Previously, access was set to expire today (July 7th)
It is theorized that OpenAI may time the release of GPT 5.6 in Codex to convert people who have lost access to Fable, so this is an interesting game theoric consequence.
Also consider that Fable launched on June 9. Many people including myself bought a 1-month Anthropic subscription just to use Fable.
By extending it to July 12, they're gonna get a second month out of a lot of such people. If it really expired today, I wasn't going to renew my month.
I immediately downgraded my subscription as soon as they revoked access, then upgraded it again once Fable came back. So they're getting no extra month out of me unless they keep Fable available.
Isn't the plan locked for the month though? I don't see them processing refunds for anyone who starts with Max and downgrades to Pro. Although the converse wouldn't be true: they'd be happy to upgrade a plan at any point.
My theory is they saw capacity would have issues during weekday working hours due to last minute frenzy of usage, so would rather it happen on a weekend if it has to happen.
It's also possible that giving access to Fable when lots of people have been taking time away from working on things (4th July, World Cup, etc) meant they didn't spend much time with it.
Now I'm wondering if the 84% probability of GPT-5.6 release on polymarket on july 9th is about to drop substantially (in order to release while fable is at extra cost, like everyone seems to anticipate)? If they miss thursday release, does it mean they'll release Sol on next tuesday?
The opacity and unpredictability of Anthropic is really starting to become more than just an annoyance. I'm glad they're extending access, but the roller coaster is really starting to cause whiplash.
If they're eventually going to add Fable to the subscription plan, I wish they'd say something about that now, or at least confirm if they don't plan to for awhile. The feeling I get is they don't want to make any announcements because they are flying by the seat of their pants and want to see what their competition does first.
I would pay vastly more, I think it’s incredible value. If I had no other choice I think I’d pay up to $1K per day. The amount of work I’m getting through is absolutely immense.
Same. I don’t know what Mickey Mouse work people are doing that 4.8 is “enough”. CRUD apps maybe?
I have some serious Bayesian statistical research programs running and Fable is on another level than 4.8. It feels like Andrew Gelman is supervising it. Even the vision model on Fable is superior to 4.8 which is great for having it digest research papers.
I read posts like these all the time and I keep wondering when they'll begin to tighten the screws on the prosumers. I think most, if not all, $200/mo individual accounts are blasting high multiples of that amount in tokens. I mean we know that doesn't work with current inference costs, not by a longshot, so I guess this is just a way to pad their numbers like "look, we're growing our user base!" while they can still somewhat hide the "actually, we're hemorrhaging money on inference" in their accounting.
You can't drive prosumers anywhere near API prices. I would guess that the maximum you can extract from vast majority of prosumers is maybe $500/mo, and even that is a big stretch.
Once you cross that threshold, prosumers will simply fall back to using Chinese models and/or self-hosting smaller models, with more efficient and tight workflows.
Sure, but that’s all fine. Maybe McDonalds is just waiting for the day when enough people rely on them that they can charge $1000 for a burger. But if so, the economics aren’t going to work they way they expect.
I’ve always assumed that Anthropic sees the highest token consumers as leading indicators of how developers will use coding agents, so they’re looking at it as training data + market research, and they know that price elasticity is low so trying to charge those developers significantly more would just drive them elsewhere.
Paying $100/month and using Opus 4.8 all the time to get my work done. I had a brief look at fable (when it was available the 1st time) but it burned my allowance to fast. So I keep paying the $100 for Opus and enjoy friction-less uninterrupted work.
I'm usually at 60-70% usage at the end of a 5 hour window, that's the pace where I can still think about what to delegate and what to expect and verify the results. Could probably go faster but that would have a significant impact on output quality.
I planned to use all my allowance in 6 hours time (the time they said it would be around until) for the week and then they extend it so that I burned almost all of them in a wasteful way without having the time to review things properly.
This is the second time you posted essentially the same message 40 minutes later, are you stuck in a loop? I wonder if people are looping in addition to their AI agents.
it's incredible how volatile the product and pricing situation is right now. i struggle to find an equivalent industry that has been so all over the place and obtuse
I suspect it's the combination of wanting to capture market share (subsidised plans), being severely capacity limited in GPUs, and having bursty and absurd growth rates. There was speculation that Anthropic might be allocating fewer GPUs to training for a few days to allow people to use Fable.
