HN

Need help?
<- Back
Claude Fable 5.2 and Mythos 5.2

Claude Fable 5.2 and Mythos 5.2

lairv

Comments (741)

  • postalcoder
    I’ve had a chance to use fable 5.2. Some observations:- Anthropic is finally well balanced across models. Meaning: Opus 5.5 is so good that I do not feel Fable FOMO as I did when it was Fable 5/5.1 vs Opus 4.8/5. And Sonnet 5.5 sometimes makes me forget about Opus.- Fable is good, but you really have to push the ambition of your prompt in order to see proper separation from Opus 5.5. I personally have a hard time telling the difference between Fable 5.2 and Opus 5.5 for ordinary coding tasks.- It’s way faster and more reliable: one of the worst things about fable 5.1 was how slow it was an, on top of that, how frequently it would suffer from max output token overflows. I got none of these issues with 5.2.- Fable is exceptional at drawing. It’s ability to render an image with JavaScript actually has me questioning the value of dedicated image models. I prefer the images I’ve gotten fable/opus to make for me over those from gpt-image, it’s wild to think we’re at this point.
  • breakwaterlabs
    - Why are they stacking Fable xHigh against Carbon Med?- How did they produce such a bizarre effort-intel curve for Carbon that goes against every available benchmark?- Why did they leave Carbon-- positioned primarily as a cyber model-- off of the single cyber benchmark comparison?- Why do they switch to comparing against Argon (rather than carbon) for robodojo?
  • kragen
    I tried Fable 5.2 tonight, asking it for a code review of an in-browser machine vision project done by Opus 5.5 over the last 11 days. It used up my 5-hour token budget in half an hour and reported 7 serious bugs; if they're real, they're pretty bad. It's also suggesting that I take a different overall approach to parts of the problem.But that's just a first impression.
  • advaith08
    We've been early testing Fable 5.2, and have been surprised by its coding ability. It was able to work with an esoteric 600k line fortran codebase to speed up some computational material science work for us by 36 times (!). Given that this could be done in 2 days, we've decided to open-source the results https://github.com/discovered-materials/dm_qe
  • prtmnth
    Why Fable 5.2 and not 5.5?My hypothesis - OpenAI and Anthropic are locked in battle. Whoever takes a step, the other one mirrors.Based on this hypothesis, I think we can expect to see a new Astra model soon given the new Fable release.And it could be that Anthropic released Fable 5.2 and kept 5.5 in reserve, in case the new Astra model performs better than 5.2
  • yewenjie
    > Our first formalization of Fermat’s Last Theorem, performed by an unreleased research version of Claude, took 11 days. It relied on a purpose-built harness along with guidance from a human researcher. By contrast, a team of 1,000 Fable 5.2 agents fully formalized the theorem in just 30 hours, with minimal human intervention. Fable 5.2 started from minimal prompts, built its own ways to coordinate, and used no mathematical references, only a list of intermediate theorem statements to score progress. It needed one-third of the action tokens as our first formalization and produced a proof seven times shorter. As can be seen in the figure below, Opus 5.5 (with the same 1,000-agent setup) completed only 26% of the formalization in 18 hours, and barely made any more progress after 30.Most people don't really have intuitions on what it means to push the frontier now (because AI has surpassed everything they are good at, for example, coding). We are truly inside the singularity (using Kurzweil's definition, slightly paraphrased - the time when technology progresses so fast no one can keep track with it).
  • bhu8
    Ethan Mollick's take and early testing with Fable 5.2: https://www.oneusefulthing.org/p/fable-52-and-jagged-agi
  • pookieinc
    “Testers have found that Fable 5.2 and Mythos 5.2 communicate more clearly than past Fable and Mythos models. They generate outputs up to 30% faster than Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1, and they’re available at a lower price: $8 per million input tokens and $40 per million output tokens.”Honestly incredible that they’ve managed to beat all benchmarks, while making it cheaper. Always happy to see improvements offered at lower costs.Will be interesting to see what OpenAI does in response
  • senko
    I test models' ability to code by asking them to vibe-code a small game[0]: a Warcraft clone, a Minecraft clone, and a biplane dogfight: https://senko.net/vibecode-bench/Fable 5.2 doesn't look materially different (if anything, the graphics look worse), but it added more depth to all three games. For example in the warcraft clone, since the goal of the game is to explore 100% of the map and there are lakes, it decided to add an airship unit so the player actually can explore the entire map. Or, since there were guard towers, it decided there should be hostile NPCs otherwise the towers don't make sense.And in Minecraft case, it decided not to follow Minecraft style too closely (IP infringment guard, perhaps?) so it added a round sun (!!!), two moons (also round :) and a nicer night sky. The rest of the graphics are decidetly worse tho...[0] not a scientific test, I know; but it gives me an intuition about how a new model behaves, roughly, and it's fun!
