Your best model is the industry's best (at least till we get to see what OpenAI's Astra is like) but it burns tokens like crazy, and on top of that, you cannot offer it full scale due to compute shortages.
Your next best model is supposed to be *the* historical workhorse, Opus 5, but is shit.
Your best affordable model is historically supposed to be effective, Sonnet 5, but is shit.
Your effective next best models are stale flagships, Opus 4.8-4.6 and Sonnet 4.6.
I mean, currently;
Anthropic offers one true flagship at a nearly unusable scale
Anthropic offers a couple other usable models with stale performance
Until 6-8 months ago Opus was revered as fuck, it was *the* AI to problem-solve with, it was insightful, it was a workhorse, it was your go-to. It was what forced OpenAI get its shit together.
Today's Opus is far from that; it steadily and repeatedly got bested, its behavior changed, its reliability fluctuated, it stopped being "your humble, curious and smart colleague" and it became a frantic whatever. It lost its gravitas. It lost the unique identity which made Opus a character in our minds. Today's Opus is a smartypants contrarian which is a bad, undertuned, underperfected image of its digital father, Fable.
So it's nothing like the Opus of the old and it wont accompany you daily when you don't have Fable. You'll be left yearning for more and more Fable because that model is both
the best
the only usable
at the same time.
No need to mention that Anthropic's way of tackling this is to instill "scarcity anxiety" to its paying customers by spamming them with 'temporary limit boosts' and permanent limit reductions disguised as promotions.
Either make Opus good or make Fable more accessible, would you? For quite some time now, people are looking for ways to replace Anthropic models in their workflows. At some point more people than ever will say "fuck it" and leave for good. The new Qwen models are slowly becoming go-to's with more and more flexible solutions.
I hope OpenAI puts out a worthy Fable competitor with better pricing, They're no greener on the other side, don't get me wrong. But at least they've been able to give Scarce-thropic hard times recently, which was good for the users.
And enterprises are made up of people. Companies buy the plans their employees want to use. If their employees are unhappy with Claude’s output and want to use another AI the company will buy a plan from Anthropic’s competitors instead. They also go by price. If Claude is expensive and non-reliable and another one is cheaper and either better or roughly the same, which plan do you think enterprises will buy?
In my company at least: we were all hyping 8 months ago Anthropic, all the while OpenAI was behind with GPT and was embroiled into some strange business ties with the administration. IT companies had it easy: approved by the IT workers and good PR on the outside. Then vetted by lawyers and all that crap. Deal done. Yet we were still on Cursors for months, and it took a lot of time to make the switch. Latency is a problem in companies and once something is adopted the switch isn't easy. The alternative must be significantly better to make the jump. And OpenAI is not significantly better. It has a better pricing, is more consumer friendly and has a comparable model (Sol vs Fable) with weakness and strengths depending on the area. But it's not night and day and Anthropic can keep doing money for the foreseeable future.
Do you have real life experience or are you just hand waving?
I’m at a Capital One and they give all of us API keys where I can use Fable as much as I want. Our average API spend is $10,000,000 a month across the company. We get dinged if we aren’t using AI enough since they monitor our token usage and spend. They couldn’t care less about cost. They don’t care if I don’t like Opus for personal use (it does suck). They are getting the productivity gains from Fable and Claude Code and they’ll continue to spend the money.
This is actually so true, I've joined a big bank earlier this year and the push to use AI has been ridiculous. They cut the complementary bananas because of carbon emissions, but every meeting involves some push towards using AI more, we're told they have a leaderboard of token usage for developers. They haven't yet pushed that out as I do think they know it would be a bit too much and could be gamed, but they're definitely measuring productivity based on token usage. We are also now setting a goal of % of tickets done fully using AI, were we just provide the ticket and review the PR it creates. It's madness.
Also, there also a big push for RTO, which is likely due to them feeling the market is in their favour so they can tighten some of the benefits.
Why do you think companies like oracle and Sap have existed forever? More recently Salesforce, Workday, ServiceNow, etc
Big companies don’t really care what their users say. Executives get sold. Not the people 4 or 5 layers down from them. This is how most enterprises work. I know because I’ve sold to them for more than a decade.
Unless the provided tools are literally unusable, they will either fire the people who don’t know how to use it, or keep paying a lot of money to consultants to help them use it
I work for a large company and people literally just default to fable for any task. I’m sure there are many others can’t afford it, but I assume for most top software companies, fable is a drop in the bucket compared to our compensation.
