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

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#871

Post by EagnaIonat »

weird-eye-issue wrote: post #868
EagnaIonat wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Push a bunch of EU Overregulation onto the rest of the world with text watermarking, That's not part of the EU regulations. You only need to say that it is created by AI, and then only under certain conditions.

That is simply not true. You need to go read that again, if you ever read it at all before correcting somebody about it https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/50/ "Providers of AI systems, including general-purpose AI systems, generating synthetic audio, image, video or text content, shall ensure that the outputs of the AI system are marked in a machine-readable format and detectable as artificially generated o…

You are over thinking it.

Just adding metadata is enough to meet these requirements. Or a paragraph that says the passage was created by AI.

EU AI Act is mainly about risk. Where there is high risk for the public, then safeguards are put in place. It has to be obvious that AI generated the content or outcomes are AI based and explainable.

Embedding a watermark directly into the passage of text doesn't meet this requirement. Although it will be handy for catching people who cheat at their homework.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#872

Post by chaboud »

exceptione wrote: post #451
velcrovan wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a pet theory that the Opus prose style/smell we all have grown weary of is due at least in part to the models writing more for themselves and each other than for humans. They're packing lots of signal into fewer words and they don't care if it sounds cringe because it works better as glue in long-running tasks. I'm also thinking of the 2017 novel "Void Star" where AIs who operate everything have long since lef…

> They're packing lots of signal into fewer words FYI, these are so-called `load-bearing` words.

Your observation is game-changing, and it reverses my suggested priority completely.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#873

Post by testfrequency »

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…

Project Panama [0]

Must be helpful that your company is slurping and destroying literature, how sad that the results of this are a blog post with “look how well we write English”. Eye roll.

Could not be happier about my decision to turn down a job offer from Anthropic years ago. Ick.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Panama

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#874

Post by KptMarchewa »

NL807 wrote: post #772
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.…

I've told ai to distill Google's developer documentation style guide and IMO it works much better.

https://developers.google.com/style

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#875

Post by turblety »

rafaelmn wrote: post #870
agile-gift0262 wrote: post #844

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am becoming dependent on AI to make a living IMO, if you depend on AI to make a living, I'd invest in hardware for local inference, and learn on how to effectively make a living using AI inference you control, on hardware you control. Sure, economically speaking it's way cheaper to use one of these heavily subsidised services (for now), and their models are faster and more capable, but if your livelihood depends…

Except there's a huge gulf of self-hosting and using API hosts - no way you can reach the economics of a shared host. Privacy is a problem but you can chose who you host with and where it's hosted (which jurisdiction). When privacy/compliance really starts to matter it's up to the client/business to provide you with tooling - you're not running that on your own hardware anyway. So the local AI for individuals is just…

I'm not sure. The problem with the cloud llm's is they are complete black boxes that change frequently and randomly day by day.

If you run Qwen 3.8 on your own hardware, every single day, it's the exact same model running in the exact same way.

Yes, it's nowhere near as "smart" as the cloud based models. But it's consistent.

So the workflows and "ways of working" you create will work mostly similar day to day.

With Claude/OpenAI you frequently find days where the models are useless, and days when they are out of this world.

So I guess the choice comes down to:

1. Randomly the smartest thing on the planet with unpredictable rate limits that is mostly amazing, but frequently messes with your workflows

2. A really good local coding model that is consistent every day with no rate limits

I'm not sure. My gut feeling is maybe the right answer is a mix of both.

Gambling on the biggest models, hoping they are working smart that day, when planning or doing very complex work. Then doing most of the tasks/daily work using local models??

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#876

Post by jens_tlb »

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…

[dead]

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#877

Post by jamaliki »

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…

Congratulations on the release. As a scientist working in biology, I cannot take the supposed prowess of Fable seriously until I am actually able to use it for biology. Currently, Fable is completely incapable of helping with any biology related task, however tangential.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#878

Post by kaoD »

jamaliki wrote: post #877
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…

Congratulations on the release. As a scientist working in biology, I cannot take the supposed prowess of Fable seriously until I am actually able to use it for biology. Currently, Fable is completely incapable of helping with any biology related task, however tangential.

Anybody knows why Fable is railguarded in particular against biology tasks? I'm out of the loop here.

Is it drugs? Bio/chemical weapons?

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#879

Post by robryan »

agile-gift0262 wrote: post #844
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 becoming dependent on AI to make a living IMO, if you depend on AI to make a living, I'd invest in hardware for local inference, and learn on how to effectively make a living using AI inference you control, on hardware you control. Sure, economically speaking it's way cheaper to use one of these heavily subsidised services (for now), and their models are faster and more capable, but if your livelihood depends…

They really can't in the open model space. Look at any current open model you would want to use on open router, there will be 20 or more options.

Re: Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1

#880

Post by AdamN »

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…

It seems like the different AI companies should lean into their 'blend' in terms of AI speak. The analogues for me are spaghetti sauce or coffee. Starbucks for instance has a particular roasting style that you can guess 100% of the time and it adds a certain consistency to the customer experience even though it doesn't encapsulate the full world of coffee.

Similar for model responses where the 'blend' should be nurtured over time and consistent even if the underlying processes change. That is, once the right blend is figured out - which may not be the case yet.

Post reply on HN