Rendered at 21:35:14 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
rgbrenner 25 minutes ago [-]
Forget about the scores... look at the Cost Per Task. Fable 5.1 was already the most expensive by a good margin, and now Fable 5.2 doubles it! This is with the price cut.
The output tokens per task just exploded. From 118k tokens (46k Answer/71k Reasoning) in 5.1 to 274k tokens (81k Answer/192k Reasoning) in 5.2.
nonadhocproblem 5 minutes ago [-]
In case you're unaware, this is for the max setting. The (recommmended) high setting uses only 80k tokens.
mordymoop 11 minutes ago [-]
Most people never run out of plan usage, so the cost per task matters relatively little.
oh_no 10 minutes ago [-]
1. a lot of people do
2. most of their revenue comes from api pricing
mordymoop 6 minutes ago [-]
Those are both true, but I don't see how they are meant to rebut what I said.
Most people on plan use do NOT use up all their plan usage.
Users on API plans can still use Opus 5.5 which is a great model. If they want top of the line performance, they can pay more.
When another company puts out a model that undercuts Fable 5.2 on price at similar performance, Anthropic will put out Opus 6 and undercut them right back. That's how the wheel turns. This is just part of the cycle.
kjuulh 2 minutes ago [-]
Most is doing the heavy lifting here. I am a power user. And I max 3 claude max subscriptions on opus 5.5 high and a single codex pro 5x for personal use.
airza 3 minutes ago [-]
It beats opus 5.5's max effort with less tokens, which is a step forward if you don't want to crank it to Ultra Max Settings.
The amount of compute it cost to get the best previous performance from anthropic went down. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to go further down the paretto frontier if the current level of intelligence/task is acceptable to you.
I am always interested in this comparison since it shows how quickly you can go back and forth with a model, capturing both tokens/task and tokens/second. The new models seem to be meaningfully better here.
jgalt212 2 minutes ago [-]
> it shows how quickly you can go back and forth with a model
Another member of the pro-REPL / anti-agentic tribe. There are dozens of us!
gizmodo59 9 minutes ago [-]
https://artificialanalysis.ai/#intelligence-efficiency-tabs this is the chart that matters for most of poor developers and companies. Pareto for a given intelligence index and looks like only openai is across the quadrant with muse at the bottom. They have really cooked efficient models!
qntty 56 minutes ago [-]
Crazy how quick these are coming out now
jrflo 27 minutes ago [-]
I'm sure that they get early access to run the benchmarks, it wouldn't have time to finish running if they were running it at public release
AnotherGoodName 4 minutes ago [-]
Someone on a thread was complaining they haven’t really needed the newer models because Opus 4.6 was good enough.
I had to remind them 4.6 only came out February this year. In a normal world 4.6 is a newer model! A model 6 months old is seen as ancient!
ProblemExplorer 3 minutes ago [-]
Fable, for me (it might be a completely different experience for you) has been like the well read snobbish kid at school that openly ignores me when I ask certain questions and often asks me to talk to someone else on other questions.
That kid might indeed be a genius, clearly bright, but is more interested in deciding whether I should have asked a question than in answering it.
For me personally, if the best model on the planet refuses to answer why I shouldn't mix bleach and ammonia, where I'm trying to understand the chemistry behind the warning, it's not pareto frontier to one that atleast tries to and points me in a general direction. Being told that the topic is concerning, referred to someone else and charged part of my quota for that experience feels like getting an invoice from that school genius for telling me to "just ask the chemistry teacher".
If my LLM asks me to rethink my life when I ask it to reverse engineer the firmware of my Samsung TV that I suspect is setting up adhoc radio networks to relay my data to Samsung's cloud, I feel rather sad, specially when that kid sends me an invoice for saying "no"
At least Anthropic should not bill me for the refusal (as of my last tests, refusals still comes out of my quota) - getting slapped and pickpocketed for asking a question is really upsetting.