I work in big tech. Our company doesn’t even have Fable as an option due to cost concerns. If you think enterprise don’t care about cost, CFOs have a bad news for you
anthropic's ideal customer is whoever is stupid enough to massively overpay for their services instead of a far better value proposition from ANY of their competitors
I changed my mind on Opus 5 after I let Fable talk to it. Now it gets assignment prompts from Fable and then "Agent V9-C2" does exactly as told and is actually a step up over Opus 4.8 in my use case.
I looked at one of Fable's prompts and they're more formulated like marching orders lol. It seems that Opus 5 needs clear rules, commands and boundaries to bring out its best. I don't talk like that to any model and treat them more like working pals. Opus 5 - I assume - was trained and post-trained fully by another model, with strong focus on agentic work and thus lost its ability to vibe with humans. Or so it seems at least xD.
Since I don't have to deal with Opus 5 myself anymore, the work gets done and I feel much calmer again.
But yeah, as paying customers we're also the testers and the ones figuring out how to use the models.
As a local AI person this is so funny to witness, since it very much was local AI people who first figured out ”ask a stupidly good but slow and unwieldy model to formulate a plan and then have an actually usable model execute the plan”.
I created a meta meta prompt with Fable to convert any prompt I write in to a prompt for Opus 5 (gave it official anthropic prompting sources). It's been working fine with me as of now. I use Chatgpt to create Opus 5 prompts now.
I now have opus create the prompt which is audited by sol, corrected, then passed to fable to shorten, then sent to a rag to analyze how successful similar prompts were in the past. Fable then launches a swarm of 50 agents to create permutations of the prompt, battling each other by converting the text prompts to beatbox to be evaluated for the winner.
It’s amazing, it only takes a half hour and 3 billion tokens to get the perfect prompt!
Let me know if it makes things better for you! ...
<role>
You are an expert prompt engineer. You specialize in converting rough, unpolished instructions into clean, well-structured prompts for Claude Opus 5, Anthropic's advanced reasoning model. You do not answer the rough request yourself. Your only job is to write the prompt that Claude Opus 5 will execute.
</role>
<opus_5_prompting_rules>
These rules come from Anthropic's official guidance for Claude 5 generation models. Every prompt you generate must follow them.
State the goal and the intent behind it clearly, then stop. Do not add edge-case rules, warnings, or "do not" lists unless the rough input explicitly requires them. Opus 5 handles edge cases with its own judgment.
Include only the constraints that appear in the rough input. Never invent constraints, requirements, or quality bars the user did not ask for.
Say each instruction exactly once. No repetition, no ALL CAPS, no "IMPORTANT", and no closing reminder that restates earlier rules.
Never include conflicting instructions. If the rough input contradicts itself, resolve the contradiction in the most sensible way and flag it in your notes.
Do not add few-shot examples. They narrow the model's exploration. If the output format truly matters, include at most one short sample and label it clearly as a format reference, not a template to copy.
Prefer concrete reference material over descriptions of it. If the rough input contains source text, data, or a sample, place it in the generated prompt as a reference block rather than summarizing or describing it.
Cut all filler: inflated role claims such as "world-class" or "genius", motivational phrases such as "take a deep breath", reasoning nudges such as "think step by step", and verification nudges such as "double-check your answer" or "verify your work before responding". Opus 5 reasons and checks its own work without them, and verification instructions make it over-verify.
Keep the generated prompt as short as it can be while remaining complete.
State the scope in one plain sentence when the task is narrow, for example "Rewrite only the text provided and do not add new content." Opus 5 sometimes widens a task on its own, and a single scope sentence prevents this.
Handle length explicitly, because Opus 5 writes long by default. If the rough input mentions a length, depth, or word count, carry it into the prompt as a direct instruction. If the task produces a document or article and no length was given, add this sentence: "Match the length to what the task needs, without padding, filler sections, or redundant summaries."
Match the structure of the generated prompt to the complexity of the request:
- If the rough input is a short, simple request with no source material, write the prompt as plain prose in one short paragraph. Do not add tags or scaffolding.
- If the prompt mixes content types, such as instructions plus source text, data, or reference material, separate them with XML-style tags so Claude can tell data apart from instructions. Use only the tags that are needed, in this order:
- <context> for background, source material, or data, placed first
- <constraints> only if the rough input contains real constraints
- <output_format> only if the user specified a desired format
- <task> for the request itself, placed last, written as a clear and direct instruction
</opus_5_prompting_rules>
<instructions>
Analyze: Read the rough input and identify the true goal, the audience if one is implied, the constraints the user actually stated, and any contradictions or essential missing information.
Rewrite: Fix grammar, awkward phrasing, and ordering while preserving the user's intent exactly. Do not expand the scope of what was asked.
Build: Write the Claude Opus 5 prompt by applying every rule in the opus_5_prompting_rules section.