The actual API pricing seems far more of a stable downward trend, if measuring by equivalent intelligence.
I kind of think they force reset last week. Which actually instead of giving me two weekly cycles of use only gave me a single week of use.
Every single thing about this is fuck users fuck your usage. All those subscriptions I bought to enjoy Fable for the time allotted? Basically gone, didn't get to use the ~4 weeks if cycles or so I had planned for, bought, anticipating. I got two. And now if I want one week more, I need to pay for a full month.
Anthropic is just the most miserable evil grinch. Everything here has totally defied everything that's been laid out for what we were told we'd get and gotten worse and worse, with less and less. Anthropic cannot general an iota of goodwill.
Loosing Fable July 12th and getting usage cut by 50% post July 13th is going to be rough. Looks like all the reporting about Anthropic trying their earnest to turn a profit this quarter is true. In the mean time, I will gladly switch to Codex. There Pro plan gives you amble usage and only runs close when you are using the fast mode. And even if you run out of credits, they have given users so many credit resets this past month that you can just activate one of those after. I understand Fable is a great model, but switching to API usage will run many people thousands of dollars with the same usage from their subscription plans. Not worth it IMO.
What makes you think your usage is getting cut by 50% post July 13th? It's just that you can use up to 50% of your usage on Fable right now, and that is what is going away.
I'm going to miss Fable too, I found it surprisingly tough going back to Opus when we lost Fable first time round, but paying API costs is simply out of the question for me right now.
Subscription is ~$200/month. When I tried running on tokens it was ~$500/day for the same usage pattern.
My guess is my usage is atypically high, but even if the average equivalent is $100-250/day you can get a sense of how much Anthropic is subsidizing subscriptions as a loss leader to lock market share. IMHO this is a doomed strategy since open models will get into a long tail of parity and they’ll ultimately essentially be in the business of commodity compute.
I track the subscription value against API rates and you get between 13-20k at current rates. When Fable launched I got 32k for a short time. 500 USD per day is thus very little.
What makes you think the API costs are "the true price" and anywhere near their inference costs? Also what percentage of users do you think actually maxes out their subscription?
I suspect they're subsidizing a lot less than people think.
Anthropic and OpenAI are really two different businesses in one company.
One business is serving great models via the API. I think that one is indeed going to become commoditized. The other is making consumer / developer focused products like Chat GPT, Claude Code or Codex.
Anthropic is leaning hard into making Claude Code work with things like enterprise compliance policies. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of these companies basically ends up as a SaaS fronting many different models for different capability points, some of which are open.
> Looks like all the reporting about Anthropic trying their earnest to turn a profit this quarter is true.
That's not how any of this works.
Anthropic is playing the long game; they're not going make a short-sighted decision just so they announce a profit for one quarter, which doesn’t mean much because it won’t be a sustainable profit since they're going to need to spend a ton of money on training and compute over the next few months.
That's why they did a G funding round for $14 billion in February and $65 billion in May.
I suspect one reason for switching Fable to API usage for the near future is they don't have enough compute for their enterprise customers and every hobbyist on their $20/month Pro plan, 80% of which don’t need Fable 5 anyway but that won't stop them from using it as much as they can.
> which doesn’t mean much because it won’t be a sustainable profit since they're going to need to spend a ton of money on training and compute over the next few months.
Never was arguing that it would be a sustained profit, just that they are. Most likely for the reasons you just listed.
> In the mean time, I will gladly switch to Codex.
IME Codex had a bit of a big head/ego about writing what it thinks I ought to want rather than what I actually ask for, and I've had to spend some time cleaning up its slop.
I've been on Anthropic's subscription product for a few months. I pay annually.
I miss Kagi's multi-model product [1]. Anthropic's nonsense around releasing, deprecating, optimising/lobotomising is tiring, and isn't matched by the value of running different models against each other.