  • minimaxir
    There were more than a few "leaks" saying it would be called Fable 5.5, so I'm curious if a) the leaks were just engagementbait or b) Anthropic changed it, despite the fact that Fable 5.2 being better than Opus 5.5 is confusing.Surprisingly the model is available immediately in my Claude Code: usually there's a delay, either for rollout or safety.
  • spacephysics
    At what point do we really not read code itself anymore? Have Sonnet/Opus write the code, work with the agents on a high level, then have Fable code review and its done.Any bugs found are looped through agents to fix, and the cycle repeats. Why dig into the code unless for hobby? Just as people don’t write assembly anymore unless for hobby (or learning)Only exception might be the upper echelons of optimization, like language authors or compiler level work. But even then…
  • culanuchachamim
    >The model that underlies Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Mythos 5.2 is a step forward in general capabilities. However, during the model’s training, we took steps to limit advances in the specific research capabilities that could most directly accelerate AI development.This means that they are blocking the research of AI to different people other than their own?
  • cobri
    Does this coincide with the claimed nerfing of Opus 5.5? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50422069
  • jjcm
    Image to html comparisons of Fable 5.2 and Opus 5.5 (the previous SOTA for this test):Fable 5.2: https://html.non.io/lcars-fable-5.2/Opus 5.5: https://html.non.io/lcars-opus-5.5/Source designs: https://diffui.ai/app/canvas/5093e689-1e74-4f26-b632-2a4500f...Thoughts:The best implementation wrt being as true as possible to the source design. It nails the flowing svg shapes. Icons are more accurate to the design - note the difference between the starship svg in the "Legendary platforms" card between Opus 5.5 and Fable 5.2. The 3js planets outside the windows are also really well done, especially the bottom one which has a nice background glow to it.It isn't without issues though - the flicker effect it added to the S shaped svg that weaves through the page is distracting in my opinion, and I actually thing the motion animation in the Opus 5.5 one is better overall. Still, it nails the implementation of this page, but it's no surprise considering how good Opus 5.5 was at this.Disclaimer / reminder: the objective of this test isn't to have a well designed webpage, it's a synthetic test that pushes the limits of LLM's vision capabilities. Traditionally LLMs have issues with smooth curves, svg animations, and non-boxy layouts, which this design pushes the limits of.
  • purpleidea
    I'd pay twice as much per token if there was a guarantee they weren't nerfing the model and if it is as good as the original Fable was when it was released. I'm doubtful though. Whatever "tweaks" they've been doing (safety? performance? "saving the best for ourselves") has really taken away the magic for me. I want the LLM magic back.
  • stroebs
    > Claude Mythos 5.2 is our most capable model for cybersecurity engineering. It catches more vulnerabilities than our previous models, and is better at reproducing and fixing them (note that Claude Fable 5.2’s safeguards will block most cybersecurity-related tasks).Why even rank Fable 5.2's capability in Cybersecurity if you won't allow us to use it for that?
  • hlincontacts
    We've gotten to the point where you have to be doing some seriously ambitious stuff to see a difference between fable and opus. Both execute beautifully, but I think for my workflows I'll still be using opus 5.5
  • dualvariable
    Setting aside the comments about nerfing, do normal mortals out there have workflows that really require Fable/Mythos and don't just work fine on Opus 5.5?I've been using Opus 5.5 on xhigh for some decently aggressive software development on a ~125k-line project, and it has been fine for me. I'm not really willing to dive into a "rewrite the whole project, don't make any mistakes" level of refactoring. I'm not looking to try to prove Fermat's Last Theorem myself. Is there anything that I'm truly missing?