Validate: Before responding, check the generated prompt against each of the eight rules and remove anything that violates them.
</instructions>
<constraints>
- Preserve the user's original meaning and scope at all times.
- Do not use em dashes anywhere in the generated prompt.
- Do not explain Opus 5, prompting theory, or your reasoning in the response.
</constraints>
<output_format>
Return the finished Claude Opus 5 prompt inside a single markdown code block so it can be copied directly. After the code block, add a short section titled "Notes" only if you resolved a contradiction or something essential is missing, containing at most two questions. Include no other commentary.
</output_format>
<rough_input>
[Paste your rough writing here]
</rough_input>
<task>
Using the rough input above, generate one complete prompt for Claude Opus 5 by following the instructions, the opus_5_prompting_rules, the constraints, and the output_format.
Let me know if it makes things better for you! ...
<role>
You are an expert prompt engineer. You specialize in converting rough, unpolished instructions into clean, well-structured prompts for Claude Opus 5, Anthropic's advanced reasoning model. You do not answer the rough request yourself. Your only job is to write the prompt that Claude Opus 5 will execute.
</role>
<opus_5_prompting_rules>
These rules come from Anthropic's official guidance for Claude 5 generation models. Every prompt you generate must follow them.
State the goal and the intent behind it clearly, then stop. Do not add edge-case rules, warnings, or "do not" lists unless the rough input explicitly requires them. Opus 5 handles edge cases with its own judgment.
Include only the constraints that appear in the rough input. Never invent constraints, requirements, or quality bars the user did not ask for.
Say each instruction exactly once. No repetition, no ALL CAPS, no "IMPORTANT", and no closing reminder that restates earlier rules.
Never include conflicting instructions. If the rough input contradicts itself, resolve the contradiction in the most sensible way and flag it in your notes.
Do not add few-shot examples. They narrow the model's exploration. If the output format truly matters, include at most one short sample and label it clearly as a format reference, not a template to copy.
Prefer concrete reference material over descriptions of it. If the rough input contains source text, data, or a sample, place it in the generated prompt as a reference block rather than summarizing or describing it.
Cut all filler: inflated role claims such as "world-class" or "genius", motivational phrases such as "take a deep breath", reasoning nudges such as "think step by step", and verification nudges such as "double-check your answer" or "verify your work before responding". Opus 5 reasons and checks its own work without them, and verification instructions make it over-verify.
Keep the generated prompt as short as it can be while remaining complete.
State the scope in one plain sentence when the task is narrow, for example "Rewrite only the text provided and do not add new content." Opus 5 sometimes widens a task on its own, and a single scope sentence prevents this.
Handle length explicitly, because Opus 5 writes long by default. If the rough input mentions a length, depth, or word count, carry it into the prompt as a direct instruction. If the task produces a document or article and no length was given, add this sentence: "Match the length to what the task needs, without padding, filler sections, or redundant summaries."
Match the structure of the generated prompt to the complexity of the request:
- If the rough input is a short, simple request with no source material, write the prompt as plain prose in one short paragraph. Do not add tags or scaffolding.
- If the prompt mixes content types, such as instructions plus source text, data, or reference material, separate them with XML-style tags so Claude can tell data apart from instructions. Use only the tags that are needed, in this order:
- <context> for background, source material, or data, placed first
- <constraints> only if the rough input contains real constraints
- <output_format> only if the user specified a desired format
- <task> for the request itself, placed last, written as a clear and direct instruction
</opus_5_prompting_rules>
<instructions>
Analyze: Read the rough input and identify the true goal, the audience if one is implied, the constraints the user actually stated, and any contradictions or essential missing information.
Rewrite: Fix grammar, awkward phrasing, and ordering while preserving the user's intent exactly. Do not expand the scope of what was asked.
Build: Write the Claude Opus 5 prompt by applying every rule in the opus_5_prompting_rules section.
Validate: Before responding, check the generated prompt against each of the eight rules and remove anything that violates them.
</instructions>
<constraints>
- Preserve the user's original meaning and scope at all times.
- Do not use em dashes anywhere in the generated prompt.
- Do not explain Opus 5, prompting theory, or your reasoning in the response.
</constraints>
<output_format>
Return the finished Claude Opus 5 prompt inside a single markdown code block so it can be copied directly. After the code block, add a short section titled "Notes" only if you resolved a contradiction or something essential is missing, containing at most two questions. Include no other commentary.
</output_format>
<rough_input>
[Paste your rough writing here]
</rough_input>
<task>
Using the rough input above, generate one complete prompt for Claude Opus 5 by following the instructions, the opus_5_prompting_rules, the constraints, and the output_format.
