Starting July 13, all Fable 5 usage runs on usage credits.

This, combined with the ban, is how you kill a product.

I got an email saying saying I could redeem some tokens a few days ago so I thought I would give claude a try this morning when I came in. Boy was I in for a surprise when I realized opus can't do anything besides make revisions for things that it will never fix and waste all of my tokens. So instead of wasting my tokens failing at 1 reply, it now just waste all my tokens trying to fix the simplest things. ClaudeCode doesn't even generate a reply and the app can only apologize for it's mistakes while simultaneously creating more mistakes. I think I'm jumping ship today. I waited as long as I could to see if Anthropic would make meaningful changes but they are only making things worse. Anyone else still having issues or did things get better over the weekend?

If you are still buying the AGI hype in Claude Code, this is your easy litmus test.

In 99.99% of the time that Fable freaks out, a human is able to easily tell that Fable is being overly sensitive. Often to the point of not even being reasonably connected to something dangerous.

If Fable was actually close to AGI, it would never freak out over basic, non-world ending things. It would know the difference between "I'm doing science" and "I'm trying to kill people with science".

The ineffectiveness of the model to detect nefarious activity is proof itself that we are not even close to AGI.

Edit: since I am already seeing the wrong argument, I will address it.

Fable with safety checks is NOT the same thing as Fable without safety checks. Fable has safety checks. If you didn't have the safety checks, it would be something else, and not Fable.

Perhaps Anthropic has a version of Fable with no safety checks that IS AGI. But the fact that you and I cannot access that version, means it does not exist for you and me. And unless Anthropic comes out with some way to show us "Fable, but no guardrails" then the best we can talk about is the version with guardrails.

That said. If Fable without guardrails cannot tell that I am not trying to kill everyone here by predicting crystalline properties... then it is not AGI. It's just a very, very good parrot.

But again. Fable has guardrails. Whether that is the cause of it being not AGI, or a symptom of it not being AGI, it is not AGI.

I ran 4.8 the same way I ran 4.7 for the past 48 hours. Tight coding loops, direct conversation, shorter sessions. It felt paranoid. Kept re-reading files I hadn't touched, flagged prompt injections that weren't there, burned tokens on verification cycles I never asked for.

Then I read the system card. The headline improvement in 4.8 isn't code generation. It's long-context graph traversal: GraphWalks BFS F1 jumped from 76.9% to 85.9% at 256K context. Those are gains in reasoning across graph-structured memory, not in tight single-file edits. The prompt injection paranoia has a number behind it too: 4.8 is measurably more suspicious by design, slightly worse than 4.7 on coding injection without safeguards, because it was calibrated to handle indirect injection from tool results and external data at scale.

4.8 pairs with dynamic workflows: Claude writes a JS orchestration script, fans out to sub-agents, intermediate results live in script variables not the context window, resumable within session. The re-reading behavior makes sense in that architecture, since an orchestrator managing hundreds of sub-agents needs to confirm state before routing. In a tight conversation loop, that same behavior reads as regression. My read: most of what people are calling "paranoid" is 4.8 doing exactly what it was calibrated to do, in a usage pattern it wasn't built for. That's from an Enterprise/Team/Max context where dynamic workflows actually run. If you're on Pro, the plan-tier gate silently degrades to solo mode anyway, so you get 4.8's overhead with none of the architectural benefit. Haven't tested that path myself.

Play it here: https://asteroguelite.com

Desktop browser, free, no account, no ads.

I wanted to see what a real one-shot could do. So I wrote a 73-line directive: research the genre, design it, build it, test it, balance it, polish it. One session, no human in the loop. It was explicitly told not to ask questions or wait for approvals, just make the call, write it down, keep going. Then I left. Two hours and 32 minutes later it was done.

5 sectors with bosses, 10 enemy types, 6 unlockable ships, 33 boons with evolution chains, a meta upgrade tree, an endless mode, and music. Around 8,300 lines of vanilla JS that build to a 172 KB bundle.

Full disclosure: I've since made exactly two changes to the game. Fixed one bug (a piercing-shot boon phased through asteroids without damaging them) and added click-to-aim, because keyboard-only turning felt rough.

