How much more clearly do they need to explain the resource constraints?

If they didn't announce it, you guys would be complaining about slowed progress.

If they didn't release it, you guys would be complaining about fake promises and marketing.

If they released it without limits, the complaints would be about slow responses and outages.

If they didn't add to susbcription plans, the complaints would be about phasing out subscriptions.

If they added to subscriptions with cost reflecting their resource availability, the complaints would be about how quickly it eats limits.

So they choose the middle ground of providing some initial access and assessing if they can satisfy demand, only to still be ignored and accused of trying to get users hooked?

We've already seen that they don't have enough compute, thus the deals with SpaceX for their GPUs. It's very reasonable that they just don't have the capacity to support the subscription userbase on this model.

Still satisfied with my switch to codex/chatgpt. I couldn't imagine switching away from claude code when it first launch but with the drastically more generous usage on codex for the same subscription tier I just can't justify it.

I would not use this if you are on a subscription. In <8min it burned my entire 5hr window (which has just reset it appears, I have over 4 hours till it resets) I hadn't used CC at all today aside from this) and then it used up ~$15 more in usage before I could stop it.

I am on the $100 Max plan.

For me it almost immediately blocked. I had it writing code related to message digests - and it seemed to think it was too gifted for that. Gave the security warning and switched back to 4.8. Whatever... it will probably soon have the API error soon. I have mostly switched to the Codex 200 a month plan. I've found their 5.5 xhigh to be better than Opus 4.8 "ultracode." Also, i have not once seen their servers fail for compute unavailability, unlike Anthropric which happens almost ever hour.

Fwiw it's not available on my enterprise account: "Disable zero data retention to unlock Fable 5 access"

Considering their apparent nerfing of the end user plans in favor of enterprise clients, is Anthropic still the "more ethical AI company" like everybody loves to tell me all the time?

Assuming this isn't just a supply issue on their side, nothing says "ethical AI" like only allowing mega corporations to use it through cost barriers.

Get them addicted then cut them off. Oldest trick in the book.

It’s too obvious that antropic need to find way to earn enough revenue before IPO. Claude subscription isn’t earning earning much money I bet

I agree, this looks like their plan to wane out subscriptions. This will probably come with Opus nerfs later.

It could be my use cases, which have always seemed to be outside the wheelhouse of these models, but I find it very hard to downgrade after accessing a more capable model.

Opus 4.8 produces output in 15 minutes that is 3-4 hours of my work away from output that used to take me 40ish hours (a solid week of dedicated effort).

Last year(-ish, maybe it was 18 months, I forget when the jump happened), the frontier models couldn't touch this work. The output looked like a hardworking intern on their first day. Nice formatting, decent volume of words, but no understanding.

So it might work if it turns out to be a substantial leap in capability.

Ooof so are we thinking that in the next 6-12 months subscriptions will be replaced with paying retail like enterprise currently?

Kimi 2.6 has been my workhorse now. It's as good as Opus 4.6, which, to me, was the last "useful" Claude model.

The newer models are smarter but really ficklle and hard to get meaningful work out of

4.6 was a workhorse

> it feels like they are trying to get subscribers to switch to usage-based billing

I think they might be hitting a point where subsidizing the expensive models for subscriptions makes less and less sense.

With Opus 4.X, last month I paid 100 USD for the Max subscription and got a token equivalent of 4.1k USD.

I imagine that Fable is more expensive to run.

Fable seems very good at finding bugs (unsurprising given Mythos lineage), so this seems a pretty smart strategy. Once you see the bugs it finds in your existing Opus code, it's going to be hard to go back, psychologically speaking.

> 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.

Probably all about the IPO.

This is just the sales team doing their thing, applying the Law of Scarcity to drive demand.

It's the same exact speed as opus >=4.5, sonnet 4.5, and twice the speed of opus <=4.1

It must have about the same active parameters, or else its a larger model running in turbo mode (smaller batches) and being heavily subsidized for some reason. But given most of the benchmarks are within 5% I doubt it is a much larger model. Most perplexing.

This is really sad... I really didn't want to be priced out of these models but it looks like that's going to happen sooner rather than later.

i doubt that's the goal for them. i bet they just really don't have capacity for people using it a ton, yet they wanted people to be able to try it out while it's new. so they compromised and made it temporarily available. and then hope they can get costs down or capacity up so they can make it more available again

I really don't want this to start being the norm

also: Fable takes 2× the usage of Opus

I’m just about ready to cancel my small business 5 user plan with max licenses, because although cowork is really great. I just find OpenAI/Codex to be a lot better most of the time.

> Pricing for both models is $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output tokens.

The step-up in intelligence looks massive (we'll see in practice), but the price is getting to a point where it's making me question if it's even worth giving it a try.

Good competitors will probably be out soon, which should level the playing field. I am more excited about that, just the fact that they showed that such an improvement is possible. I'm okay waiting a bit longer for this to become attainable for plebs like me.

Pay-as-you-go billing is a kind of drug, I use it every now and then when I'm working on a project with Opus, in a moment you spend a fortune

I suspect it'll go on the subscription plan once other providers have similar benchmarks.

As annoyed as I am about this move, I get it. Users flood the newest, best model whether they really need it or not, and are efficient at using their entire quota. They've had so much trouble reigning in subscription usage it makes sense.

I expect that depends on demand, feedback, and whether GPT-6.0 gets released and is competitive

"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).

...

Unlike our interventions for cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, and distillation attempts, these safeguards will not be visible to the user."

My guess is that it is a massive model similar to GPT 4.5 and $10/$50 pricing is for its output will discourage people from using it. I also read safety = nerfed.

One can hope it helps Claude to figure out how to solve their buggy payment system - otherwise how do I pay for these credits.

Enterprise subs not allowed to use Fable if they have setup zero data retention :(

the claimed inference cost is 2x. if that is true, it is massive and remarkable that they're able to do anything like this at all.

This serves as a good reminder that relying on AI models is borrowing your tech from someone else. They can take it away or raise the prices arbitrarily.

If you rely on this as a core part of your business/profession, you will be at their mercy and subject to whatever whims or challenges they have.

It's very disappointing but I'm assuming it's for rational reasons on their part.

But it's not and it's highly disingenuous to frame it like this. Quote directly from Claude code, moments ago:

> Fable 5 · Most capable for your hardest and longest-running tasks · Uses your limits ~2× faster than Opus

It's interesting that we are seeing a time when subscriptions are not preferred and usage-based billing is.

Pay-as-you go isn't a common thing in SaaS. For example, except for AWS SES, all email providers are bulk-subscription based.

> "offer, then remove"

Sounds like "bait and wait".

If you think about it, the more people pay for these new and more resource hungry models, the longer it takes for them to become no extra cost and the longer it takes the more people are tempted to pay extra.

I'm about to be priced out of SOTA llms and it's an awful feeling

> * 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.

Of course, they are a casino as well giving you free spins at the wheel with their new Fable machine, and it is done on purpose.

Once there freebies have expired, many of its users will begin to gamble more on the new casino machine and will realize that it is expensive.

i have never seen this before - where you offer something and then take that away

damn they are drugs dealer

[dead]