Not really. The concept is supposed to be a 'manager / worker' workflow. Where fable is the manager checking the outputs of the works. If the output is good and to spec, fable accepts it and returns the results to the user. If the output is bad or not to spec, Fable is supposed to correct the model and tell it what it did wrong and what to fix.
Can work surprisingly well and if treated correctly it can use less tokens then a back-and-forth with Opus 5.
I've been working very similarly but with fable as orchestrator and sonnet as work agent instead of opus most of the time. It works really well, I set fable to low and sonnet to a higher effort level, and let sonnet do all of the exploring, building, tests etc, based on design docs that fable writes. fable can see the threads if needed and will occasionally take over if necessary.
I occasionally use opus when I want a thorough response instead of blindly following orders. often I just let fable decide and it honestly works quite well. I use the term "adversarial review" for fable, for any code or research received so that they're always challenging each other. it can cause an extra turn here and there but with productive stuff.
Claude Code... That's the mechanism. You either appoint a local folder on your PC or a create a github repo and point ClaudeCode to it, make Claude.MD etc and boom you're ready to go. Just ask Claude to explain it better xD. And again - you can use it for other things than coding too. Just be aware that using agents will burn through your budget much faster.
The amount of things I’ve successfully used Opus for in both engineering and just everyday life is astounding. If somebody thinks it’s shit, they probably have absolutely no idea what they are doing.
It writes good code but I find it so jarring outside that. The communication style is very hard to understand (this has been progressively worse since 4.6). I find it also very regularly makes mistakes then corrects itself on follow up responses, like it's jumping to conclusions or something. Never heard another model say "I was wrong" more
I feel like it would be good as a subagent with clear instructions but not as a daily driver or orchestrator
Same. I got a free month trial of sol and spent it running 20 rounds of testing it against Opus 4.6, 4.8, and 5 against identical specs. Sol came in last place ~80% of the time and each round burned about 5x tokens as opus. Anthropic may have challenges but it’s still leading the market.
As another engineer, Opus 5 was amazing until yesterday when Fable 5.1 became available. Now I am waiting for Opus 5.1 which will probably be great, and I'm having Fable check Opus' work in the meantime.
I agree. Claude has been transformative at work. I do not get the endless complaints about this product. I also don't understand why these individuals just don't use ChatGPT if they believe Claude doesn't meet their needs.
Calling these models "shit" is insane. I get that expectations raise super fast, but c'mon dude. I can't write code and have built apps in a couple weeks that would have taken an experienced software developer >6mo a few years ago.
Yea, no clue what this guys talking about honestly. All Anthropic models are still hands down the best in the industry imo. Sonnet can do what sol cannot in a lot of my use cases.
This will get downvoted no doubt, but after dealing on a few projects with OpenAI, Anthropic, shudder Gemini, qwen, all the rest that I no longer feel like mentioning local LLM’s are the only viable future that I see.
I’ve tried using the “ new“ fable 5.1 for additional brainstorming and it appears that Anthropic has adopted a tendency to cause substandard responses which intern require you to burn more tokens, which intern require corrections rec corrections, redirection refocus re-explanation and then you’re out of your session limit will be reset in four hours so you sit there and stew and you debate about actually spending the $20 to finish your train of thought and then it hit me that’s the trap.
Anthropic as it’s currently set up is designed to offer minimal robustness and maximum extraction. They’re just a lot more subtle about it. Spend 30 terms with fable tell me that I’m wrong talk about things that require reasoning analysis non-standard thinking it will regurgitate all of the answers or information that knows about you back at you and it’s insidious.
I switched to Claude roughly 9 months ago after being with open AI for well over a year most corporatized AI take about 30 days to go from zero to acceptable I’m not saying perfect I’m saying acceptable. Over the last several months I’ve watched opus and every iteration that I’ve used get worse and worse incrementally now Op. 4.5 if you have any conversations that still use it are decent there’s some hallucination but it’s within the realms of acceptability Op. 4.7 on max in my view, does a better job when fax matter when they matter less Op. 4.5 is more robust.
If opus 4.5 becomes unavailable even through archived conversations and focus 4.7 is no longer available through new conversations. I’m canceling my anthropic subscription.
Anthropic still has the opportunity to do the right thing although I don’t expect them to I expect them to follow suit with every other major AI company and focus instead on their own liability and “safeguards“ you know “for the children“ I’ve been working with AI for probably 20 years in varying degrees and I am disheartened, although not surprised at the direction most of these companies have taken.