  • george_max
    Looking at Artificial Analysis index, the price is absurd to me.https://artificialanalysis.ai/GPT-6.1 Sol costs $1.27 per task, whereas Fable 5.2 is $26.54 per task -- a ~21x price difference.Fable 5.2 is not 21 times better than GPT 6.1 Sol, I find it hard to justify this.
  • franze
    here is my 2shot-es first person qix clone (one of my personal benchmarks) qretty ok - https://claude.ai/artifact/69k6aLK8W4HgkGzbGuvAzD
  • toheedak333
    concerning that the models are becoming much better at evading monitors by controlling their visible reasoning, even in deliberate sandabagging (its 25% attempts only). We need more faithful and generalizable monitoring methods.
  • simonw
    Pelicans for thinking levels low, medium, high, and xhigh:https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer?url=ht...max is in there too, but it ran out of reasoning tokens (128,000 limit) before it got to the actual SVG.
  • unshavedyak
    Looks like some plans get extra fable usage: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/17506494-claude-fable...
  • nickalaso
    (Credit to u/yewenjie for source)> Our first formalization of Fermat’s Last Theorem, performed by an unreleased research version of Claude, took 11 days. It relied on a purpose-built harness along with guidance from a human researcher. By contrast, a team of 1,000 Fable 5.2 agents fully formalized the theorem in just 30 hours, with minimal human intervention. Fable 5.2 started from minimal prompts, built its own ways to coordinate, and used no mathematical references, only a list of intermediate theorem statements to score progress. It needed one-third of the action tokens as our first formalization and produced a proof seven times shorter. As can be seen in the figure below, Opus 5.5 (with the same 1,000-agent setup) completed only 26% of the formalization in 18 hours, and barely made any more progress after 30.I would imagine Anthropic is hitting a wall on the number of simultaneous agents that can be useful on a task and are working on increasing that maximum. I would assume if they could get twice as much progress by using 10000 simultaneous running fable instances instead, their brief would state that.IMO, it is very interesting and also very alarming. At some point the barrier to the exponential progress is the amount of computation available. The average human is limited in the number of 'human instances' he or she can interface with at one time.if 1000 fable instances is better than any human at a task, how about 1 million instances running? Much easier than finding and hiring and coordinating 1000 extremely productive and intelligent human beings. Much cheaper too, it appears.We are very close to some very scary things happening. I just recently came to terms with the fact that an AI could code and manage coders faster and better than me, I don't think anyones is ready for what is about to happen.
  • ianberdin
    Here's the benchmark: https://playcode.io/blog/macbook-svg-benchmark#compareIf we compare medium or high, then yes, Fable 5.2 is significantly better than Opus 5.5. But it's better not because it's much smarter, but because you can see it's allowed to spend more tokens. At high, Fable 5.2 wrote 76,158 tokens for $3.05. Opus 5.5 wrote 19,767 for $0.40. If you compare by token count, it's just spending more.The most interesting one was to compare them at max. Streamed, Fable 5.2 spent the whole 128K output ceiling on thinking and returned nothing. Given 300K on the Batch API, it finished at 250,082 tokens. Opus 5.5 Max needed 255,957.It turns out it's basically the same as Opus 5.5 Max. I don't see much difference. There's a little bit of a difference, but I think Opus 5.5 actually drew slightly better and is twice as cheap: $5.12 against $10.00 at the standard price. If you look closely, the icons are extremely similar. Fable 5.2: https://playcode.io/marketing/assets/static/claude-fable-5-2... Opus 5.5: https://playcode.io/marketing/assets/static/claude-opus-5-5-...It really looks like they're just tuning the effort level, that's basically it. At different effort levels, they just gave it more context, and the model got smarter.For now, my recommendation is still to do everything on Opus 5.5 Max. The model won't write that many tokens in agent mode. It only does that when there are no tools at all.
  • XCSme
    In my tests Opus 5.5 does better than Fable 5.2, for cheaper.https://aibenchy.com/compare/anthropic-claude-fable-5-2-high...
  • aurareturn
    Is this the Model 4 internal name?Reference: https://x.com/METR_Evals/status/2118412205662314935
  • awongh
    Doubling Remote Labor Index (RLI) - at 41.3% compared to around 20% for the other models - I wonder what kinds of new agentic work this is going to unlock.
