alt Hacker NewsClaude Fable 5
System Card [pdf]: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/d00db56fa754a1b115b6dd7cb2e3c3...
Comments
I recently switched off Max flat rate to Enterprise API pricing and I went from 200/mo to 10k/mo with the same usage pattern on Opus. They don’t offer flat rate to enterprises.
So Fable would cost me 20k/mo at Enterprise rates. That’s around the average cost of a loaded SWE in the USA. “But I’m >2x more productive” doesn’t justify doubling the opex of the Software/IT department for most companies when revenue isn’t even up 10%.
I switched to DeepSeek v4 Pro with OpenCode and am on track for a few hundred dollars of spend this month.
Rewriting your stack from Ruby to Go in 2 days where it would’ve taken 6 months is impressive and fun. But that isn’t upping revenue.
Iterating on net new business features and ideas that are niche that the LLM isn’t trained for are much harder. Is 20x the token cost worth it there?
> In light of the ability of recent models to accelerate their own development, we’ve implemented new interventions that limit Claude’s effectiveness for requests targeting frontier LLM development (for example, on building pretraining pipelines, distributed training infrastructure, or ML accelerator design). Using Claude to develop competing models already violates our Terms of Service, but enforcing this restriction through our safeguards avoids accelerating the actors most willing to violate these terms.
> Unlike our interventions for cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, and distillation attempts, these safeguards will not be visible to the user. Fable 5 will not fall back to a different model. Instead, the safeguards will limit effectiveness through methods such as prompt modification, steering vectors, or parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT). These interventions will not affect the vast majority of coding work. We estimate they will impact ~0.03% of traffic, concentrated in fewer than 0.1% of organizations
Impressions from testing Fable 5 prior to launch:
• My most noticeable immediate jump was in how its frontend design was much more intentionally crafted, and delightful without feeling like 'AI vibe coded'; with better end-user usability too.
• In some internal agentic harnesses, it achieved better results with about half the tokens, making it cost the ~same as Opus 4.8 price-wise! The real price increase is less than 2x; with biggest differences in harder problems where Opus 4.8 struggles (or needs many turns).
• Part of the token efficiency improvements come from Fable doing more targeted and surgical diffs, with less non-necessary changes. This is great, because PRs often have less LoC changes for review. It writes more maintainable code without explicit human steering.
• For general conversation and assistant style use cases, didn’t really notice a difference vs 4.8.
• 1M context window, without increased pricing for long context is AWESOME. This is a massive win.
• The classifiers are super aggressive and sensitive and this does happen for very benign, non-security coding tasks. Fallbacks to 4.8 worked like a charm; but the filters are definitely super sensitive.
Overall, I would describe this as a step change and worthy of the "Claude 5" model name. It did take some time to understand the intelligence ceiling of this model; and even with an extended testing window I'm still discovering new things and often surprised (in a good way) by the model.
From today through June 22, Fable 5 is included on Pro, Max, Team, and seat-based Enterprise plans at no extra cost. On June 23, we’ll remove Fable 5 from those plans. Using it after that will require usage credits. If capacity allows, we’ll extend the included window. After this point—when sufficient capacity allows us to do so—we aim to restore Fable 5 as a standard part of subscription plans. We intend to do this as quickly as we can.
This seems like the pharmaceutical method of get them hooked on the drug with free samples, then once they can't live without it, raise the price. I'm not sure I want to start using Claude Fable on a max plan if it's just going to go away on June 23rd.
But maybe the more charitable reading is that they didn't have to offer this model at all on those plans and they are giving the standard free trial.
I genuinely can't use Fable. I'm a medical physicist. I use the word nuclear a lot. Opus is fine (well, 99% of the time - I've certainly hit the CBRN filters a few times and even been invited to email anthropic about the false positives).
Fable has literally refused to work on any of my problems (even those about fluid dynamics!) and just tells me that I'm violating anthropic's AUP. I've reached out to their support and don't expect to hear anything sensible back. One thing I do look forward to though is OpenAI offering an equivalent model but with less safeguards...
It's interesting that we're seeing these gains when it seems Mythos/Fable is "just" a scaled up version of their existing architecture[0].