A_D_E_P_T 47 minutes ago [-]
Google could have been #1 for a little while, but they botched their release and squandered their temporary lead. (As usual.) If I worked there, I'd be so pissed.
thanhhaimai 6 minutes ago [-]
Opinions are my own.
I think it's an unwarranted assumption that a temporary benchmark lead is the focus. I think using our resources efficiently to provide helpful solutions is more important.
This model is so far off the efficiency frontier that I personally wouldn't want to use it. The wait would reduce my productivity instead of increasing it.
krona 4 minutes ago [-]
Optics and incentives. Google will turn on the R&D the day after their Anthropic investment is realised, maybe $80-150bn on a 1.2tn valuation, plus >100bn in spending commitments.
theplumber 23 minutes ago [-]
So is Google still in the race? Does anyone actually uses Aragon or Carbon or whatever model they released for coding?
skerit 18 minutes ago [-]
Can you actually use it through some subscription, or only through the API?
mattlondon 17 minutes ago [-]
I do. I prefer it to Opus 5.5 - just as good at coding for my needs, but so much more pleasant to work with.
I am not sure how people keep saying google are not in the race, or have lost it or whatever when just a few hours ago they had the #1 model? What more do people want?
drusepth 5 minutes ago [-]
I actually just think it's a meme to talk down on Gemini at any opportunity here. There's probably a fair number of people that wrote off antigravity at its (pretty rocky) launch. And Google also doesn't provide any kind of good sandbox-y experience to Just Try their models, which probably bites them here too.
But Gemini models are still neck and neck in the lead both in my experience and in benchmarks, and Gemini is far above the competitors (although Opus 5.5 closed much of the gap) when it comes to any kind of complex web dev. (I generally use Astra for anything 3D, Gemini for anything web/mobile, and Opus for everything else.)
pell 3 minutes ago [-]
Their latest internal reshuffling and the strange amount of parallel releases with the same target, their kafkaesque barriers to entry, and a lack of clear vision is what makes people think they’re not in the race anymore. Obviously they still are. They develop new models and also are deep in the compute game too.
Tadpole9181 2 minutes ago [-]
On both Gemini 4 releases, it said on the release page that I cannot use it. No timeline as given and I have not seen an announcement otherwise since.
So, what more do I want? It'd be a good start to actually tell me it's available and giving me a clear path to using it via plan & harness?
oh_no 5 minutes ago [-]
> What more do people want?
well, releasing it would be nice
glimshe 18 minutes ago [-]
I tried using it as part of my Pro/One/whatever subscription (the one that comes with Youtube Lite). For code review, it was able to find some things that Sol 6.1 couldn't. I found it quite useful. But for code generation, it's pathetically slow and the code isn't impressive. It's at least one year behind.
suddenlybananas 51 minutes ago [-]
Why is it so much more expensive?
nsingh2 47 minutes ago [-]
This page is showing Max effort, which is much more expensive.
Max should not be used unless you really need every bit of perf, it's deep into diminishing returns territory.
24 minutes ago [-]
dgellow 36 minutes ago [-]
It seems to use way, way more tokens to complete the tasks
Tadpole9181 24 minutes ago [-]
On max.
Change the models in the dropdown to medium / high and Fable 5.2 is about twice as cost efficient, and slightly faster.
njovin 11 minutes ago [-]
This has got to be a minor reason why adoption of AI isn’t faster.
Businesses like predictable costs and predictable performance.
If your new model is slightly better but crazy expensive, but doesn’t have to be with certain settings, but my user can accidentally run it that way by mistake or maybe your harness makes it the default by accident and the user doesn’t notice…
My beloved predictability is destroyed and trying to get users to understand this is useless.