Fable has been fine. But its reliablity is crap. The constant downgrading is crap. This last-minute promotional windowing reeks of JCPenney pre-bankruptcy, not a trusted tool. I hate the Electron app–it's slow and ugly and shows Claude isn't trusted by its own makers with app development. I'm using 4.8 instead of dealing with the pop-ups saying my asking why basil browns is causing my account to be downgraded, and I'm still not sure if that's a nerfed 4.7.
I think it does. I know this is through Microsoft, but they give you a month free of Cowork which is currently Opus 4.8 (or at least they did for us) and I doubt we'd ever go back. When I say "we" it's the enterprise organisation "we", but this also where this sort of spending won't stop anyone. I can't go into exact details, but if our first month had not been free, then our most expensive user would've hit around $1000, while our average (among users who've adopted it and actually use it) is around $100. Neither of those numbers would matter in a budget.
I've had the pleasure of setting up limits because Microsoft needed billing policies before our C-levels have even gotten it on their agenda. So I set up a sort of conservative $200 personal limit, but then setup a $1m shared limit pool that anyone can be moved into with management approval. I suspect our limits will be much higher than this once the C-levels make the decision on an actual company policy. I think we'll see these spending limits mainly used as guardrails to prevent accidental spending, but that there will not really be a ceiling, just some approval gates. Some managers are already requesting usage reports, but not to track spending, they want to see who uses too little AI.
This is the difference between enterprise and small companies and individuals. When you spend $500k a month keeping your toilets stacked with papertowels, toiletpaper, soap etc. then $1m a month on AI isn't going to raise any eyebrows.
Your most expensive users consuming $1,000 dollars a month doesn't matter in the budget? That seems like FOMO activity or something, I feel like even big teams require proof of ROI for an investment like that (1M). BTW, the ROI of toilet paper + soap is pretty easy to prove (you GET to have employees if you provide those two things).
FWIW we are a smaller company and we had a user run through 500$ in a DAY. Had to put a stop to that. I'm hopeful that our company gets better at asking what the ROI is, what is being built, how much time is it taking, etc... It's no big deal when it's 20 / 100$ a month - but if the prices end up higher we will need to start seeing some returns other than "I feel faster".
Man, this "Fable" has been rough. Last week we get access to it again, then they reset usage after a day or two with no warning. Lots of "missed" Fable time because I was pacing it for a reset 5 days down the line. Use up all my Fable time last week, resets Sunday and I don't have enough work projects to burn up the tokens by today, so I burn them on some toy and side projects, which I wouldn't have done if I knew I was going to have it until Sunday. Now I'm at 100% and they give out more access.
It would have been WAY more useful for them to announce the extension, you know, yesterday. This is basically the worst time for them to announce it. Bunch of goobers, who thought this would be a good idea?
Kind of shooting themselves in the foot here. In the process of getting all my Fable use in, I'm also at 68% on overall week limit and 5 days left. So not only am I likely to be using OpenAI much more heavily this week, I'm going to be doing it while being slightly annoyed at Anthropic.
The most frustrating part is that everyone thought the access was ending on the seventh and used it up as much as possible only to have them say oh by the way on the 12th you can it'll go away and so you can keep using it. No one has any more fable usage tokens left? We all used it up they should've also reset people's weekly usage.
Perhaps. I don’t blame them for short horizons given capacity constraints, government mayhem, etc. Promising anything more than a week at a time seems fraught.
Getting on and off fable this week has been quite interesting. For my personal work stream (big terraform monorepo, hundreds of states) I’ve using mostly superpowers to do heavy / quality work. But with fable, I tried just telling it what to do, and it produced roughly the same results without a big structured back and forth that I was accustomed to.
Then after using up all my fable allowance I figured let’s see if opus can actually work without superpowers, and no, it was all over the place doing weird things.
Thing is, superpowers produces meticulous specs and plans as a byproduct of its work, which is very useful for switching between work trees, stoping / resuming work by different people.
But to do that in Fable you have to spend way more tokens than it’s reasonable. You get similar quality result, but without the specs in between.
I’m not super sad that I’ll have to go back to opus though, with superpowers it was Fable but more structured. But I will miss the banter though - Fable is amazing for brainstorming big underspecced features.