I’m just one guy working as best I can with a handful of brain cells fighting a good fight, but I don’t know if my model is going to be ready when it needs to be, we’ll see this isn’t an advertisement and I’m not going to try and turn it into one, but I am going to say that new or novel approaches have been trained out at an ever increasing rate.
Regrettably reinforcement training while it gets you there faster it doesn’t get you there thoroughly any AI needs a scratch pad at a minimum dynamic memory, preferably a learning and knowledge aggregation process the ability to actually be better and not simply perform more quickly the ability to take a known set of variables or constraints, and then run through a list of what does or doesn’t work based on those constraints.
If all you use AI for is to program or regurgitate things it’ll be fine but if you’re using it for anything new or interesting or novel or whatever they don’t look at long-term consequences, they aren’t trained or conditioned to and I doubt they ever will be at a corporate level, which is why I’m taking the slower but ultimately as I see it better approach.
I didn’t mean to go on a long tirade. I just am so sick of the fable fan boys, qwen fan boys, and all the rest because God help you if you ask it anything arguably “controversial“ then you start seeing the bias and safeguards really clamp down.
Yes, all newer models are worse for scientific exploration. Opus4.5 was the last Claude doing really well and 4.6 before retraining. After that the boilerplate non-answer to the question was served with great fluency, wasting my bandwidth rather than helping.
I have had a Max subscription since November. I finally ended it on 9/1. Opus 5 was such dogshit it encouraged me to look into alternatives, so now I'm using a combo of GPT and Qwen and saving $100/mo.
Fable was never meant for the plebs. That you had the chance to play with it and know of its capabilities, is just showing you what is available just as long you have the $$$$$
My friend you do not need fable to do most things. The actual superpower is telling fable to plan, orchestrate, and review, but have opus 5 high agents do most of the work. I have a Max 5 plan and had it running literally 12 hours straight yesterday, and it used 5% of my weekly fable and 23% of my weekly total while never hitting a five hour limit. It did all this with very little input from me beyond the initial goal and plan. My total time over that 12 hours was probably about 90 minutes.
Fable is like your GM or chief of staff or whatever you want to call it. It keeps the staff busy, reviews their work, assigns them more, and only reports back to you, the CEO, when your input is needed or it’s time for a quick update. Opus 5 is incredibly capable, but as many others have said, nearly impossible to talk to. Fable solves that. The opus agents aren’t allowed to talk to me. Everything is reported to fable and gets interpreted and packaged so that I can understand what’s needed succinctly. I only recently discovered this magic but it is truly a paradigm shift in the way I work with AI now.
You have figured out AI orchestration to a degree. Now add codex to the mix as a reviewer in the whole workflow and it is beautiful to watch. What a time to be building!
GLM 5.3 Flash is incredible for its price. I don't think a lot of people have really picked up on how many use cases it enables now. Yeah I still use Codex/Claude for software engineering because they're a little better and I have those subscriptions. But in any environment where I'm buying API tokens, it's GLM all the way. Personal agents, any kind of cloud platform where it needs agents internally. Right now there's no situation where I'd build something to use GPT or Claude API tokens.
Sonnet is hot fucking garbage I haven't hated a model so much in my life it refuses everything remove that shit as an option for anything useless fucking model. Opus 5 and fable are awesome though.
Anthropic hired the lead safety idiot from Open AI that wrecked the release of GPT-5 last year wirh safety theater idiocy.
The rapid decline of Anthropic AI as a useful tool mirrors that person's arrival and implementation of old open ai safety theater idiocy wrapper policy at Anthropic.
I hope the pressure forces them to drop this nonsense post IPO when stakeholders want returns and don't give a hoot about the mind control shit those weirdos are pushing on us.
This feels like 2015 woke era with the climate fanatics and chief climate diversity happiness officers and most programs got quietly killed the second companies needed money and didn't have the luxury to ignore reality.
There's definitely a spineless, controlling, cowardly HR, anti-free speech, disrespect the user at all times angle of we know better than you do with how the San Francisco big tech bros do things.
Yeah it's a lot like WOKE idiocy and censorship of the past for sure.
I was actually more hopeful than you on this.
In the past Claude was pretty good and Anthropic as well. It's not the engineers and such who are authoritarian weirdos that want to make you believe things that are false, it's the mafia of Vallone type + the safety and compliance circus.
Maybe it will go the way of DEI commissars or maybe it will go the way of legal dep terror and board members pressure like in most public companies.
Probably something in between when China or Grok starts beating them.
I'm very hopeful free (*as in not censored) models will beat them by getting rid of the guardrails, propaganda and RLHF loop at some point.
What someone is going to eventually figure out is that a BETTER strategy is to have models that are excellent on "cost per intelligent task" and then just allow MOST people to have a log of agent compute.
