / h…

AI is like a junior developer. You have to review her code carefully but she is most definitely useful.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#803

Post by user43928 »

black_knight wrote: post #617
simonw wrote: post #534

I've spent enough time with this now in Claude Code (and Claude.ai and Claude Code for web) to have an opinion on Fable 5: it's a beast. I'm throwing some VERY difficult problems at at - things I've been dragging my heels on for months - and it's crunching through them very happily. One that I'm willing to share (albeit from just a week ago) - I built a Python library last week that bundles MicroPython compiled to WA…

Still does not crack my hardest nuts. Gave it one of them and it blew through my entire allowance on thinking about one question, with no apparent answer in sight! I see a lot of people saying they are happy with weaker models, but I am the opposite, I need more strength, more intelligence! I am quite happy that opus 4.8 can do some medium intelligence problems. And maybe Fable 5 can do some more more of those! I hav…

I also see a lot of people saying they are happy with weaker models.

At work I had to switch to using GPT 5.4 Mini and Qwen 3.6 27B.

The results were near useless.

The error rate is through the roof, it's constantly incorrect in its conclusions even when investigating very simple issues.

Further the models are too unreliable to even move 20 line snippets around without inadvertently modifying them. Ask them to correct it and they still get it wrong.

Maybe the larger Chinese models are better, but the Mini stuff is next to useless to me.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#804

Post by johnisgood »

teiferer wrote: post #769
simonw wrote: post #534

I've spent enough time with this now in Claude Code (and Claude.ai and Claude Code for web) to have an opinion on Fable 5: it's a beast. I'm throwing some VERY difficult problems at at - things I've been dragging my heels on for months - and it's crunching through them very happily. One that I'm willing to share (albeit from just a week ago) - I built a Python library last week that bundles MicroPython compiled to WA…

> It's possible Opus or GPT-5.5 could have done this too, I've not tried the exact same sequence. The Fable vibes are good here, though. And that's the thing. These comparisons are all gut feelings. I'm missing objective unbiased measurements to actually have real comparisons between different models, their different generations, or even just the convention that everybody adds "you are an expert software engineer" an…

Yes, these are gut feelings. That said, I have lots of experiences with Opus and I have lots of projects and contributions (all reviewed and tested) made with the help of it. Definitely useful, to me and to people whose project matters to them. :P

Adding "do not make mistakes" is silly, in my opinion. There is always a good chance it will make mistakes. You should rather be more specific about a thing rather than as broad as "do not make mistakes" is. It just does not work that way.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#805

Post by anhner »

fzysingularity wrote: post #753

I can’t help but think that there are so many astroturfed comments in here. Seems like a concerted and distributed effort from the entire Anthropic team every time to get this on top of HN.

You're right to point that out! Most people did not think of this but you did -- and that's a rare skill to have.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#806

Post by sunaookami »

fzysingularity wrote: post #753

I can’t help but think that there are so many astroturfed comments in here. Seems like a concerted and distributed effort from the entire Anthropic team every time to get this on top of HN.

I see a lot of negative comments right now surprisingly.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#807

Post by svara »

Unfortunately useless if you do anything related to biology. It doesn't try to flag dangerous queries, it just flags queries as biology-related wholesale.

It's absurd. To see how far the filter goes I asked it "Are trees a monophyletic group?" and that does trigger the filter.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#808

Post by mbmbn »

Claude Opus is already close to unusable for me. On the standard plan, the usage limits are so low that I can’t do almost anything agentic meaningful with it.

Sure, it does last a lot more when asking simple questions about the repo and doing simple surgical fixes. But as soon as I start doing bigger tasks that need plans written, it just exhausts the limits too fast (and unlike codex, if it’s in a middle of a task, Claude actually stops, while codex, even after hitting the limits, finishes the present task).

Codex is better, but still, getting worst in this regard.

So, I’m not that thrilled with this new model unless it means they are increasing opus token limits to what sonnet is at the present, and this new model gets the limits opus are at now.

BTW: the only skills I have in use are Obra Superpowers. I’ve been thinking if that’s at the origin of high token usage, but I doubt it.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#809

Post by ElFitz »

teiferer wrote: post #769
simonw wrote: post #534

I've spent enough time with this now in Claude Code (and Claude.ai and Claude Code for web) to have an opinion on Fable 5: it's a beast. I'm throwing some VERY difficult problems at at - things I've been dragging my heels on for months - and it's crunching through them very happily. One that I'm willing to share (albeit from just a week ago) - I built a Python library last week that bundles MicroPython compiled to WA…

> It's possible Opus or GPT-5.5 could have done this too, I've not tried the exact same sequence. The Fable vibes are good here, though. And that's the thing. These comparisons are all gut feelings. I'm missing objective unbiased measurements to actually have real comparisons between different models, their different generations, or even just the convention that everybody adds "you are an expert software engineer" an…

That’s what evals are for.

And there’s no reason evals can’t be done on multi-turn agents in a loop (or not): it’s pretty much what all these benchmarks do.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#810

Post by gdcbe »

Seems to flag any project related to networking — regardless if it is a network framework or a podcast website — as unsafe... oh well... let's see how it is once they losen up...
Post reply on HN