I feel like fable is simply several 4.5s strapped together with consensus voting on next token.
Outputs i've seen so far are on par with my tests for 4.5, where 4.6+ were consistently regressions on 4.5 and their predecessors. One notable improvement being significantly lower retries to good output (1.1 avg. Vs 1.7 prev. On harder tasks)
given all the smoke and mirrors and OAI style fear-hype, it wouldn't surprise me if they intentionally degraded opus 4 for a few iterations, so they can resell "coke classic" at a markup with a minor quality of life feature put in, but charging way more than just re-attempting a poor output would have been previously.
unless anthropic starts acting in the image they claim and starts contributing to research, we'll never know either. Ultimately, the secrecy in how and why things are done would mostly be beneficial to this kind of buisness practice, since as it has always been, the moat is the data not the tech, so I cannot imagine what they hope to gain from the recent uptick in paranoia, jealous guarding and secrecy other than trying to huck a previous peak performance model as an imorovement when really, it is simply coke classic.
Eh, let em. If the US economy wants to self-sabotage, let them. Its a dying empire, lets its fall be hastened. I'm ready for china to fill the US vacuum. At least china controls it's billionairs (see jack ma saga) rather than the inverse.
I did get a refund quite quickly, after I finally figured out how to contact their support, which in some stroke of cosmic humor took deepseek to figure out because using their website left my trapped in a dead-end loop. Asking mistral for help lead to links that all 404'd or the same useless help section / faq page.
Them strugglig to prevent others from doing what they themsleves do, is my problem to a degree where I must pay for the pleasure to getting sabotaged? Are you fucked in the head? In what world are we "being fair" by claiming that? It takes a problem anthripic has hallucinated, and makes its consequences mine for no reason. Anthropic chose to create both this problem and it's consequences, why am I wearing it?
If I decide I dislike words starting in S, despite myself being a prolific user of words starting in S, and smack some child who'd never even heard the rules, simply for saying "sorry", simply because some people say "shit" and it makes me mad, despite it being my most used word, are we "being fair" by saying "to be fair, managing curse words is a difficult problem"
Changing well documented requirememts and functioning code to do subtly incorrect things, over multiple areas, for no reason. When confronted you get the usual, "youre right to push back, there was no reason to touch that and it did make everything worse"
Why do I suspect faulty trigger? The things wrecked weren't wrecked by even much less capable, including local models, while reverting everything to pre fucking up and asking claude again led to similar results. Once on whatever shitlist that was, claude also failed tasks it previously aced when given the exact same prompt and project files. I attributed it to opus 4.6 being a downgrade which people always pushed back on, claiming they thought it was better, but i had empirical proof, it couldnt do tasks 4.5- could do quite well. Now all of this? It's clicking all of a sudden that its quite plausible i got flagged somehow and ended up with an intentionally degraded service.
So, claude is off table for me these days, and deepseek gets very deep git commit read-throughs with every file even being read being carefully monitored. This obviously ruins the "agentic" promise, but the reality is we cannot trust these fucks (being the companies). The irony is deepseek now queries claude on problems its stuck on for input via openrouter, with mild success (the gap really isnt all that big, if its even there), before escalating to me for input on direction on solving a given problem. So now chinese models get more claude training data, not less. In fact, they get training data on frontier ML stacks and problems. Anthropic did that to themselves.
So block people, instead of having false positives be secretly fucked over, and having them pay for the pleasure?
Given the hidden model degradation of fable and now this, what makes you think this is where it stops? That's just what we know about and there's clearly a long-standing and deeply rooted malicious intent here.
I've had Claude fuck over clean well documented code-bases for no reason, and there's a good chance this is due to some faulty trigger. Luckily I don't trust these things one bit, and claude only ever runs in an isolated VM, however, I am pissed I am being made to pay for their errors in detection and waste my time fixing things I apparently paid to have fucked up.
That's unacceptable conduct. It's witch-hunting. Punishment and attacks on you for things without real proof. That isn't right.
Got curious, sign up, add money to account, try to use. Can't, it's a labs model. Fine, let's enable labs. Can't, unspecified error. Fine, lets contact customer support as instructed, can't no customer support, just a half-assed FAQ, that seems vibe-coded and searched poorly, totally irrelevant answers coming up for all queries tried. Then it hit me:
If AI makes good customer support, then why does no AI company use theirs to provide customer support?
I might not use all the same terms as you, but i largly agree. However llms live in a world almost entierly divorced from our own. Ours is physical, it's is human information corpi. For tasks suited to its world, and llm is as "human" as I am in my own domain. Same same but different. Intelligence is a fundamental trait of our universe, not a surprise.
Velocity is itself an expression of energy, and energy does scale linearly. Why does it take quardically more energy for each extra unit velocity? Well, because the closer you get to the speed of light the harder it is to get closer still. Why that is simply requires a deeper appreciation of the system than I expect is possible to muster in a comment.
Velocity implies direction, AI is just speed sans direction, AI only workflows are just really fast brownian motion centred on training corpus mean for a task. Humans can give it direction, how good that direction is depends on human expertise.
We still need the humans, there are no cases for novel useful work I can think of, or have seen, where humans are no longer required.
On par, a large part of that professional cohort has its entire career made by abusing rules intended to prevent abuse of rules.
It's a self-perpetuating monster that breeds attitudes and behaviours that maximise antisocial and exploitative behaviour by the system's design.
just look at what was done to copywrite, designed to protect inventors from cororates and related abuse, now unweildly for individuals and largly serves corporate interest more than the individuals it was supposed to protect. Same with patent system.
Chinese models are years ahead of american models on multimodal comprehension, better yet,they publish on what makes the models tick and release weights openly.
Chinese research outout, publically released, has also contributed in big ways to features present in every single US model. Yours is a bit of an unfair take I'd say.
Besides, claude will think its chatgpt sometimes, so clearly this isn't a problem restricted to china, turns out unethical companies will do unethical things /shrug
Aicon is reasonable for areas where it's required, but "solving" things in areas where for millenia it wasnt required simply removes the pressure to act. This would be the opposite of what's required right now, which is decisive and heavy action on something we've been inactive on for way too long.
Outputs i've seen so far are on par with my tests for 4.5, where 4.6+ were consistently regressions on 4.5 and their predecessors. One notable improvement being significantly lower retries to good output (1.1 avg. Vs 1.7 prev. On harder tasks)
given all the smoke and mirrors and OAI style fear-hype, it wouldn't surprise me if they intentionally degraded opus 4 for a few iterations, so they can resell "coke classic" at a markup with a minor quality of life feature put in, but charging way more than just re-attempting a poor output would have been previously.
unless anthropic starts acting in the image they claim and starts contributing to research, we'll never know either. Ultimately, the secrecy in how and why things are done would mostly be beneficial to this kind of buisness practice, since as it has always been, the moat is the data not the tech, so I cannot imagine what they hope to gain from the recent uptick in paranoia, jealous guarding and secrecy other than trying to huck a previous peak performance model as an imorovement when really, it is simply coke classic.