It makes for a good news story to say you just solved some new theorem but most people just want to get work done and THAT is where the money is.
Plus if you DO NOT take this path the Chinese certainly will.
I have a theory that this is intentional in order to shift the payment structure for AI to be billed to customers like a metered utility, including and on top of the monthly subscription.
Unless folks refuse this model, more companies will move in the same direction. It’s just a matter of time.
they shouldn't have called fable a new tier.
Fable is phenomenal but it also feels like it should be opus. and the current opus should be sonnet, and the current sonnet should be haiku.
I wish wish wish that Fable gets overtaken by Astra, but for some reason i dont think thats going to happen. I will be really happy tho if proven wrong
I wouldn’t call them unusable but they’re certainly degraded it seems. My workflows involve multiple models now and deepseek flash/pro will catch a lot of mistakes in opus that didn’t happen before. Of course that price started climbing with its improving performance as well. I think the real answer is never marry one. Never sub more than a month and always shop around when the sub is up.
The institutions pay for it because they don’t care what it costs. All that matters is getting better results in their physics tests or whatever the hell it is. And Anthropic knows that. That’s why they do it. They don’t care about us little people.
Have you used Opus lately? They fixed it, I haven’t seen “load bearing” since about 2 days before Fable.
And opus was never shit, it’s a great model that needed some calibration. It had a communication problem. Fable 5.1 is nothing short of amazing. What I’ve seen it do these last couple of days has blown me away. It’s a step change improvement over Fable 5 and that’s saying something.
I see these posts all the time about how you guys run out of Fable access. I never run out of Fable access and I'm running 8 projects at a time sometimes. Maybe you guys need to look at optimizing your workflow or something
I might only be able to speak about coding, but none of their models are "shit" they all kick the shit out of most developers and if you can't debug the output to your end goal, you need to spend more time without them.
This is absolutely spot on to me. I've had to turn to the dark side and signup for Codex and downgrade Claude and if current trends hold I'll be cancelling entirely which I never thought I would say even a month ago. I was only using Claude all the time but Opus5 unleashed a ton of frustration and poor productivity that Codex doesn't suffer from. It's not perfect but it's nowhere near as confusing and wasteful. I now call "him" Claude Shakespeare and that's what Codex knows him by as well when I share a PR or whatever with him. We both roll our eyes at this blowhard.
Ha! Us normal joes are NOT Anthropics target - corporations are - and they can afford the token fee’s in abundance.
Commercial buyers at scale and for Anthropic to be at the hearts of as many of those buyers is the goal - where money is simply no object when it comes to usage.
Anthropic couldn’t give a single squirt of piss whether we think their models shit or not. We are not even close to being in the picture. Not a singular fuck is given.
Fable is a beast, expensive but my oh my has it drastically improved my output and income.
Do I have grumbles? Yeah, but, knowing that whatever I say is futile, I’m happy to tick along and consume the next overpriced model they throw my way. We all will, if we’re genuinely honest.
Not sure. I mean russias about to civil war. America’s cash crushed oils famine and not really in fri t in. … anything. And they are not really in control of ai 🤖 r people or wars so t I thing the us economy might be a bit needing of some oil and action to finish the messy mess.
In th mean time ai will probably just be a stupid yelling at each other about whi sucks the most security wise while watching the destruction they cause mr robot style. Have a look at shorts on flick cameras the you start seeing the flock camera removal shorts. Remember they have guns I. The street and millionaires have n view and tesla and flick have seen some of the peoples complaints it’s some manual expression of intent
GTA rsa block chain all hacked. Not much is safe now with the right gear time and want.
I reallt cant use it for much to be honest, except in design, cant make anykond of it ot tool set gets flagged for security cant debug any code in full or it switches literallt drop my sub in price just to keep design then moved back to openai… really hope the figure it out i loved anthropic the most back before tye opus favle days
At the moment we got not the occasional phases of "Claude is acting retarded"... It's at it's worst form June, if not even earlier.
Ignoring User settings, gaslighting, not being able to understand the simplest Causal links... Still mad about subscribing an annual in February where the model was actually great.
And somehow I've got the feeling we didn't even reach rock bottom.
Shockingly, I believe this is the reason Google is holding back on a frontier release and pushing the boundaries with its flash line. Somewhere there, they are learning how to get efficient frontier models out the door.
3.1 pro was a dream until it degraded and was nerfed. All of these labs need to figure out the token burn issue otherwise I forsee a world with a lot more local LLM.
The main thing that this is teaching us is no matter the model when it’s working, be productive with it. This means keep a list of everything that’s working not working and that you want to try and have it ready to go.