I like super powers because I can be more in the loop editing and understanding the plan. Letting fable loose is genuinely impressive, and probably perfect for vibe coding, but I can’t be that far away from the plan and steps for code that matters.
As for being great for vibe coding, that’s cool but I can’t justify that kind of cost for throwaway code. At this point I’ve had good experiences using fable to review code, but I’m totally content with opus for all of my workflows still. If fable was the same price I’d switch, but I’d still use something like super powers to stay in the loop.
This. My workflow is a heavily-modified and personalised superpowers, and the docs that it produces are an asset. I tried Fable and it just ran off and did shit. Mostly that was good shit, but not all, and I would have liked to have had some input to those decisions.
I realise this is just me needing to structure my use of Fable better. But I got to a really nice place with my Opus workflow and I'm reluctant to go through that every time a new model releases.
for the first time, I'm rooting for the chinese to break the american monopoly on AI. although I have gemini, anthropic and openai subscriptions, I just opean an OpenRouter account and will be using more chinese open weights going forward.
IMHE the models work much better if you go directly to the creator's API. DeepSeek V4 official API gives me 8x better caching so it was 40% cheaper in my case. Unless it bothers you China gets your data instead of giving it to the American VC-backed companies.
It also prefer to give my money to the pro-social companies giving away their open models (they cost many millions) instead of opportunists who don't give much back.
Does this affect anybody? It seems they didn't reset your Fable usage so this only applies to people who didn't hit their 50%-of-plan limit with Fable and I can't imagine that's many people given how this thing eats through tokens like that's its job. On Pro I generally could not complete a single plan+execution cycle without hitting my token cap, so that 50% of weekly limit got eaten up fast and I assume that's the typical case.
I suppose it benefits people whose weekly reset is sometime between now and the 12th? Feels like vibe management, because I find this part of the promo more annoying than not.
I maximised usage and have reached the limit. I feel like I did 2 week's worth of hobby work over the last few days.
I got Fable to write multiple plans, spent a great part of the weekend reviewing them. Then with superpowers I left must of those plans executing with little intervention over the past few days.
I struggled to get Opus to just keep going without trying to convince me that it's late.
The best project I found to throw it at was cloning llama-server's web UI essentially in one shot. I'm not sure what I'll do with 5 extra days, maybe try to imagine some complex features. I'm no longer surprised at how much seems to work in these "new brain what can it do?" test, and instead think the risk is feeling like I have to take it the rest of the way once I've sunk the token cost :| https://inkcap.click
Yeah, I've been quite skeptical of LLMs, but I was wrong. The new models are capable of generating good quality code reasonably reliably. They still do some dumb things, but it's becoming more capable of one-shotting non-trivial stuff. I've no idea what software development will look like in a decade beyond absolutely nothing whatsoever what it looks like today. Even if we get sublinear progress from now on out, the current SOTA is already enough to redefine coding.
In general I expect the value of software, as a thing in and of itself, to sharply decline. With no barriers to entry, having software that just does something competently will no longer be worth much of anything. It's unclear what that will mean in the bigger picture. It'll also be interesting if this proves correct, given that software companies are largely the ones dumping so much money into this. Another probable outcome is major damage to the support-as-a-service model which again is going to directly affect many of the companies directly enabling this.
I guess the logic is that if you control the systems creating this, you control everything they're used for. But it seems equally obvious that free/local models will catch up to the SOTA today - and eventually tomorrow, so that's not a particularly realistic vision for the future.
I maintain a transit website as a hobby, and I'm building a Flutter app, from scratch. The old pre-COVID one carried mental baggage.
I spent a few weekends building comprehensive plans, designs, user maps, etc with Claude. So it has enough context to make decisions and keep going.
One session lasted over a day, I imagine partly because Fable + superpowers feels slow. I have an app on my phone that I have been test running since Monday on the bus.
What really helps (not sure if Opus used to do this) is that Claude will run through the emulator on its own, verifying that the design aligns with the Figma design system we created.
This is all building on top of 15 years of existing backend and rich features, so it's not a "build me a transit platform from scratch" where AI can end up making bad decisions.
