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

831–840 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#831

Post by lilytweed »

doodlesdev wrote: post #635
lgl wrote: post #587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with you, for what I usually do most models are already more than enough. What I'm really keen on is better auto-reasoning so I don't have to constantly have the constant inner debate on which reasoning effort to pick for each task. I seriously hate the none-low-medium-high-xhigh-max-ultra etc that we have now, with companies frequently recommending different ones on each new model release, etc. It's apparently c…

Adaptive reasoning is known to be an extremely hard problem to solve, though. It requires you to predict whether a certain LLM, with a certain effort level, with a certain prompt, will give you the right answer.

This feels like exactly the kind of problem domain that belongs in (and can be solved by) RL?

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#832

Post by nullbio »

celrod wrote: post #452
skiing_crawling wrote: post #103

All the benchmarks in the world don't matter if the model just straight up refuses to do mundane things. Claude has too much of an attitude.

I'm a kernel engineer. Fable 5 refused all my requests, falling back to Opus 4.8. My wife is a chemist. Her experience wasn't much better.

GLM 5.3 is supposedly incredible for kernel engineering. Have you tried it?

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#833

Post by Schlagbohrer »

boardwaalk wrote: post #746

I let it go a few hours on a not trivial but well-known problem, and it felt like it was just a little too plodding and just kind of mucked around a little too much and wasn't aggressive enough about getting stuff done. I asked it to wind it down and finish up and it took another hour and 15 to actually stop and commit without really getting much more done. Not very impressed here, if you can't tell. This new version…

250k tokens is awfully small for a frontier context window, I haven't pushed the frontier models in a long time but i assumed they all had 1M token windows as advertised practically a year ago.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#834

Post by fugaziboutit »

NL807 wrote: post #774
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…

Not sure if something like this is already on the table, but I would like to see Claude responses more in line with Simplified Technical English [1] by default. I find those writing styles a lot easier to read. This has been standardised as ASD-STE100 [2]. I've seen few people making SKILL.md files with that in mind, which works great, but having this by default without invoking the skill command would be better. 1.…

"All people agree on this rule. A single man with high wealth must find a wife." -- Jane Austbot

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#835

Post by InsideOutSanta »

Revisional_Sin wrote: post #769
InsideOutSanta wrote: post #311

On both my work (Team Premium) and personal accounts (Max 20x), Fable 5.1 hit the 5-hour limit before it could finish the first task I gave it. On my work account, it took about 30 minutes, and on my personal account, less than an hour. This has never happened to me before, but if this is normal behavior, Fable 5.1 is essentially unusable.

How did you hit the 5-hour limit if it took one hour?

That's how Anthropic's subscription limits work. You have a certain amount of usage in a five-hour window. Usually, with heavy usage, I can reach this limit after three or four hours. With 5.1, I hit it in less than an hour.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#837

Post by farbklang »

gls2ro wrote: post #803
NL807 wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if something like this is already on the table, but I would like to see Claude responses more in line with Simplified Technical English [1] by default. I find those writing styles a lot easier to read. This has been standardised as ASD-STE100 [2]. I've seen few people making SKILL.md files with that in mind, which works great, but having this by default without invoking the skill command would be better. 1.…

IMO that would be a mistake because Simplified Technical English cannot properly represent business domains specifically when talking about using specific concepts from those domains. It can explain those concepts but I think it will fail short or naming them. So I think making that default as it is will create bugs. I ran an experiment here https://allaboutcoding.ghinda.com/explain-to-me-in-simple-te... (of course i…

Well that is why it is technical English. I wouldn't use it to explain business concepts, but it is perfect for explaining logical flows and how something works.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#838

Post by VeejayRampay »

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…

since you work at Anthropic, know that there was (warranted) love for your models from the community as a whole, they performed well and added value

but the verbiage in recent iterations is absolutely insufferable, I will stop using them because of that as soon as I can, I simply cannot stand another round of the model "finding the smoking gun", saying "that's the actual gap, not a fluke" or some idiotic phrasing like this

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#839

Post by grey-area »

smashed wrote: post #785
NL807 wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if something like this is already on the table, but I would like to see Claude responses more in line with Simplified Technical English [1] by default. I find those writing styles a lot easier to read. This has been standardised as ASD-STE100 [2]. I've seen few people making SKILL.md files with that in mind, which works great, but having this by default without invoking the skill command would be better. 1.…

I must have missed something but can't you just prompt it to answer in your desired style? What am I missing here. Commenting because I am struggling with this too, claude code seems to be so verbose no matter how I prompt it.

Training is far more important than user prompts

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#840

Post by jatins »

dboon wrote: post #197

I've been building Cargo-for-C ( https://github.com/tspader/spn ), and the difference between Fable and Opus was already astounding. Fable was the first time that I could point a model at a piece of code I'd written and expect it to make it meaningfully better rather than a hard pattern match to whatever mistakes it had. 5.1 so far seems like another leap, which is really surprising. I threw it at a few bigger featur…

Completely agreed. I think the distillation from Fable to Opus is doing well on benchmarks but not translating into day to day work
Post reply on HN