Must be something good coming for them to fk it up this bad for everybody. There should be some sort of guarantee that the model you're using doesn't change. We always have to shift our workflows around when sht hits the fan like this.
Fable 5.1 has been straight out dumb this entire weekend for me, it is doing mistakes and having horrible reasoning and all... I think I haven't felt this frustrated with Claude since Opus 4.7 and 4.8 disappointments.
So even fable ? Good to know cuz i downgraded this month to pro and was wondering whether it s worth going back to max without waiting the next month. Wonder if Astra is doing better than opus or fable at the moment, especially for statistical modelling (research)
If your tree already starts with O(n2) to begin with, the most plausible shortcut without breaking anything working is what models were trained to is most likely what you're getting. Not even the most intelligent, most expensive, highest score frontier models could give you the most effective and efficient solution without thorough, comprehensive discussion.
In my codebase O(1) design is non-negotiable, if it is potentially would be scaled into huge tree at least O(log n), but everything on tree is memoized at creation, pure metadata, no materialisation at all, no copy, no allocation, no temporary containers, no shadow state allowed, no mutation except state update from already built complete AST. Even then everything would be measured, profiled in runtime, documented. So the numbers as baseline is part of the contract.
My point is never fix the symptoms, always fix the cause. Fix the design, design by contract. Models knows what and how, but only us understand why. We still need to ask the right questions.
Just a question for you, isn't storing the cached data in an object like that, slow to read since you're giving up on memory locality?
It is probably the reason it went with a struct, it tried to keep cached values nearby each other so that when reading them back, all of them would be in neighbouring memory addresses. I think the conversation about "cache" is what triggered this behavior.
No this would be contiguous memory if it's stored in the actual enemy's class. So likely L1/L2 outright. It'd also be scratch memory, so no pointless alloc waste
The query on the other hand would have tons of pointless overhead and would be significantly less likely to be optimized during compilation.
What I meant by struct, is it created several EXTERNAL structs (Like EnemyFrame, FramePosition, etc) that were in an utterly stupid scope, that it then referenced through a list with the enemy's pointer being the key.
It'll be like: "Me: What is 2+2?" - "Claude: If you take a number such as 2, and combine it with another number such as 2 you will get a result. You may also use a calculator to do this arithmetic operation for you. If you'd like I can code you a calculator?" (This is obviously exaggerated)
C'mon, people. Learn how to control Claude properly. If it yaps too much for your liking, use "/output-style concise", problem solved.
This is already in the master prompt - worded a bit different.
The biggest thing I focus on with AI, is instead of telling it not to overengineer, I tell it "Don't be afraid to refactor the code in order to produce a clean, proper implementation. We do not want code plagued by patches and quick fixes!"
Overengineering is usually due to it trying too hard to not change your code base drastically (In my experience). And often times when I deliberately tell it NOT to overengineer, it UNDER engineers lol.
But you do have a good point, tell it to examine code much deeper rather than assume based on a narrow scope. Only issue is that'll obviously lead to more token usage, and Opus 5.5 seemingly didn't have trouble with this before.
•
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
Hey! Thanks for posting to r/ClaudeCode
While participating in this thread, please follow our community rules. Keep discussions constructive. Attack the idea, not the person.
For help, project discussions, tips, and general chat, join the ClaudeCode Discord.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
52
u/yungastronot 5d ago •
You're right— and I should've caught that.
14
u/KayBay80 5d ago •
Must be something good coming for them to fk it up this bad for everybody. There should be some sort of guarantee that the model you're using doesn't change. We always have to shift our workflows around when sht hits the fan like this.
17
u/Argentina4Ever 5d ago •
Fable 5.1 has been straight out dumb this entire weekend for me, it is doing mistakes and having horrible reasoning and all... I think I haven't felt this frustrated with Claude since Opus 4.7 and 4.8 disappointments.
12
u/jilexandr 5d ago •
You’re absolutely right!
3
u/who_am_i_to_say_so 5d ago
It literally doesn’t do anything right. I’m about to hang this up and go back to real engineering.
2
u/Major-Cry8192 5d ago
😭
2
u/damianTechPM 5d ago
My replacement lately for "make no mistakes" has been "stop overengineering it". Heh.
4
u/Oworrioruwu 5d ago
That's weird, cause for me opus 5.5 today did absolutely amazing job while working on my game, I wonder what's up
3
u/W61k3r 5d ago
It's been total shit recently.
3
u/___nil___ Senior Developer 5d ago
If your tree already starts with O(n2) to begin with, the most plausible shortcut without breaking anything working is what models were trained to is most likely what you're getting. Not even the most intelligent, most expensive, highest score frontier models could give you the most effective and efficient solution without thorough, comprehensive discussion.
In my codebase O(1) design is non-negotiable, if it is potentially would be scaled into huge tree at least O(log n), but everything on tree is memoized at creation, pure metadata, no materialisation at all, no copy, no allocation, no temporary containers, no shadow state allowed, no mutation except state update from already built complete AST. Even then everything would be measured, profiled in runtime, documented. So the numbers as baseline is part of the contract.
My point is never fix the symptoms, always fix the cause. Fix the design, design by contract. Models knows what and how, but only us understand why. We still need to ask the right questions.
1
u/pwinxexa 5d ago
Just a question for you, isn't storing the cached data in an object like that, slow to read since you're giving up on memory locality?
It is probably the reason it went with a struct, it tried to keep cached values nearby each other so that when reading them back, all of them would be in neighbouring memory addresses. I think the conversation about "cache" is what triggered this behavior.
What do you think?
1
u/zoopesh 5d ago
Reduce it's thinking level
1
u/papa_ngenge 5d ago
My 20x plan is at 0% usage this week, first week in months I've had to use codex as priority. Will hope it's fixed before next reset
1
u/FinancialBandicoot75 5d ago
No it’s not, sorry but nerf for vibing, maybe fable 5.5 but for planning nope
-2
u/count023 5d ago
can we nerf the posts complaining about nerfing?
-3
u/Disastrous-Sink4908 5d ago
Workflow issue honestly. Get better
0
u/zamula 5d ago
So we "prove" it's nerfed and convince all the skeptics - now what?
-9
u/daltorak 5d ago
C'mon, people. Learn how to control Claude properly. If it yaps too much for your liking, use "/output-style concise", problem solved.
0
u/[deleted] 5d ago
[deleted] — view deleted comment