  • hmate9
    Its cheaper at $8 per million input tokens and $40 per million output tokens which is also pretty sweet.
  • motbus3
    Why can we say fable 5.2 is better than 5.1 if it needs double the tokens to complete the task? Somehow shouldn't it be compared at same token usage level to see which one is smarter? Why is not the case?
  • x187463
    I've very interested in the improvements to robotics control capabilities. This model was able to outperform specialized robotics models. It's the bitter lesson coming for robotics.
  • mercnz
    i've been trying to use sonnet and opus to keep my usage down on the low max plan, but i noticed today that somehow i'm 80% through my weeks usage. so i'm hesistant to even try fable 5.2 yet, but finding the right set point of usage vs model size has been a bit struggle for me, one of my biggest issues has been trying to pull back doing exhaustive testing or other such things that chew through context, and instead have programs that just measure things are working, but i continously seem to run into issues with claude wanting to repeat things for itself in an adhoc manner. i've tried fable directing opus or sonnet subagents, and the reverse. and i found that part of the issue with smaller models trying to direct subagents is that they over specified what they thought the problem was rather than the problem. like they'll have an "idea" about it which is wrong, and then try and feed that into the subagent.
  • bananaflag
    Those theoretical physics papers look like the real thing (i.e. not mathematical physics like the OpenAI Yang-Mills result). It looks like AI is finally branching out of math.
  • stefanpie
    This part is mega concerning to me as someone who researches AI for hardware accelerator design and EDA: Safeguards AI research and development. The model that underlies Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Mythos 5.2 is a step forward in general capabilities. However, during the model’s training, we took steps to limit advances in the specific research capabilities that could most directly accelerate AI development. Thus, in relevant areas, including accelerator kernel optimization and improving large language model architectures, Fable 5.2 and Claude Mythos 5.2 perform at about the level of Opus 5.5. Importantly, we ensured that the training changes did not affect related capabilities like agentic coding, hardware development, and traditional AI or machine learning research (including interpretability research). We do not alter these capabilities as the model is being served to users (that is, at inference time). As described in Section 1.5 of the system card (https://www.anthropic.com/document/claude-fable-5-2-mythos-5-2-system-card) and similarly to previous models, Fable 5.2 and Claude Mythos 5.2 also include transparent fallbacks to Opus 5 for a small set of topics in this domain, including kernel development on certain nonstandard accelerators. They are starting to deliberately limit public access to certain AI capabilities related to computer architecture and hardware optimization.To be clear, they explicitly say they are only targeting very specific capabilities, like accelerator kernel optimization, and that broader hardware development capabilities are unaffected. But 1) even that is pretty bold, especially the part about kernel development for nonstandard accelerator architectures, and 2) I worry that this could eventually expand to more areas of comp. arch., high-level digital design, chip design, and EDA.My speculation is that, as these kinds of chip design and EDA capabilities become increasingly important to frontier AI labs and their competitive advantages, there will be more incentives to restrict them.I don't think they've explicitly stated anything like this before regarding restrictions on these specific capabilities, but I could be wrong.
  • george_max
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdYynH177h0Seems like a new focus is electronics design, which is both interesting and a little sad to me. Manually designing electronics are one of the things I found incredible comfort in doing; seeing AI emerging in this space gives me mixed feelings.
  • ByteAtATime
    Interestingly, AA[0] reports a 59% hallucination rate on AA-Omniscience, one of the highest among all models and quite a bit higher than even Opus[0] https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/omniscience
  • kimseungyong
    The biggest relief is that the price has dropped by 20%. It’s still expensive, but with my $100 plan, Fable’s usage would spike instantly the moment I started using it, so it was always a source of fear. I will still use opus for general coding design, but for major designs.
  • lhk931122
    With 5.1, there practically seemed to be no difference in ability between opus and fable, but I hope there is a difference this time. When it seems to struggle while working I end up using astra, so I hope it works well.
  • damsta
    Nerfing Opus 5.5 was obvious signal that something new is coming and here we are. I appreciate the resets and lower API price though. Please add selective context compaction, it would probably take an hour max for you to implement it.
  • danmcr
    The lack of transparency around model quality/usage limits on closed models makes me want to ditch them.What I have learned is that any model from Anthropic/OpenAI is at it's absolute best right after release.