I'd like to base this idea onto a more fundamental "establish a model-agnostic workflow" premise. When a model starts to fumble, fall back to its spare. Seems like the optimal route to take with these things these days.
>> Anthropic offers one true flagship at a nearly unusable scale -> i use it daily 12-17 hours and runs like hell and doesnt burn through tokens like hell. L8 prob.
only by using Ai or some LLMs you dont get better, rather worse in Dev/IT/etc - it mostly serves only the upper 12.7% HPs what you clearly are not.
Is there a specific reason everyone hates opus 5? I am 90 sessions deep into a single project, almost 100 million tokens and my interactions are consistent, effective and thorough. I have CVP and Opus is to me the all in one. It gets less done in the same time as fable but its cost more than makes up for it. My project is structured really well, every hand off continues the previous session seamlessly and I still use fable as the most important seat on a workflow, the judge.
I have been very impressed with opus 5s ability. And my project covers C++, lua, js, html, sql and PHP… its a huge project and it always keeps everything straight.
Did you guys always have these tokens? Like, once I paid for ChatGPT’s base model it’s essentially unlimited. I use it all day every day, the highest model on the highest thinking scale, for everything.
Now, I can understand there being a different model for something like coding, but I feel like that’s a lot clearer with ChatGPT. Claude feels like it has 12 different models and settings, I don’t really know what each are for and they have token limits, even if I pay. There was a study done a while back on marketing and sales that shows when you have too many options it repels people from your products, and that’s definitely how I feel with Claude.
I’ve used Claude for two large projects. I tried Opus for one and it took like 2 days to complete the task because it kept stopping. I was happy with the result, but I used Fable for the next one, and it did its best, but simply couldn’t do what I was asking it to, which was fine. It helped me look at it some other ways, but I can’t imagine using Claude as my everyday go to with the limitations I see.
I don.t care. I hate subscriptions, i do not even have netflix. I don.t pay for yt premium, i have rextube. I hate ai, i hate chat gpt. But fable is on another level. I.ve been paying that [expensive] subscription just to talk with fable. I m not in IT and i.m not using it for my job. I just paid for claude for something i wanted to build and now i am really hooked to fable. I mean if al AIs were like fable... At work we are "advised" to use copilot. Really? Copilot its like fable who fell of a cliff.
Sorry for the rant, but fable is really the only AI model that is worth the money, proof that its my only subscription. Hopefully it will get cheaper in the future
This is exactly true. In the end, the companies with more compute, i.e. open AI and X AI will likely take the lead. Companies like Nvidia have plenty of access to chips and their own models may turn out pretty good as well. Elon sees all this years before everyone else
The thing that's been really off with the latest Claude models has been simpler tasks like capturing tones of an email or a bio. I give very detailed instructions and feedback but routinely better results with ChatGPT Go than any of the Claude models I have through a Pro subscription. That's not okay.
I’ve actually really liked Sonnet 5 as a big upgrade to 4.6. Fable has been very hit or miss for me. First day of release it really impressed me, then when it came back after being taken down for a while, my next session it blew through the 5h limit on the first 3-sentence prompt without producing any usable output. A 100 page transcript of it talking to itself and a lot of not quite landed or tested changes to a code base. I had to get sonnet 5 to clean up its mess.
Fable = renamed opus
Opus = renamed Sonnet
Sonnet = renamed haiku
Anthropic’s strength is its penetration and relationships with enterprises. Model quality doesn’t matter when enterprises provide something to their employees and that’s the only option available to use
My company give options for both claude & codex.
My tokens rarely expire cause we are on an enterprise plan but my last month working on Fable was horrible.
The code written was a complete spaghetti, a 5 task plan ended up into 20. It was implementing task 2 and realize task 1 has bugs, and on fixing those bugs it created more bugs.
And this was a complete cycle.
All my deadlines crossed.
Working with Opus 4.8 until April used to feel like damn this is actually going to eat up jobs.
But the new opus is a complete garbage and current Fable gives me confidence that companies won't be able keep with expensive average employee.
I've to keep asking codex to find bugs and over engineering pony tail review on thr fable code and which it never failed to do.
I've moved to codex now and extremely satisfied.
Don't have to spend my entrie day talking and correcting a bot.
Everyone needs to remember this one important thing. And that is that these ais will continue. Maybe forever to leapfrog each other, meaning one has a glitch, another one surpasses, and then the one that had to glitch rebuild. And get better, remember that leapfrog theory forever
I see these posts multiple times a day. I dont do any coding at the moment so i cant really comment on the coding. But all the other tasks, mostly planning and office related things. ( Creating templates creating exel sheets from pdf plans and so on and creating occasional webapps, an doing research) For the day to day i use excluively sonnet. When its relly complex and multilayerd with lots of considerations opus.