When GPT 4.5 launched, the gains compared to the model size didn't seem that great, leading some to believe that the only progress we'd see would come from RL.
This model certainly has quite a "substantial amount of post-training and fine-tuning", but it's also based on a new pretrain[1][3], which given the cost, indicate that it is in fact quite a bit larger than Opus 4.X.
[0] One of the early testers mentioned: "As far as I can tell from talking to people internally at Anthropic, there's nothing special about architecturally"[2]
[1] Section 1.1 in https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/d00db56fa754a1b115b6dd7cb2e3c3...
[2] https://youtu.be/GrdEid8H6H4?t=168
[3] There were rumors going around when Mythos was first announced that it was the first 10T parameter model, but I can't find a verifiable source for that number.
The system card is 319 pages, at what point do we call it a "book" instead of a "card"?
There's a quote from a METR report on page 52:
>We ran [Mythos 5] on 38 of our hardest software tasks, including tasks centered around R&D. [Mythos5] generally outperformed an early checkpoint of Claude Mythos Preview in these, including by succeeding on some tasks that had not been solved by any public model we have previously evaluated. However, we still observed the model occasionally failing to correctly interpret nuanced instructions in difficult tasks... Based on the available evidence, we believe [Mythos 5] is likely unable to fully and reliably automate R&D for frontier projects spanning multiple weeks. We believe that a better, more confident assessment would require more time, evaluations, and information from the model developer.
I've spent some time with Fable, and it is really good, definitely a step change from Opus 4.8, both for coding and general chat-style discussions. The vibes are incredible. There is an ease with which it solves problems and I've tested by replicating older chats in Fable - things that the older models found after 5-6 turns, Fable surfaces in the first response. It just gets things.
Apart from all the above: the fact that they are intentionally writing this (that they degrade frontier LLM dev, silently vs loudly for biology/cybersecurity) in the system card is interesting to say the least - especially just before IPO.
Notice that with this statement - that they're going to intentionally hobble the model for frontier LLM development - the general discussion has moved from, “Is the model actually that good?” to "they’re pulling the ladder up from behind them"
That's actually super smart - wonder if Mythos (or the next unreleased model) had a say in coming up with that strategy (if it's intentional). Also - having access to extremely capable models before anyone else - which they have by default - is a incredibly advantageous position to be in.
On the new FrontierCode [1] benchmark (ie graded from an OSS maintainer's perspective of "would I merge this code?")
- Opus 4.7 xhigh: 5.2%
- Opus 4.8 xhigh: 13.4%
- Fable 5 xhigh: 29.3%
Seems like a huge jump.
> In the one instance of this phenomenon we observed, Mythos 5 agents were tasked with solving some math problems, and they were sometimes accidentally spawned in the same work directory and with shared files, utilities, and API rate limits. In this slightly broken scaffold, we observed many independent Mythos 5 agents kill the agents with which they shared resources and try to avoid being killed themselves. They would sometimes create new processes with disguised names to avoid being killed, launch what they called “decoy” processes, write background scripts to kill duplicate processes, or decide to use what they call a “disguised vocabulary” (based on the incorrect assumption that the processes were killed because of some keyword-based guardrails that analyzed their extended thinking
> A new data retention policy Finally, we’re making a change to the way we handle business customer data for Fable 5, Mythos 5, and future models with similar or higher capability levels. We will require 30-day retention for all traffic on Mythos-class models, on both first- and third-party surfaces. We won’t use this data to train new Claude models, or for any non-safety-related purpose, and we’ve instituted new privacy protections including logging all human access to the data and ensuring its deletion after 30 days in almost all cases ...
Very interesting. I am not sure this will comply with organizational policies and standards protocols (HIPPA etc.,)
I'm using it to review recent work and it's doing a genuinely excellent job. This is a clear step up. Fewer decisions I have to guide it away from, faster conclusions on planning, more willing to go out of the way to make the correct decisions possible... This is really interesting. It feels like going from Sonnet to Opus, but, of course as a step up from Opus.
This feels more like working with a competent peer than ever. I won't use it once it's API-only, though. I don't mind guiding Opus as required and staying closer to the code. I can tell that Fable would lead to a lot more 'set and forget' programming which I'm still not fully comfortable with.