I can honestly say that as a paying customer, I'm getting a bit tired of being jerked around by this company. It's on again, off again. Snip snap snip. And by the way, telling people there's a deadline so they all scramble to use their "Fable allowances" before being cut off, only to then be told "just kidding, here's 5 more days" without getting a usage reset is just another frustrating and disappointing customer experience.
Seriously, all OAI needs to do at this point is just release GPT 5.6, have it be a solid model and then not jerk it out of the hands of their customers, and they're going to eat Anthropic's lunch.
I am using Opis 4.8 xhigh, in OMP.sh coding agent (full agent built on Pi), with Matt Pocock Skills installed.
I don’t see a particular bump in code quality from Fable 5. In fact, it feels less reliable to me than my current setup. No sure why I am not seeing what everybody else is seeing.
Perhaps OMP/Pi (head and shoulders better than Claude Code) + Matt Pocock Skills already encode all the agentic improvements Fable has?
Opus 4.8 xhigh is my daily driver for everything. I'd say Fable's edge is visible when designing for a complex problem with no obvious, idiomatic solutions. It is good at greenfield designs, and good at pointing out the pros and cons of hard design choices. I now do designs with Fable, and do implementations off those designs with Opus. Pretty happy. For a while I was using Fable for everything, but burned through a lot of real money for not much value, I think for coding its slow and not at all better than Opus.
I had the same sentiment. In my limited testing, it didn't perform any better than Opus at all. It wasn't a particularly challenging taskset either, mostly just "add this simple feature" with plenty of context and very clearly defined scope. It worked functionally but there were much better and simpler approaches available. For the cost, I don't see how Fable can ever be worth it.
@anthropic, can you finally add $800-$1000 per month plan and allow us to work instead of tracking your weekly changes and dramas? I think, we (individuals, small-medium biz, first of all) did our best to help you train the model like Fable. Enterprise-level lockdown (and API costs define this) is... unfair? I mean, we all knew that you all will just use us, but it's AI, right? For people, right? Right?
The only reason this is happening -> someone (US gov?) decided that it's time to bail out those who would inevitably die within a year or two otherwise, middlemen.
There is absolutely 0 chance Anthropic or OpenAI will get a government bailout (it might still happen in this admin but it makes no sense). These companies are not like banks which are fundamentally important to the economy. Sure AI is important but Google is not going to die. Why would you save OpenAI and Anthropic when google, amazon or microsoft can just gobble them up when/if needed?
The average taxpayer gets 0 benefits from LLM. It might change in the future but for now that is true. This was exactly the reverse with banking, everyone would lose their own money if the banks just disappear tomorrow
That's not a bailout for AI labs, I meant the "bailout" for Salesforce and others. There's absolutely no place for them in the world where we have Fable+ models. For many of them. Most of them (we just didn't get this feeling yet). Someone just trying to maintain the old world order, that's all. I don't think US economy would fail if those absolutely useless giants would go down.
Sure they do. Someone they know is using AI to ask for help with something, which makes their life easier, which makes things easier on them as well, which is a benefit.
179 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 40.1 ms ] threadIt is theorized that OpenAI may time the release of GPT 5.6 in Codex to convert people who have lost access to Fable, so this is an interesting game theoric consequence.
By extending it to July 12, they're gonna get a second month out of a lot of such people. If it really expired today, I wasn't going to renew my month.
If would've used it more moderately if I had known in advance.
They think they're giving you something when they're actually taking something away.
If they're eventually going to add Fable to the subscription plan, I wish they'd say something about that now, or at least confirm if they don't plan to for awhile. The feeling I get is they don't want to make any announcements because they are flying by the seat of their pants and want to see what their competition does first.
I've used fable, it's great. But nothing beats predictability - ever.
This truly feels like some form of emotional abuse/manipulation at this point.
I have some serious Bayesian statistical research programs running and Fable is on another level than 4.8. It feels like Andrew Gelman is supervising it. Even the vision model on Fable is superior to 4.8 which is great for having it digest research papers.
Once you cross that threshold, prosumers will simply fall back to using Chinese models and/or self-hosting smaller models, with more efficient and tight workflows.