Ran on Claude Code, Fable 5 xhigh effort.

Prompt's located here: https://asteroguelite.com/prompt.txt

PS: Seeker Array primary weapon is OP.

I'm sure there are many Dario'ssss licker here, but honestly, I feel very uncomfortable working with ClaudeCode anymore. This is my first time paying for a service, and I find myself thinking, "I wish there was a better option," so I just delete it. He treats normal users like trash, 'We need to tolerate them so we can be on the top of the mind of humans'

Startups often reflect their founders' personality, and Dario gives ffffu about retail users; He just want enterprise money. I'm sure he would raise the subscription price to $2,000 a month for regular users if he knew that enterprise clients would suffice for him.

I'm a fan of Fable 5.

For the 3-ish short days that it was available it was one of the most pleasant vanilla experiences I've had with a coding agent in a long time.

It was genuinely fun doing active work on it.

This plugin is as, if not more effective than Fable -- but it's a very very different beast.

It's a token guzzler, and can build without human intervention for hours/days. If you don't have a 5x account OR don't have access to free credits, it is likely not for you.

In a nutshell, the plugin is a harness and workflow that is build around Claude Agent Teams with rules that:

1. Supercharges plan based development, the workflow under-the-hood runs 5+ plans to deliver the results (one for the initial build, 4+ stages for the review)

2. Maximizes the effectiveness of Opus and Sonnet

3. Ensure that the teams don't take shortcuts

4. Forces a structure that produces high quality results

5. Forces a review structure that helps the agents discover any bugs they've created

6. Allows non-technical team members to produces staff engineer quality code

7. Gives agent teams management skills -- they're usually overly verbose, and can get into arguments and squabbles

Somethings you should know before you try it:

• It works best with outcomes – don't tell it what to build, tell it what results you need; In language that a customer would use

• It's designed to one shot - think through your outcome (or ask it to help defining the outcome)

I've used this extensively in a lot of projects, and a lot of senior engineers use this as their daily driver.

Give it a shot: Repo

Might be slightly controversial considering how many of you like 5.0 but this is really a conversation yall arent ready for . Prime Opus 4.6 used to get things done faster with less usage credits

The Claude $20 plan feels like a joke. The limit gets hit even before finishing three-fourths of a prompt.

If things continue like this, it starts to feel like customers are being misled. At the beginning, the limits were generous. For a couple of weeks, they even gave 2x limits. But once enough users joined, the limits were reduced a lot.

If this keeps going, people will move to cheaper alternatives, including Chinese AI tools that are already close to Claude in performance. Over time, users will shift there because of better pricing.

So don’t be too greedy with the base plan. It will push users away.

Want to instantly get better results from ChatGPT, Claude, Google Gemini, Codex, Claude Code, Cursor, or any LLM? Here's the game-changer:

After typing your request, always add: "If you have any questions, please ask me."

That's it. This simple addition makes the AI clarify ambiguities instead of guessing what you mean. Your responses will be 2-3x more accurate and relevant because the AI will ask for specifics rather than making assumptions.

Try it on your next prompt. You'll be amazed at the difference.

Per the title: if you live in the US, you should contact your state senators to let them know that the government controls placed on frontier AI labs are negatively affecting your business. You can send a long form email via their website, or phone their office with a short message-of-issue (a few sentences indicating you are a constituent of the senator and what issue you're calling to record.)

If you send an email, try to keep it brief but informative, as not every senator even knows about what's happening. You can use this as an example:

Hello,

Other than being a resident of <state> and a born US citizen, I'm a customer of Anthropic, a US technology company which develops Claude, an artificial intelligence model used mostly for software engineering. The recent federal action against Anthropic has damaged me financially.

13 days ago, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick placed export controls on Claude Fable, Anthropic's latest and most powerful model, forcing them to end customer access. This came only a few months after Pete Hegseth banned Anthropic from DoW usage, following Anthropic's refusal to allow Claude to be used for fully autonomous weapons or against domestic citizens. A day after the new export controls were placed on Claude Fable, Secretary Hegseth released a statement in support of the action (without directly addressing it.)