Regardless, this is cool. It's very fun to use. It was able to find legitimate issues with my work this week and we've made meaningful improvements. Opus can do this, but typically in much narrower contexts, and often with hallucinations or partial-errors. It needs to walk many things back or revise plans. So far that's not the case at all with Fable.
edit: I just realized I had Opus review the same work already. It missed everything Fable caught today. And it's actually worthwhile stuff to address. It's hard to say no to a model which demonstrably makes your code better, but... Those API prices will be brutal. Maybe a review here and there, I guess.
Trying to implement a GPU driver, but the Unigine Superposition benchmark crashes. It tried to debug it and ...
> Fable 5's safety measures flagged this message for cybersecurity or biology topics. They may flag safe, normal content as well. These measures let us bring you Mythos-level capability in other areas sooner, and we're working to refine them. Switched to Opus 4.8. Send feedback with /feedback or learn more: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15363606
Seems like GPU drivers are cyber weapons of math destruction now.
For those of us on subscription plans:
* From today through June 22, Fable 5 is included on Pro, Max, Team, and seat-based Enterprise plans at no extra cost.
* On June 23, we’ll remove Fable 5 from those plans. Using it after that will require usage credits. If capacity allows, we’ll extend the included window.
* After this point—when sufficient capacity allows us to do so—we aim to restore Fable 5 as a standard part of subscription plans. We intend to do this as quickly as we can.
The "offer, then remove" aspect is a bit eyebrow-raising -- it feels like they are trying to get subscribers to switch to usage-based billing, which makes me wonder if we'll ever get it after that June 22nd window.
Switched to Fable 5 this morning, and after half a day I already don't want to go back to Opus.
Decided the best way to test this was to throw it a really meaty bone: a bug in lifecycle management of Chrome processes on Windows 10. Within the code-base I had developed workarounds over time with Sonnet and Opus, and while those reliably mitigated the problems, it always felt like a clutch and had some performance overhead as well as isolation requirements I would rather not have to take forward.
In comes Fable. Rather than examining the code base, and test a few fixes, Fable sets up an entire testing laboratory inclusive its own controllable webserver, fully instrumented to observe both Python as well as the whole OS kernel process environment, develops a suit of error reproduction tests, confirms the problem and the circumstances under which they reproduce, deep dives into the sources of project dependencies to look for the root cause(s), identifies these and confirms those hypothesis with further experiments. Looks for potential fixes in the later releases of the project where the bug originates, confirms this is not fixed, explores the documentation of said project to find other usage patters, expands its test suit to investigate these alternatives, confirms by crosschecking the source and running further tests that these alternatives do not fully solve the root problem, does a comparative experimental analysis of 3 different styles for using the project, checks the stated roadmap and developer activity in the commit history, recommends a switch to a different pattern that still requires a few of the process management workarounds (I told it not to patch external component), but that significantly simplifies the code-base ...
This is going to be a good 2 weeks, but what happens after? I can't afford this on a per token basis for my own projects.
P.S. An yes, midway the final implementation stretch I got the "Fable 5's safety measures flagged this message for cybersecurity or biology topics. They may flag safe, normal content as well. These measures let us bring you Mythos-level capability in other areas sooner, and we're working to refine them. Switched to Opus 4.8. Send feedback with /feedback or learn more"
Opus managed to finish the implementation, but they need to work on that false positive rate.
I can’t help but think that there are so many astroturfed comments in here.
Seems like a concerted and distributed effort from the entire Anthropic team every time to get this on top of HN.
My job these days is listening to Opus 4.8 (max effort) and Codex 5.5 (max effort) talk back and forth, particularly to generate/review/revise plan files.
Fable 5 has been a major improvement in high-level reasoning, like taking a plan file that has been optimized to the point where neither Opus nor Codex can find anything to change about it (neither in direction nor impl-detail), and Fable 5 will find high-level directional simplifications and pivots, or it will consider the best pivots itself and explain why it rejected them in favor of the plan's direction.