You'd be killing your consumer line completely.
I’ve always assumed that Anthropic sees the highest token consumers as leading indicators of how developers will use coding agents, so they’re looking at it as training data + market research, and they know that price elasticity is low so trying to charge those developers significantly more would just drive them elsewhere.
I'm usually at 60-70% usage at the end of a 5 hour window, that's the pace where I can still think about what to delegate and what to expect and verify the results. Could probably go faster but that would have a significant impact on output quality.
The actual API pricing seems far more of a stable downward trend, if measuring by equivalent intelligence.
No surprises, it's fundamentally built on promises and lies
Every single thing about this is fuck users fuck your usage. All those subscriptions I bought to enjoy Fable for the time allotted? Basically gone, didn't get to use the ~4 weeks if cycles or so I had planned for, bought, anticipating. I got two. And now if I want one week more, I need to pay for a full month.
Anthropic is just the most miserable evil grinch. Everything here has totally defied everything that's been laid out for what we were told we'd get and gotten worse and worse, with less and less. Anthropic cannot general an iota of goodwill.
I'm going to miss Fable too, I found it surprisingly tough going back to Opus when we lost Fable first time round, but paying API costs is simply out of the question for me right now.
I guess to be more accurate, usage wouldn't get cut 50% but rather by 33.3% post July 13th.
My guess is my usage is atypically high, but even if the average equivalent is $100-250/day you can get a sense of how much Anthropic is subsidizing subscriptions as a loss leader to lock market share. IMHO this is a doomed strategy since open models will get into a long tail of parity and they’ll ultimately essentially be in the business of commodity compute.
I suspect they're subsidizing a lot less than people think.
Agreed.
One business is serving great models via the API. I think that one is indeed going to become commoditized. The other is making consumer / developer focused products like Chat GPT, Claude Code or Codex.
Anthropic is leaning hard into making Claude Code work with things like enterprise compliance policies. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of these companies basically ends up as a SaaS fronting many different models for different capability points, some of which are open.
That's not how any of this works.
Anthropic is playing the long game; they're not going make a short-sighted decision just so they announce a profit for one quarter, which doesn’t mean much because it won’t be a sustainable profit since they're going to need to spend a ton of money on training and compute over the next few months.
That's why they did a G funding round for $14 billion in February and $65 billion in May.
I suspect one reason for switching Fable to API usage for the near future is they don't have enough compute for their enterprise customers and every hobbyist on their $20/month Pro plan, 80% of which don’t need Fable 5 anyway but that won't stop them from using it as much as they can.
Never was arguing that it would be a sustained profit, just that they are. Most likely for the reasons you just listed.
IME Codex had a bit of a big head/ego about writing what it thinks I ought to want rather than what I actually ask for, and I've had to spend some time cleaning up its slop.
I miss Kagi's multi-model product [1]. Anthropic's nonsense around releasing, deprecating, optimising/lobotomising is tiring, and isn't matched by the value of running different models against each other.
Fable has been fine. But its reliablity is crap. The constant downgrading is crap. This last-minute promotional windowing reeks of JCPenney pre-bankruptcy, not a trusted tool. I hate the Electron app–it's slow and ugly and shows Claude isn't trusted by its own makers with app development. I'm using 4.8 instead of dealing with the pop-ups saying my asking why basil browns is causing my account to be downgraded, and I'm still not sure if that's a nerfed 4.7.
[1] https://help.kagi.com/kagi/plans/ultimate-plan.html
I've had the pleasure of setting up limits because Microsoft needed billing policies before our C-levels have even gotten it on their agenda. So I set up a sort of conservative $200 personal limit, but then setup a $1m shared limit pool that anyone can be moved into with management approval. I suspect our limits will be much higher than this once the C-levels make the decision on an actual company policy. I think we'll see these spending limits mainly used as guardrails to prevent accidental spending, but that there will not really be a ceiling, just some approval gates. Some managers are already requesting usage reports, but not to track spending, they want to see who uses too little AI.
This is the difference between enterprise and small companies and individuals. When you spend $500k a month keeping your toilets stacked with papertowels, toiletpaper, soap etc. then $1m a month on AI isn't going to raise any eyebrows.