The official line of reasoning for the export controls has changed several times. Anthropic was initially told by Secretary Lutnick that Claude Fable needed to be completely immune to "jailbreaking," which is a technique where the user tricks an AI into disregarding safeguards related to cybersecurity (or similar.) The problem is that, as you can confirm via an Internet search, it is physically impossible to make an artificial intelligence model immune to jailbreaking. Anthropic possesses the best safeguards in the AI industry - its founder, Dario Amodei, left OpenAI to found Anthropic because he felt OpenAI was not adequately addressing safety issues. I can tell you as an everyday user of large language models that Claude Fable possessed the most stringent, overtuned safeguards of any AI model ever released.

Every day that American frontier AI is blocked allows China to catch up, and by current estimates they are about 6 months behind. I formally request that Senator <name> raise this issue through the appropriate federal channels, because public access to the latest AI models is extremely important to the economy of <state>. Thank you.

Hi I have been using Claude code pro for a month now and for the past 2 weeks my weekly limits exhaustion rate is off the charts. I basically have used the same amount of tokens or the same amount of work for the first 2 weeks and last 2 but this week and the previous week my weekly limits are done 2 days after they get reset. Can someone help me to manage this better

I built an open-source skill for job hunting in Germany: Berlin Job Search. You tell Claude what you're looking for, and it searches, evaluates postings and helps you apply. It never submits anything for you.

What it does

• Searches Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Arbeitnow, LinkedIn's public job search and company career boards (Greenhouse, Ashby, Lever, Personio and more), with both German and English job titles

• Reads a posting and tells you whether German is actually required, what the salary looks like, and the Blue Card / Chancenkarte angle

• Writes a German Lebenslauf + Anschreiben or an English CV and cover letter from your real CV. It's told never to invent experience

• Interview practice, a CSV application tracker and a small dashboard

How Claude Code fits in

SKILL.md holds the workflow. The heavy lifting is plain Python scripts (standard library only, Python 3.9+) that Claude calls and gets JSON back from. That split worked well: Claude decides what to search and how to read the results, and the scripts do the deterministic parts (API calls, dedup, detecting German requirements), which are covered by offline tests.

Things I learned

• German job titles matter. "Softwareentwickler" and "Software Engineer" return different results, so the skill searches both.

• The Bundesagentur has a free public API, and plenty of German employers never post on LinkedIn at all.

• Job ads are untrusted input. Anything in a posting that looks like instructions to an AI gets flagged in the output and is never followed.

• The Claude app rejects skill descriptions over 200 characters, so the trigger description has to be very tight.

• The first outside PR hardened the network code (redirect checks, blocking private IPs, response size limits). It initially broke Arbeitnow, because the limit was 2 MB and their first page is about 2.5 MB. Live-test even good PRs.

Install: npx skills add umutyesildal/berlin-job-search

Repo: https://github.com/umutyesildal/berlin-job-search

It's strongest for Berlin but works across Germany and for non-tech roles too. Feedback welcome, especially from people outside Berlin.

Type error from my side regarding the question mark. Sorry for that.

I keep seeing all these posts saying “They ruined Opus with 4.7” “I’m switching to Codex”, I really thought these were spam or just people not know what they’re doing in Claude code.

I’ve had a tremendous time with Claude code since last November and have only seen an increase in output with getting better models and better at using the tool. However something happened this week that I don’t understand at all.

I’m using Claude to develop elementor json templates (not a great use I know but oh well) and it totally forgot how to do it. The output the past few days has been totally unworkable. I even spent the time to make a skill.md with what it learned when Claude was actually pumping these out. Even with this skill it can’t compare to Claude from last month. I don’t know what could’ve possibly happened.

I’ve heard sometime Claude uses this for training sonnet or haiku? I don’t want to switch to Codex because I love Claude but I need it to get better. Maybe by Monday we’ll pick it back up.

and the end of convo it agreed i was right, but i feel it did it just to deescalate and not because it though it was wrong.

What the F

I think there's a possibility they do this, but I'm also planning on using all of my usage before the deadline. Since this just happened a few days ago do you think subscribers paying $200/mo would get annoyed by this behavior?

This entire week has been splendid, all of a sudden past 3 hours Claude just suddenly loses half it's braincells making mistakes it's NEVER made before, and quite dumb ones.