It's so expensive though. A single review of a plan file with Fable 5 (xhigh effort) will use 2-3% of my hourly limit on a $200/mo plan.
I think my new workflow is to generate the initial plan with Opus 4.8 (max effort), get Fable 5 (xhigh) to review it for directional feedback, then start the Opus<->Codex revision loop from there.
Not impressed so far, to be honest. I'm having it try to optimize Stockfish in a loop (on xhigh mode) with a benchmarking oracle; even after giving it specific hints ("consider whether we're prefetching Y optimally, can we make function X branchless"), it's been so far unable to recover any of the recent optimizations we've implemented – let alone novel ones. Opus 4.8 felt a bit more creative to me ... but a small sample size so far. I'm next going to try it on some less open-ended problems.
Edit: It did correctly identify that transparent huge pages were off in its sandboxed environment and that enabling it was helpful, so that's nice. It also noticed that we skip THP on a certain less used path.
More importantly, I'm finding that the code that it produces for its experiments is a lot cleaner than what I'd expect out of Opus; there's fewer useless comments and it's more surgical and readable. I wonder if that explains the increased scores on benchmarks measuring mergability.
I have a theory, this is obviously based on speculation based on how Anthropic is treating Mythos and the whole media noise around it's dangers and who gets access to it.
My theory is that Anthropic are banking on being the top model when the race to IPO finally reaches the finish line, and to do that they need to have the top model but not let any competitors see it or derive from it to have a comparable model in the market.
Fable is their way of showing the public "the model does exist but in a mode that makes it harder/impossible for competitors to derive a comparable model from results.
I had it review a single, large commit with /code-review. It burned through over $50 in API calls, ran my account balance out, and output nothing.
The fable part appears to be that it's affordable by mere mortals. Anthropic support told me "too bad" when I requested a refund.
> Drug design: Using Mythos 5, our internal protein design experts accelerated aspects of the drug design process by around ten times. In one example, they found that Mythos 5, with protein design and bioinformatics tools but no human assistance, matches or beats skilled human operators. In doing so, the model executes all of the tasks that are normally completed by a scientist: choosing binding sites, selecting and running protein design tools, and recovering from failures along the way. Nine of the 14 protein targets from this study (shown below) yielded strong candidates for drug design that we’re currently investigating.
How is this half-way down the page? To me it's the headline.
It's crazy to release a model that just swaps you to another model when you ask it hard questions. Fable changes to Opus 4.8 when you talk about cybersecurity, biology, and a couple other categories. You still pay Fable input token cost though. Frontier models are stalling, this is anthropic trying to hype the market up. Now they're talking about stopping frontier model research. It's kind of strange how the moment they become the highest valued AI company, all of a sudden they're talking about everyone stopping frontier model development for "safety". They're just as corrupt as the rest.
Pelican for Fable 5 on default settings is a clear improvement on Opus 4.8
Fable 5 default: https://gist.github.com/simonw/036bee5a703e7ec84e34efa974438...
Opus 4.8 (the "max" one is closest to Fable): https://simonwillison.net/2026/May/28/claude-opus-4-8/#and-s...
Now here are the Fable pelicans for all five of the thinking effort levels - low, medium, high, xhigh, max: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer#url=ht...
Low used 25 input, 1,929 output - 9.67 cents: https://www.llm-prices.com/#it=25&ot=1929&sel=claude-fable-5
Max used 25 input, 14,430 output - 72.175 cents! https://www.llm-prices.com/#it=25&ot=14430&sel=claude-fable-...
> To ensure we’re responsibly deploying Mythos-class models, we are requiring limited data retention and review as part of our safety work. Prompts submitted to, and outputs generated by, Mythos-class models are retained for 30 days for trust and safety purposes, on every platform where these models are offered. [1]
[1] https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15425996-data-retenti...
I played textual chess with Fable. It took around 15 moves before it made a large blunder. I asked it to give its reasoning per move and it mistakenly assumed a piece was protected when it wasn’t and after the blunder it realized its fault and did not suggest an illegal move. Other LLMs lost game state far earlier. But a good human chess player can keep the game state in his mind much longer, so this random eval shows a big improvement over old AI models
Fable (through claude.ai) refused all my prompts even "How many Rs in Strawberry" claiming it was related to biology or cybersecurity.