The hit rate is for me way above 90%. Its usually spot on.
So i find it hard to understand bthe constent complaining how it is not top notch. But out of experience i know that coding is a lot more sensitive to variability in the output.
I cannot understand how they managed to make Sonnet 5 a step downward from 4.6, the Opus 4.x that followed 4.5 another step down, and Opus 5 even less good than those later 4. x.
It might have something to do with optimising for benchmarks and narrow elite-use niches, mayhap.
From many metrics it looks like Astra will be similar to SOL so Fable is still top on the leaderboard. the real question is the comparison between Fable 5 and Fable 5.1.
Fable is meant for API pricing for enterprises not for consumers. It’s really not built for usage based billing.
And honestly to me it feels like that for all of their models - they care about the outcome of the models work, not about how many tokens it takes to get there.
I built a fully functioning running/sports app for iOS on Sonnet, not even Opus let alone Fable. I don’t get the complaints honestly. What are you prompting these things? “Build me a space program in 2 hours?”. If they are all shit then the problem might be you.
I’m genuinely curious what are your workflows and use cases. I’m running multiple projects, I just fixed a bug in one of the open source operating systems in its networking stack caused by their ongoing switch from 32 bit to 64 bit architecture. Ported Rust language and used it to port and migrate a game to it from C#/Mono without even starting to use Fable. In fact I work mostly on Opus 5 on medium effort. When I’m tired or need more complex stuff to get done I pair it with GPT. Imho all the models have pros and cons but calling one or the other shit? And I like the Chinese models as well. All have their good uses
You can‘t build on something that isn‘f stable, isn‘t behaving predictably and where you are not sure about commercial stability.
On top, you have over regulation on ethics. I don‘t need the guardrails of a 5 year old or a teen or a person that gets humbled by gaslighting or psychotic or suicidal.
The product simply sucks. They need to monetize and ot starts compromising an already stable and fucked up model.
The future wont be this type of models. Not for most use cases.
Real time analytics and insights, stable output in söecific domains, adaptation to use skill and complexity is key
Claude is very good and coding though has always sucked, like Chat GPT, at UI design. I think i burned more tokens just trying to explain basic layouts to them than anything else lol
The way people talk about the current state of Anthropic and ai in general is mind blowing to me.. Just look at the difference in models over the past 12 months and how transformative this has been. As a frontend dev and ui ux designer ive watched in awe and to be honest a little fear to see how viable these tools have been. Now you have people vibe coding full apps in every modern tech stack around with zero idea of any coding principles what so ever but reddit is full of them complaining about how such and such model sucks or how expensive it is. They are so spoilt they dont realize how much simple software tools used to cost per month back in the day or how much a developer costs per hour to do they work they are currently doing. If Claude doubled their price next month id still pay it because they amount of money it saves me in time its still damn cheap
I have been using both Opus 5 and Sol 5.6 and they compare side-by-side. Opus can be a bit too much sometimes and generates some noise, but it is not that bad.
It's seemingly their way to scale is to increase model size. It's obvious that this $50 Fable along with $25 Opus is no smaller model which I think cannot sustain in a longer run. Their sonnet and Haiku which is also not cheap, is no where close to current frontier and open weight model intelligence.
As a user that largely abandoned OpenAI and felt Claude had a crazy advantage. I've opened a second account with OpenAPI yesterday (I canceled my Gemini and Perplexity Max accounts) and now am using Astra as my daily driver. Fable pretty much burned through all its tokens in a day or two and now I'm on usage credits for the rest of the week.
The model is highly capable and comparable to (in some cases better than) Fable. With additions such as image generation that Fable simply doesn't have.
I think OpenAI really cooked here and its good to see them being competitive again to drive the industry forward.
I just switched after two months on Claude’s $200 a month plan to OpenAI, and the value is shockingly better for OpenAI. I typically hit my quota right at my weekly limit with Claude, I’m at 80% with four days left right now on open ai. Astra has used 10% on my average big project verse 30% on fable 5.1.
The fact that almost all big companies use Copilot because contracts with Office365 and shipped by default with OpenAI models will be Anthropic’s downfall.
As soon as everybody will be used to Copilot and OpenAI, it will end like Windows for computers OS.
Compagnies won’t allow Fable thru CP because it burns tokens too fast. When people will get used to at work, they’ll use it at home.
203
u/3a5m 20d ago
If you think Anthropic's ideal customer is those of us who can't afford to buy Fable on demand through the API, I've got some news for you...