If it's the case then software engineers still have the same place as pre-ClaudeCode era, because 4.8 and 5.5 are damn good at algo but notoriously bad at architecture and coordination.
Reality is Fable is x2 price increase against previous.
GPT5.5 is x2 price increase against previous. And after the last week reset, codex is hungry for your sub allowance.
Everybody can see that the massive raises are not matching the revenue, at all.
It's a surprising headline. Yes it does make sense to cut the price to gain market share, but it also make sense to keep it at a sustainable level, which seems to not have been reached yet.
A "plans for agents" interface because I'm tired of reading huge markdown plans to iterate on the real work.
Is supports infinite 2d space like miro, but has one thread per card, a cli for the agent to treat open notes.
It support voice prompting too.
It feels like you have parallel conversation with an agent, except it understands all the surface. And it's granular, surgical and precise.
Usage:
I'm writing a game design document of 70 pages with it, working surgically without having to worry about what page number the edit was.
It really solved my main bottleneck which is telling the AI what to do in a complete and comprehensive context.
Readme is trash but your agent will understand what to do
I wonder if profitable means that investment must be recouped or just if your operational expenses must be compensated by your earnings.
Anthropic is becoming "profitable" while burning a series H of 69 bns usd. Does it count as profitable?
I'm curious if someone well versed in finance can answer, because from my uneducated perspective, it's not profitable to burn billions in order to make a billion.
I'm making a 3D game and I hate flat worlds, a planet is much more elegant, both finite and infinite in gameplay terms since the surface is not expandable, but you can't hit a world border at the same time.
Cartesian coordinates doesn't work well for the player so I wanted a lat/long/altitude grid system.
I could have spent few days walking through stackoverflow and debuging my upcoming flawed implementation.
ChatGPT web version almost one shot the helpers in 2024 and boy, there were a lot of pitfalls.
Yes I got how they used the phrase. And it was wrong, so I wanted to react. Thanks for your addition, it dissipates any doubt on the intention of OP: he thinks Anthropic is hiding the lack of power by pretending it's too dangerous. But he is wrong to assume that without proof, hence my reaction.
I agree, saying "it's clear" when at best, "it's plausible" doesn't let the conversation happen.
And pretending to know what is going on behind the scene, anon on HN is not credible
It's not clear, there is no tangible proof that Mythos is not released because they don't have compute power to serve it. Saying that would imply that the "too dangerous" is a lie. Nobody has proof. It can feel "clear" for you, but it's not. Hence, I correct it.
Yeah and apparently, Mythos is pretty effective at finding critical issues. So it seams to be a good product served with a genius offer. Anthropic founding engineers are already comfortable, they will end rich.
They did produce great value, claude code and opus 4.5 are a singularity in software engineering.
The job we practiced for decades simply doesn't exist anymore.
I don't have enough elements to conclude if the world would collapse if Mythos was released publicly without Glasswing.
Nor publicly or in my internal reasoning. I rarely conclude without proof or very intense and clear intuition.
From a strategic PoV it makes sense to check if their model is dangerous, I wouldn't want to have my brand name associated with "NK hacker team find zero day in all linux servers of the web and ..."
Marketing move doesn't mean scam. It describe the ability to sell people over a narrative and surpassing your competitor in market share. And that's exactly what is happening.
My post is a "tribute" to the efficiency of Anthropic's communication.
I never complained about anything, nor calling it a scam, nor saying they should have released mythos to the public instead of rolling it out to a selected cohort.
You tried to expand my words to make me say something I didn't, because my post wasn't giving you a clear conclusion of my opinion regarding their private release.
It is not "clear", as your comment suggests, it's hidden. Which is semantically the opposite of clear. Regarding your theory, might be true, might be false. But it's highly speculative.
Fable 5 might not be accessible for sub in the future despite their "best effort".
And 5.6-sol is as expensive as 5.5, so highly probable to be kept in sub.
So what's the plan? Hoping people stay on ClaudeCode because Sonnet 5 while Codex offers 5.6-sol to subsription peasants?
Seems risky