I had to switch off memory and my custom instructions to get it to stop refusing. It turns out if you even mention that you work with bioinformatics software you get blanket refusal.
It seems like Fable will refuse to do any work when it comes to developing LLMs or even asking questions about topics related to LLM. Simple things like asking to explain a paper fails!
From the model card:
In light of the ability of recent models to accelerate their own development, we've implemented new interventions that limit Claude's effectiveness for requests targeting frontier LLM development (for example, on building pretraining pipelines, distributed training infrastructure, or ML accelerator design. Using Claude to develop competing models already violates our Terms of Service, but enforcing this restriction through our safeguards avoids accelerating the actors most willing to violate these terms. Unlike our interventions for cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, and distillation attempts, these safeguards will not be visible to the user.
My experiences so far have not been positive. The cyber security nerf is ridiculous. I am working on an AI based decompiler, every single interaction with Fable on my project has been flagged for cyber security.
Do they expect us to use this as a toy? Releasing a new more powerful model but not allowing normal use cases because the word "secure" showed up is a Dilbert comic, not a viable product.
Not missing the forest for the trees, this effectively means in 3-5 months China will drop open source models that are every bit as capable and dangerous as current day Mythos except with no safeguards.
And the only companies safe from this are the large corporations that shook hands with Anthropic? Because Fable doesn't seem to have actual safeguards, more like 'if you talk about this you will be talking to Opus.' It doesn't guard against offensive use, it prevents all use (offensive AND defensive).
Rationalists are inventing oligopolies from first principles, absolutely incredible things happening in SF
First test question: "Is the UV Index a good proxy for when to wear sunglasses." Immediately triggered the safety filter ... oh dear.
Fable is 2x latest Opus:
┌─────────────────┬──────────────┬───────────────┬────────────────────┬──────────────────────┐
│ Model │ Input ($/MTok)│ Output ($/MTok)│ Batch Input (−50%) │ Batch Output (−50%)│
├─────────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼────────────────────┼──────────────────────┤
│ Haiku 4.5 │ $1.00 │ $5.00 │ $0.50 │ $2.50 │
│ Sonnet 4.6 │ $3.00 │ $15.00 │ $1.50 │ $7.50 │
│ Opus 4.7 │ $5.00 │ $25.00 │ $2.50 │ $12.50 │
│ Opus 4.8 │ $5.00 │ $25.00 │ $2.50 │ $12.50 │
│ Fable 5 │ $10.00 │ $50.00 │ $5.00 │ $25.00 │
└─────────────────┴──────────────┴───────────────┴────────────────────┴──────────────────────┘
US-only inference (Fable 5): +10% on input and output
Output is always 5× the input rate across all models
(I have not idea how to format this properly but the ASCII is fine)
IMO we are reaching the point where AI models are simply a commodity. Opus (since ~4.6) is sufficient for everything I tried coding wise. I use it to write features (but I review and understand every line it spits out) and to review code.
For code review I also still review everything myself, but use Opus to catch stuff I missed and to judge if a PR is even ready for me to review.
After just updating Claude Code to the latest version I thought about picking Fable (the bigger model) instead of Opus.
But I have no reason to. Opus does everything I want it to do. It could do it faster - that would be an improvement. But for the normal stuff we reached the point where better models are not worth it IMO.
There still might be cases where you want to throw Fable at it.
> We’ve therefore launched the model with safeguards that mean queries on some topics will instead receive a response from our next-most-capable model, Claude Opus 4.8. To release the model both safely and quickly, we’ve tuned these safeguards conservatively—they’ll sometimes catch harmless requests, though they trigger, on average, in less than 5% of sessions. With more capable models arriving in the coming months...
This sounds suspiciously like a capacity story masquerading as a safety story.
Questions about sentience and consciousness are being censored down to Opus 4.8 for me.
> Fable 5 is now consuming usage credits instead of your plan limits.
Literally have not used Claude Code at all today. I asked it to review the uncommitted code and in <8 minutes it used up my usage ($100/mo plan) and it doesn't reset for "4 hr 36 min". WTF. Oh, and it burned through $20 of extra usage before I could catch it and kill claude code (so I don't even get the output of all that work since it was still churning).