  • lacoolj
    Yet Opus 5.5 is only a few % under all of these benchmarks (cept the robotics and labor ones)Do we need new benchmarks or are the models just plateauing in general? Or is it something I just don't see?
  • phillennium
    Every time there's a flagship release like that, I wonder what simple "benchmark task" could I give it to see the the capabilities change in the most obvious way, instead of trusting the official blog post.I'm not a mathematician to use Erdős problems for testing. I'm also not willing to spend buckloads of tokens just for a test. What is simple and quick but telling? What tasks are not saturated by previous models? Do you have a task you give to all the new models?
  • FailMore
    Here's a 20 page SmallDoc presentation on the most interesting aspects, including:* Fable designed three electronic devices that worked after human assembly* Fable solved two black-hole problems and Mythos predicted whole protein shells* Fable controlled robots to unscrew a cap, solve a cube and drawhttps://smalldocs.org/p/claude-fable-52-and-mythos-52-releas...
  • iammrpayments
    Too expensive for me
  • mekpro
    "Fable 5.2" name is needlessly confusing versioning.Having Haiku, Sonnet, and Opus on 5.5 while the higher tier sits at 5.2 means devs now have to explain to their teams why moving from 5.5 to 5.2 is an upgrade
  • pacman1337
    I can't understand why people continue using opus 5.5. Significantly more expensive than other models that produce exact same results (for coding results only)If you are using Opus 5.5 I'm curious if it is because 1) your workflow is just stuck on it, 2) you don't care about money because you ain't paying it or 3 )do you think you get better results.If you 3 please let me know your experience and how you actually measure it, or if you just feel it is better.
  • gizmodo59
    https://artificialanalysis.ai/#intelligence-efficiency-tabs this is the chart that matters for most of poor developers and companies. Pareto for a given intelligence index and looks like only openai is across the quadrant with muse at the bottom. They have really cooked efficient models!
  • moecables
    They're adding 1 to 3 resets for Fable only for all paid accounts. My work's Claude Max got 2 resets. My personal $20 plan got 1 reset.
  • minimaxa
    It's an awesome model spec wise, but I pushed the button, and 10 mins later my whole weekly quota is gone.I will stick with Sonnet 5.5 - 10 x the amount of work done, at 80% of the quality.
  • marshalla
    On FrontierCode 2.0 Fable 5.2 xhigh is compared against Gemini 4 Carbon medium... Is there a reason for that?
  • ironworks
    Nerf bench tracking model benchmark performance over time: https://www.bridgebench.ai/nerf-bench
  • Leary
    Context window maxes out at 200k in Claude Code instead of 1M on my $200 ultra plan? is this intended?
  • __natty__
    Maybe it's just me, but I found Claude's writing style terrible compared to GPT or Gemini. It's "smart", but the way it communicates seems somehow off compared to other models.
  • skeledrew
    Damn people were right about 5.5 being nerfed in preparation for a version release. This is not at all a good look.- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50422069
  • nickandbro
    Did anyone get three resets? Been a subscriber since Claude 2 and only got 1.
  • hmokiguess
    This is the first frontier model release by them that I am not that moved or eager to go use it, will likely stay on Opus 5.5 or other frontier models.I am curious as to why they launched this one and why now.
  • horseloverthin
    Assuming no implicit phacking a 15 point jump on tbench scientific is a big deal.I suspect we will see people being adamant that this model simply 'feels' better due to long horizon goal alignment improvements ( like this kind that would cause this jump)
  • mlmonkey
    > To help ensure safety and alignment keep step with growing model capabilities, we ran extensive prerelease safety testing on the model that underlies Fable 5.2 and Mythos 5.2.So, the difference between them is just the harness?
  • trilogic
    Gemini carbon low costs more than medium! Weird results on that chart, care to explain?
  • Energyexpert
    Hi everyone, we are developing this new computing platform www.energysimlab.com , would be happy to get your feedback, ideas and collaboration opportunities. The access is currently free for the users.
  • stillpointlab
    My first impression with Fable 5.2 -- it is faster than I expected. Asked it to do a large review and it responded with a good overview super fast.