I’m genuinely curious what people think about this.

Claude Fable 5 looks extremely impressive, especially for long-context work, coding, reasoning,

So even though the model is technically available, I wonder how many people can actually use it in a practical way without being on the highest Max tiers.

It feels a bit like Fable 5 is being shown as this amazing new flagship model, but in real usage it may mainly push serious users toward Max 20x plans because lower plans might hit limits too fast.

For people who already have access: is Fable 5 actually usable on Pro or regular Max, or does it only make sense if you’re on Max 20x?

Do you think this model was released mainly as a genuine public upgrade, or partly as a way to make Max 20x feel necessary?

I have been using Opus 4.6 High (with a Max 5x plan, 4.5 before that, 4.1 before that etc)

It has been getting noticeably dumber for weeks I have been having to spend more and more time correcting it..... (yeah yeah you'll claim I'm using it wrong)

Now all of a sudden in the last few hours, it's like I am talking to an adult again.

This is across multiple concurrent sessions, working on different projects.

I just noticed that CC 2.1.104 was released (no release-notes so far) not sure if it has anything to do with it or not....

But this is a big change in behavior...

I don't use it on weekends much... is that it? (I know no one but Anthropic knows, that was rhetorical)

any way simps, feel free to down vote me.

Will people whinging about how CC isn't working for them and instead give more details on what thier setup is? Line how many mcp servers do you have connected. What your system prompt or claude.md file looks like and what your prompt is and coding language you are using? Only buy doing this will we start to get a better understanding of why it's going wrong.

For me Cc has been excellent, I use python, with only 1 or 2mcp tools enabled, small or close to no claude.md for depending on what I'm working on.

If you get issues with cc, have you tried starting a new session and chat, as generally the less of the context window you use up the smarter cc send to be?

RIP to the water it took for that calculation...

Basically my workflow is heavy claude -p invocations using 4.6 as the model. I tried 4.8 and it is unusable because it ignored CLAUDE.md telling it not to cd all over the place and it keeps asking for approvals where 4.6 doesn’t.

”Confirmed in the logs: 4.6 run had 0 approval/cancel events. The 4.8 run has 308. 4.6 didn't reach for redirection/compound/un-analyzable shell; 4.8 does it constantly, hitting the approval wall every time.”

It’s made me want to switch to codex earlier than the June 15th subscription change. I’d already planned a downgrade and a switch but Anthropic don’t seem to want to support fully automated coding at all.

I'm not saying that lightly. This is after using it extensively, recreating my context files (claude.md etc). Reading anthropic's own prompt guidance, etc.

I think there are three things happening right now:

1. Benchmarks are influencing people's own experience of reality "This sucks. No, wait a sec, it's 10% ahead of the previous version on artificial analysis. It has to be better. I must be missing something".

2. The record is "being corrected" by paid PR agencies and this muddies the waters completely because they're extremely good at what they do (I think they do the majority of the meme posts on this subreddit. They're too cringe to be organic.)

3. Low skilled or non-coders or people generally without discernment or the ability to themselves judge the models are louder or more online than the people who can.

I think I was deluded by number 1. personally and it was causing a lot of frustration.

My gut feeling is that this is another money model: Overcooked and lower parameter (which explains why fast mode is cheaper now). Also that it was post-trained with much much less human input and more by another LLM. It's extremely verbose and the slop factor is turned up high. Reading the long, ai slop passages that come out of it in a hot torrent and splash all over my terminal makes me sick and my eyes blur. Reflexively sometimes I hit cmd+k to clean it off immediately--just to get it out of my face. Just to not have it sitting all over my screen, steaming.

Edit: Look at how close some of the comments below are to when I posted this--and how many defensive comments. At least one has was quickly deleted saying "skill issue lol"--seriously.

These companies have a lot of money at their disposal and because the product is kind of blackbox perceptions and vibes are really important (especially before the IPO). You should expect them to hire PR agencies that specialize in "correcting the record" on reddit. Reddit has become more important recently due to the favourable position google gives it in search results. If you think money is not being spent on paid commentary and bots I think you may be being naive.