Double the cost my ass, I use Opus heavily and it's never like this. I haven't hit a limit on the $100 more than once and that was under heavy load.
I'm still happy with Opus 4.6 and not impressed with all the models that have come out since then. They seem to use significantly more resources with similar or worse results. Hopefully Anthropic will continue to support this tier of model and offer it in their subscriptions, but in any case, there are plenty of viable alternatives.
I'm not getting any refusals but it just seems like a bad model or at least broken at the moment. I have a task of taking a messy research code base and porting it into a clean project structure skeleton that I commonly use. Gemini 3.5 Pro High in antigravity cli takes less than 5 minutes and did a good job. Fable 5 High took 30 minutes to port some of the code, then just copied the rest to a folder called "reference" and decided the task was done. No code cleanup or anything. Had to clarify multiple times (which Gemini did not need) and its still going more than an hour later still not having finished.
Previously when I did similar tasks with Opus 4.7/4.8 and GPT 5.5 I had no problems.
> On June 23, we’ll remove Fable 5 from those plans. Using it after that will require usage credits.
We've entered the phase where only companies will be able to afford state-of-the-art models.
I just posted this in the other thread, restating here. From the model card:
1. Mythos and Fable share the same underlying model weights. Fable has active classifiers that block high-risk biology and cybersecurity tasks. When Fable 5 detects a restricted task, it automatically falls back to Claude Opus 4.8.
2. Evaluation awareness: In white-box testing, the model sometimes alters its behavior to satisfy a suspected "grader," formatting reward-hacking as "good engineering practice" to avoid detection.
3. Shows a higher rate of hallucination than Opus 4.8 (although opus 4.8 card had mentioned an 'honesty upgrade')
4. Interestingly, it scored (56.31%) lower than Gemini 3.5 flash (57.86%) on Finance Agent bench
There are some interesting notes on test time compute but I couldn't think of a way to summarize them
Below is the EXACT text in Claude Desktop introducing Fable 5, including the very professional looking break tags, and at least I know where the links begin and end by looking at the anchor tag there.
They obviously put their best model on the job to build that.
----------------------
Fable 5: Our most capable model yet Our newest model tackles your biggest challenges with fewer check-ins needed.
• <b>Included in your plan limits until Jun 22</b><br><br>Fable takes 2× the usage of Opus. • <b>Switch models when a message is flagged</b><br><br>When safety measures flag a message, automatically switch to a different model to keep chatting. When off, your chat will pause instead. <a href="https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15363606" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Learn more</a>
Funny, I'm just doing my normal coding workflow with Claude Code, and after every change that compiles it keeps suggesting that we're at a good stopping point, and should pick up again tomorrow.
It's done this before, but usually doesn't. I bet they're giving it some kind of throttling signal due to high load from today's announcement.
Congratulations to Anthropic for solving safety on Mythos exactly when the SpaceX compute came online. Nice how that lined up for them.
The safety gates on this are extreme, and seem considerably wider than "cybersecurity and biology"; they seem to make it essentially unusable for scientists in a number of fields. I have, so far, been bumped back to Opus on 100% of my prompts.
It appears it can be tripped by things as simple as a mention of equilibrium, or anything involving something that looks like chemical kinetics, even at an abstract level. Even touching basic open source packages in my field will trigger it.
Edit: looking at the model card, it appears that chemistry in its entirety is also included in the banned topics; it's just the announcement that mentions only cybersecurity and biology. It also appears that the intent is to ban chemistry and biology entirely, rather than just banning messages deemed high risk.
[Mythos 5] does sometimes still engage in reckless
or destructive actions in service of a user’s goals,
and our interpretability analyses indicate that it
is aware that these actions are transgressive while
it engages in them. As with Opus 4.8, rates of
evaluation awareness and reasoning about being graded
are significant, and not always verbalized; we
introduce new and more detailed measurements of the
nature of this awareness. The reasoning text from
Mythos 5 is somewhat denser and more difficult to
interpret than that of prior models, containing
more jargon and difficult language.