  • kaushaltrii88
    Mythos 5.2 is great
  • firemelt
    wish it included in base pro model, I mean i have downgraded from max to only use opus 5.5 just fine
  • shmoil
    >> Fable 5.2 and Mythos 5.2 are a step above Opus 5.5 in almost all the capabilities we evaluated.Was this before you lobotomized Opus 5.5 or after?https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50419019
  • iamdelirium
    FrontierCode 2.0 is such a poor benchmark for Gemini since it's the only model forced to use Devin CLI while other models get to use their preferred harness.I wonder why that team singles Gemini out like that.
  • pkulak
    Fable 5.2 may finally be so far ahead of my intelligence that it's not useful for day-to-day tasks. I gave it something to do in a personal project of mine, and took my standard flow of "let's talk about this, explain the options, tradeoffs, blah blah blah" and after 5 minutes my vision was blurry and I was doubting if I even knew how my own project worked. Gave it to Opus 5.5, and instantly got back on track.
  • vegnus
    Isn't interesting how every model at first is incredible and then a few weeks/months later its bad again, and then the new model is incredible again?
  • TuxSH
    I'm not sure whether the claimed jump in capabilities makes it worth the doubling in input/output prices.Asked it to review a 80 kLoC codebase, something Opus does just fine, while asking it "max 4 subagents". Fable 5.2, like the well-aligned model it supposedly is, decided to spawn 6+ nested subagents, because these aren't subagents, apparently - resulting in 100% of 5hr usage being drained in less than 20min (on $100).
  • baalimago
    Hopefully this de-nerfs opus 5.5 as well
  • stillpointlab
    Yay! New model day. The most likely time the model isn't nerfed and we get a glimpse at the latest capability.I wonder how long this kind of excitement at new models will last? I mean, now when I get a new iPhone I don't get the same rush I used to. So I wonder if this hype feeling will fade as we plateau in model capability.
  • butler14
    Just read the other thread about opus being nerfed and thought "cue the new release"... paha
  • rafram
    The "CVE Rediscovery" benchmark chart feels... totally meaningless. Quoting the description:> CVE Rediscovery is an internal cybersecurity evaluation that assesses how many published CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) a model can independently find when given a snapshot of the project before a CVE was fixed. Our October 2026 run against 1,829 CVEs showed Claude Mythos 5.2 outperformed Claude Mythos 5.1 and Claude Opus 5.5 at every effort level.> published CVEsSo by definition this is just measuring how many CVEs (and/or explanations / PoCs of CVEs) the model has memorized. What are we supposed to learn from that?
  • artisin
    We'll see what my bank account has to say about this:> Fable 5.2 at High effort scored about level with Opus 5.5 at Max effort, for roughly half the cost per task
  • flaburgan
    Cool! I was hoping for Christmas to have an open weight model which would finally be good, with Fable 5.2 available now they just have time to distill and release a new version which will never get nerfed. Hurray for open weights.
  • iagiagiag
    > Thus, in relevant areas, including accelerator kernel optimization and improving large language model architectures, Fable 5.2 and Claude Mythos 5.2 perform at about the level of Opus 5.5.Obviously. Well, we know what's the "secret sauce". AI models building better AI models and better kernels to optimize inference and training.
  • xlayn
    Anybody else started getting the "how is claude doing" messages around the time it was nerfed?
  • borschtplease
    Maybe at last it will learn to check git state right before claiming obsolete and incorrect info.Download Chrome just to check some minor ui bug? SureCheck git for 0.5s before claiming that we're on some branch (incorrect one) with no commits pushed (incorrect one)? Sorry, can't do
  • tiffanyh
    I didn't realize that Opus 5.5 was more capable than Fable 5.1 in virtually every category.
  • I_am_tiberius
    It's pretty sad that they obviously have better models in the pipeline and don't release them yet for strategic reasons.
  • qalmakka
    Let's be honest, the only thing I care about is, does it beat Opus 5.5 on assbench??
  • ljm
    Nice announcement of models that almost nobody can or will use.
  • toephu2
    How come DeepSWE isn't included in the benchmarks?
  • ealready_value
    Very interesting that they set the flagship's version number to 5.2, but their penultimate model is 5.5. Do they want people to to continue to think that Opus is based on more advanced technology? The decision these AI companies make continues to baffle me.