FWIW we are a smaller company and we had a user run through 500$ in a DAY. Had to put a stop to that. I'm hopeful that our company gets better at asking what the ROI is, what is being built, how much time is it taking, etc... It's no big deal when it's 20 / 100$ a month - but if the prices end up higher we will need to start seeing some returns other than "I feel faster".
It would have been WAY more useful for them to announce the extension, you know, yesterday. This is basically the worst time for them to announce it. Bunch of goobers, who thought this would be a good idea?
Then after using up all my fable allowance I figured let’s see if opus can actually work without superpowers, and no, it was all over the place doing weird things.
Thing is, superpowers produces meticulous specs and plans as a byproduct of its work, which is very useful for switching between work trees, stoping / resuming work by different people.
But to do that in Fable you have to spend way more tokens than it’s reasonable. You get similar quality result, but without the specs in between.
I’m not super sad that I’ll have to go back to opus though, with superpowers it was Fable but more structured. But I will miss the banter though - Fable is amazing for brainstorming big underspecced features.
As for being great for vibe coding, that’s cool but I can’t justify that kind of cost for throwaway code. At this point I’ve had good experiences using fable to review code, but I’m totally content with opus for all of my workflows still. If fable was the same price I’d switch, but I’d still use something like super powers to stay in the loop.
I realise this is just me needing to structure my use of Fable better. But I got to a really nice place with my Opus workflow and I'm reluctant to go through that every time a new model releases.
It also prefer to give my money to the pro-social companies giving away their open models (they cost many millions) instead of opportunists who don't give much back.
"First hit is free", indeed.
I suppose it benefits people whose weekly reset is sometime between now and the 12th? Feels like vibe management, because I find this part of the promo more annoying than not.
I got Fable to write multiple plans, spent a great part of the weekend reviewing them. Then with superpowers I left must of those plans executing with little intervention over the past few days.
I struggled to get Opus to just keep going without trying to convince me that it's late.
In general I expect the value of software, as a thing in and of itself, to sharply decline. With no barriers to entry, having software that just does something competently will no longer be worth much of anything. It's unclear what that will mean in the bigger picture. It'll also be interesting if this proves correct, given that software companies are largely the ones dumping so much money into this. Another probable outcome is major damage to the support-as-a-service model which again is going to directly affect many of the companies directly enabling this.
I guess the logic is that if you control the systems creating this, you control everything they're used for. But it seems equally obvious that free/local models will catch up to the SOTA today - and eventually tomorrow, so that's not a particularly realistic vision for the future.
I spent a few weekends building comprehensive plans, designs, user maps, etc with Claude. So it has enough context to make decisions and keep going.
One session lasted over a day, I imagine partly because Fable + superpowers feels slow. I have an app on my phone that I have been test running since Monday on the bus.
What really helps (not sure if Opus used to do this) is that Claude will run through the emulator on its own, verifying that the design aligns with the Figma design system we created.
This is all building on top of 15 years of existing backend and rich features, so it's not a "build me a transit platform from scratch" where AI can end up making bad decisions.
-- 50% of this forum
The Max plan at 180€/month excl VAT already comes up for budget review every time. Not sure any sort of increase will be tolerated at all.
Seriously, all OAI needs to do at this point is just release GPT 5.6, have it be a solid model and then not jerk it out of the hands of their customers, and they're going to eat Anthropic's lunch.
I don’t see a particular bump in code quality from Fable 5. In fact, it feels less reliable to me than my current setup. No sure why I am not seeing what everybody else is seeing.
Perhaps OMP/Pi (head and shoulders better than Claude Code) + Matt Pocock Skills already encode all the agentic improvements Fable has?
The only reason this is happening -> someone (US gov?) decided that it's time to bail out those who would inevitably die within a year or two otherwise, middlemen.
The average taxpayer gets 0 benefits from LLM. It might change in the future but for now that is true. This was exactly the reverse with banking, everyone would lose their own money if the banks just disappear tomorrow
Sure they do. Someone they know is using AI to ask for help with something, which makes their life easier, which makes things easier on them as well, which is a benefit.