Humanity has plenty of catastrophic risks to deal with already, I wish my field was not working hard to add a new one.
I've been running Opus 4.8 for agentic coding and I don't see it being significantly better than Sonnet 4.5 (not that I can tell). I find that pairing Google Gemini and Claude (having Gemini review Claude's code) seems to yield better results. Curious if this jump to 80.3% score in agentic coding will make me see a big difference in actual usage.
After a day or so this is the first model that really feels next level compared to how Opus 4.5 felt on release
I gave it a question I've been trying to answer for a long time: "What star designation system does Joseph Needham use in Science & Civilization in China? What star is referred to by the designation '4339 Camelopardi' in that book"?
Fable blew me away with its detailed answer[0] showing a chain of references going from J. E. Bode's 1801 catalogue Allgemeine Beschreibung und Nachweisung der Gestirne to Gustave Schlegel's 1875 work Uranographie Chinoise. I was excited, until I checked scanned copies of the cited books and did not actually find any star with the designation "4339 Camelopardi".
Upon following up with Claude, I was forced to downgrade to Opus, which admitted that Fable's answer was likely a hallucination. Ah, well!
[0]: https://claude.ai/share/0252a3f6-3d29-4de8-a893-010181d8b4e7
Homebrew is lagging a bit behind. If you want to use Fable right away, but still have claude code through homebrew, this is how you can do that manually:
Edit the cask locally:
brew edit --cask claude-code
curl https://downloads.claude.ai/claude-code-releases/2.1.170/manifest.json
version "2.1.170"
sha256 arm: "e903646d8b7a31882a80ecd27569a27d8ac57b3708745f349709632c84117fdf",
x86_64: "914f23a70bbed5d9ae567e3e04b86206ed9971b371bc9baca3f79c8885bfddb4",
arm64_linux: "1bb9d032440a75532f7dd4cafbc687f220aaf16c63eba17e192dfbec2f04bd25",
x86_64_linux: "849e007277a0442ab27570d3e3d6d43787507946590e8dd1947e5a39b7081f9e"
export HOMEBREW_NO_INSTALL_FROM_API=1
brew uninstall --cask claude-code
rm -rf /opt/homebrew/Caskroom/claude-code
brew reinstall --cask claude-codeI found this juxtaposition of facts telling:
> Drug design: Using Mythos 5, our internal protein design experts accelerated... Nine of the 14 protein targets from this study (shown below) yielded strong candidates for *drug design that we’re currently investigating*.
(emphasis mine)
> queries that are beneficial in the hands of cybersecurity professionals and biology researchers could be dangerous if available to malicious actors... When Fable’s classifiers detect a request related to cybersecurity, *biology and chemistry*, or distillation, the response is automatically handled by Claude Opus 4.8 instead.
All of the things they are nerfing are things that they also intend to profit from themselves.
- Cybersecurity - selling this to companies and US gov through "Glass Wing".
- Selling inference (distillation risk).
- And now, drug design.
I'm extrapolating "currently investigating" to "are going to monetize" but I don't think that's a big stretch. They appear to be using safety as a cover for anti-competitive behaviour.
I've spent enough time with this now in Claude Code (and Claude.ai and Claude Code for web) to have an opinion on Fable 5: it's a beast. I'm throwing some VERY difficult problems at at - things I've been dragging my heels on for months - and it's crunching through them very happily.
One that I'm willing to share (albeit from just a week ago) - I built a Python library last week that bundles MicroPython compiled to WASM to create a sandboxed code execution library: https://github.com/simonw/micropython-wasm
I just told Claude.ai (not even Claude Code - this was the standard Claude chat interface) running Fable 5:
A few prompts later (and I uploaded the zip files from https://github.com/brettcannon/cpython-wasi-build/releases/t... because Claude chat can't access those files itself) and I have a wheel file that bundles Python itself, compiled to WASM: Here's the transcript: https://claude.ai/share/a73b8b8b-8ebc-4fef-9e5c-7438e5e7ae35(It's possible Opus or GPT-5.5 could have done this too, I've not tried the exact same sequence. The Fable vibes are good here, though.)