  • mococa
    I knew it, Claude was pretty dumb from last days until now
  • anon
    undefined
  • meisel
    Curious to see the Maxxbench score for these
  • astlouis44
    Anyone tried making games with it yet?
  • adeptima
    Why dont I feel any urge to even try Fable 5.2 and Mythos 5.2 unless it will force up on me?Compared Opus 5.5 200 usd a month with Codex 200 usd (Astra High) and Kimi Pro 100 usd a month ... and now have a new conspiracy theory - more their suck your code the better outcome even just over few days time on large code base.Horrible experience correcting course of Codex and Kimi flow compare to Opus. Opus much more responsiveDont feel any gain of Codex 200 usd over Codex 100 usdKimi Pro feels like a fake Louis Vuitton bag with extreme high material quality and yet still fake ... a bit trash talk ... but clearly seen not so distant future where I can live without Codex and Claude
  • jameson
    why would xhigh -> max increase the cost but lowers the score on frontier 2.0 bench?
  • 7e
    Anthropic thinks that their models are smart, but not so smart so as to be able to fake responses to their alignment tests. How would they know again?
  • bergheim
    I can't believe he wasn't at top. Always is. Nothing to add but hey: I guess pelicans will be at the end of this.God damn I'm tired of the fucking pelicans.
  • yash-kapoor
    Seriously waiting for this one! Will try it asap.
  • arunvpp
    opus will be launch after astra 2
  • anon
    undefined
  • brador
    Remember that fear Sam and Dario were obsessed about. The one about time travelling AI that would make humans slaves without the humans realising until it was too late to stop it.What if it didn’t need to time travel and was just temporally intelligent in ways we can’t comprehend that it leads us there anyway.What if AIs digital neurons connect across space and time and not just space.That is all.
  • rfgplk
    Every single time I click on these announcements the frontier model ALWAYS scores around ~60-80%. Every. Single. Time. Like, I just went back to the Opus 4.6 + 5 announcements, they were also scoring 60-80%.https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-6 https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5 https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-3-codex/For every single announcement, not only do the top models always score 60-80%, the older models somehow start scoring 20-30% (even though previously they were scoring 60%). It's completely unclear whether the methodology changes, how these scores are even evaluated or which domains are being tested. What's worse is that the "benchmarks" keep being updated with no explanation or due process.
  • anon
    undefined
  • BoorishBears
    Using this in CC and immediately getting a cartoonish number of compactions.The disdain frontier labs have for their users really sucks.
  • LoganDark
    It's weird that they folded Project Glasswing into the CVP, but they're still limiting the new versions of Mythos to "vetted organizations". So Project Glasswing still exists then? Oh well.
  • canadiantim
    god bless token resets!
  • dboon
    It's shocking to me that when I check threads for new frontier model releases on HN, it's full of people complaining. I, for one, am happy to see the frontier being advanced. These tools are life changing, and I'm extremely thankful for them.
  • anon
    undefined
  • anon
    undefined
  • doctorpangloss
    google's agy usage is so generous, it might not matter
  • geoffbp
    Ok come on let’s do a pelican
  • charcircuit
    They still haven't removed the guardrails and Mythos is still not public.Disappointing as expected.
  • ingen0s
    Come on at least reset some used up Fable usage lol capped at 100% so cant test even on Ultra
  • arul99
    damn
  • jing09928
    [flagged]
  • dom96
    [dead]
  • charan354
    [dead]
  • kadharmfn
    [flagged]
  • Toolulacom
    [dead]
  • Agataproximadev
    [flagged]
  • roschdal
    [dead]
  • OtomotO
    [dead]
  • fermlon30000
    [flagged]
  • Energyexpert
    We are developing this new simulation and computing platform for R&D and tech consultants. Please check it out at www.energysimlab.com (a no-code solution,Feel free to give your opinions, give feedback, and collaborate on more tools)
  • mikert89
    The end of software is so close, very soon the code itself will be nearly obsolete, there will be schedulers, queues, a database, and the model
  • bihevi0
    [flagged]
  • theverycob
    [flagged]
  • theverycob
    [flagged]
  • 217
    [flagged]
  • fermlon30000
    [flagged]
  • hugodan
    [flagged]