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

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Fable 5

#821

Post by WinstonSmith84 »

caleblloyd wrote: post #762

I recently switched off Max flat rate to Enterprise API pricing and I went from 200/mo to 10k/mo with the same usage pattern on Opus. They don’t offer flat rate to enterprises. So Fable would cost me 20k/mo at Enterprise rates. That’s around the average cost of a loaded SWE in the USA. “But I’m >2x more productive” doesn’t justify doubling the opex of the Software/IT department for most companies when revenue isn’t e…

With GPT 5.5 on the $100 plan, it's hard to hit any 5h/7d limits - while allegedly being better than DeepSeek 4 pro. Not sure why, or how you spend "a few hundred dollars of spend".

With that said, I still had the Pro plan on Claude, I didn't expect much, but it blew up my 5h allowance on Fable with one simple single prompt, and it didn't even complete lmao

Re: Claude Fable 5

#822

Post by beeandapenguin »

jwpapi wrote: post #819

Holy shit. I gave it the first actual task I’m facing, it makes me so angry. It just does 7 things more than I asked it fore and it does it so bad. It took 5 minutes and 5 seconds just running time, plus giving me frustration and make me lose my context. Hand-coded I would’ve been done in 3. And it would be code I understand can look at in one year and work on again. It’s really tough to have sanity fight against hyp…

If the task is so simple why use a model like Fable 5? Wrong tool for the job?

Re: Claude Fable 5

#823

Post by Lutger »

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…

Humans make mistakes too, does it mean humans are unusable? We accept as empirical fast that most production quality code has 2 - 10 bugs per 1k LoC. According to your premise, virtually all existing software is therefor unusable.

What if an LLM overall starts to make less mistakes than a medium developer, costs less than its salary and is 100 x faster? For sure, the companies that will leverage these with just a few senior devs doing prompting, testing and requirements analysis, will outcompete other organizations.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#824

Post by gmerc »

zulgin wrote: post #768
caleblloyd wrote: post #762

I recently switched off Max flat rate to Enterprise API pricing and I went from 200/mo to 10k/mo with the same usage pattern on Opus. They don’t offer flat rate to enterprises. So Fable would cost me 20k/mo at Enterprise rates. That’s around the average cost of a loaded SWE in the USA. “But I’m >2x more productive” doesn’t justify doubling the opex of the Software/IT department for most companies when revenue isn’t e…

I think you are broadly correct, but just to pushback on a few points: (1) Ability to solve hard problems in days vs weeks as immense value (2) Back-end improvements (if done right), should improve platform speed, stability, scalability etc. which should have revenue implication (3) Ability to on-board a SWE equivalent entity in minutes, have them work on a specific hard problem and then off-board them in minutes can…

You're not really solving problems, you're retrieving the best match of solved problems from compressed corpus. And that corpus is available to many companies, meaning "hard" problems stop having "hard problem" value the moment they enter the weights of any model via the internet ... or distill from one model to another. Anthropics business model is commoditising knowledge, but as we see with the Fable model card, they only want it done to the knowledge of other businesses, in their own field, they totally hate it.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#825

Post by beeandapenguin »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #371
dannyw wrote: post #255

Impressions from testing Fable 5 prior to launch: • My most noticeable immediate jump was in how its frontend design was much more intentionally crafted, and delightful without feeling like 'AI vibe coded'; with better end-user usability too. • In some internal agentic harnesses, it achieved better results with about half the tokens, making it cost the ~same as Opus 4.8 price-wise! The real price increase is less tha…

After running it for half an hour: it's incredibly good at the visual aspects of UI design.

By what measure?

I wonder how much of design capability improvements is related to our collective ability to recognize AI design tropes.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#826

Post by eternauta3k »

pietz wrote: post #53

> On June 23, we’ll remove Fable 5 from those plans. Using it after that will require usage credits. We've entered the phase where only companies will be able to afford state-of-the-art models.

Just wait until that other company hard-codes Fable into silicon and then it will be cheaper.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#827

Post by niborgen »

It kicked me out of Fable 5 and switched to Opus 4.8 for this prompt:

"csetibius water clock why two stage gear system why not just one stage"

which has nothing to do with cyber security or biology/chemistry

Re: Claude Fable 5

#828

Post by anygivnthursday »

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…

Yeah, it makes the same old errors, being confidently wrong then sorry... I mean, it is still an LLM

Re: Claude Fable 5

#829

Post by WebGuyMe »

Eh, to me it just seems that it gives me longer replies and is actually worse than Opus 4.8.

I am sure there's a lot of PR bot and folks who would like to tell me otherwise. I believe what I see.

Re: Claude Fable 5

#830

Post by orbital-decay »

solenoid0937 wrote: post #158

the quality of discussion on HN has gone to shit, i miss when model released used to have actual informed takes from people that used them or substantive discussion about the system card

My semi-informed take is that Fable/Mythos is just larger but not architecturally different, apparently. The system card is simply marketing material and scaremongering, top to bottom. The sauce is in their training (details of which they won't disclose) and scale.
Post reply on HN