Imagine a streaming subscription that worked like this: “We’ve updated our catalog with more movies. If you want the premium ones though you only get 2 per week and then you have to wait. But if you do mostly classics and a few from the 2010s you can squeeze in a recent theater release. If you time it right and do only one every day you can see 30 modern classics this month, but you can’t watch three today. Also your bill this month is $40 instead of $20 due to the library update”.
santoshalper 5 minutes ago [-]
Yep, and now multiply that complexity by hundreds or thousands of employees. That's why companies are giving in to crude, hacky solutions like monthly billing caps. What else are you really gonna do?
The output tokens per task just exploded. From 118k tokens (46k Answer/71k Reasoning) in 5.1 to 274k tokens (81k Answer/192k Reasoning) in 5.2.
Most people on plan use do NOT use up all their plan usage.
Users on API plans can still use Opus 5.5 which is a great model. If they want top of the line performance, they can pay more.
When another company puts out a model that undercuts Fable 5.2 on price at similar performance, Anthropic will put out Opus 6 and undercut them right back. That's how the wheel turns. This is just part of the cycle.
The amount of compute it cost to get the best previous performance from anthropic went down. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to go further down the paretto frontier if the current level of intelligence/task is acceptable to you.
I am always interested in this comparison since it shows how quickly you can go back and forth with a model, capturing both tokens/task and tokens/second. The new models seem to be meaningfully better here.
Another member of the pro-REPL / anti-agentic tribe. There are dozens of us!
I had to remind them 4.6 only came out February this year. In a normal world 4.6 is a newer model! A model 6 months old is seen as ancient!
That kid might indeed be a genius, clearly bright, but is more interested in deciding whether I should have asked a question than in answering it.
For me personally, if the best model on the planet refuses to answer why I shouldn't mix bleach and ammonia, where I'm trying to understand the chemistry behind the warning, it's not pareto frontier to one that atleast tries to and points me in a general direction. Being told that the topic is concerning, referred to someone else and charged part of my quota for that experience feels like getting an invoice from that school genius for telling me to "just ask the chemistry teacher".
If my LLM asks me to rethink my life when I ask it to reverse engineer the firmware of my Samsung TV that I suspect is setting up adhoc radio networks to relay my data to Samsung's cloud, I feel rather sad, specially when that kid sends me an invoice for saying "no"
At least Anthropic should not bill me for the refusal (as of my last tests, refusals still comes out of my quota) - getting slapped and pickpocketed for asking a question is really upsetting.
I think it's an unwarranted assumption that a temporary benchmark lead is the focus. I think using our resources efficiently to provide helpful solutions is more important.
This model is so far off the efficiency frontier that I personally wouldn't want to use it. The wait would reduce my productivity instead of increasing it.
I am not sure how people keep saying google are not in the race, or have lost it or whatever when just a few hours ago they had the #1 model? What more do people want?
But Gemini models are still neck and neck in the lead both in my experience and in benchmarks, and Gemini is far above the competitors (although Opus 5.5 closed much of the gap) when it comes to any kind of complex web dev. (I generally use Astra for anything 3D, Gemini for anything web/mobile, and Opus for everything else.)
So, what more do I want? It'd be a good start to actually tell me it's available and giving me a clear path to using it via plan & harness?
well, releasing it would be nice
Max should not be used unless you really need every bit of perf, it's deep into diminishing returns territory.
Change the models in the dropdown to medium / high and Fable 5.2 is about twice as cost efficient, and slightly faster.
Businesses like predictable costs and predictable performance.
If your new model is slightly better but crazy expensive, but doesn’t have to be with certain settings, but my user can accidentally run it that way by mistake or maybe your harness makes it the default by accident and the user doesn’t notice…
My beloved predictability is destroyed and trying to get users to understand this is useless.
Imagine a streaming subscription that worked like this: “We’ve updated our catalog with more movies. If you want the premium ones though you only get 2 per week and then you have to wait. But if you do mostly classics and a few from the 2010s you can squeeze in a recent theater release. If you time it right and do only one every day you can see 30 modern classics this month, but you can’t watch three today. Also your bill this month is $40 instead of $20 due to the library update”.