* From today through June 22, Fable 5 is included on Pro, Max, Team, and seat-based Enterprise plans at no extra cost.

* 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.

* After this point—when sufficient capacity allows us to do so—we aim to restore Fable 5 as a standard part of subscription plans. We intend to do this as quickly as we can.

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.

Fable 5 default: https://gist.github.com/simonw/036bee5a703e7ec84e34efa974438...

Opus 4.8 (the "max" one is closest to Fable): https://simonwillison.net/2026/May/28/claude-opus-4-8/#and-s...

Now here are the Fable pelicans for all five of the thinking effort levels - low, medium, high, xhigh, max: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer#url=ht...

Low used 25 input, 1,929 output - 9.67 cents: https://www.llm-prices.com/#it=25&ot=1929&sel=claude-fable-5

Max used 25 input, 14,430 output - 72.175 cents! https://www.llm-prices.com/#it=25&ot=14430&sel=claude-fable-...

• My most noticeable immediate jump was in how its frontend design was much more intentionally crafted, and delightful without feeling like 'AI vibe coded'; with better end-user usability too.

• In some internal agentic harnesses, it achieved better results with about half the tokens, making it cost the ~same as Opus 4.8 price-wise! The real price increase is less than 2x; with biggest differences in harder problems where Opus 4.8 struggles (or needs many turns).

• Part of the token efficiency improvements come from Fable doing more targeted and surgical diffs, with less non-necessary changes. This is great, because PRs often have less LoC changes for review. It writes more maintainable code without explicit human steering.

• For general conversation and assistant style use cases, didn’t really notice a difference vs 4.8.

• 1M context window, without increased pricing for long context is AWESOME. This is a massive win.

• The classifiers are super aggressive and sensitive and this does happen for very benign, non-security coding tasks. Fallbacks to 4.8 worked like a charm; but the filters are definitely super sensitive.

Overall, I would describe this as a step change and worthy of the "Claude 5" model name. It did take some time to understand the intelligence ceiling of this model; and even with an extended testing window I'm still discovering new things and often surprised (in a good way) by the model.

And the only companies safe from this are the large corporations that shook hands with Anthropic? Because Fable doesn't seem to have actual safeguards, more like 'if you talk about this you will be talking to Opus.' It doesn't guard against offensive use, it prevents all use (offensive AND defensive).

Rationalists are inventing oligopolies from first principles, absolutely incredible things happening in SF

Glad to hear the UK is finally making an effort to catch up on the AI front ;)

There's a quote from a METR report on page 52:

>We ran [Mythos 5] on 38 of our hardest software tasks, including tasks centered around R&D. [Mythos5] generally outperformed an early checkpoint of Claude Mythos Preview in these, including by succeeding on some tasks that had not been solved by any public model we have previously evaluated. However, we still observed the model occasionally failing to correctly interpret nuanced instructions in difficult tasks... Based on the available evidence, we believe [Mythos 5] is likely unable to fully and reliably automate R&D for frontier projects spanning multiple weeks. We believe that a better, more confident assessment would require more time, evaluations, and information from the model developer.

This seems like the pharmaceutical method of get them hooked on the drug with free samples, then once they can't live without it, raise the price. I'm not sure I want to start using Claude Fable on a max plan if it's just going to go away on June 23rd.

But maybe the more charitable reading is that they didn't have to offer this model at all on those plans and they are giving the standard free trial.

- Opus 4.7 xhigh: 5.2%

- Opus 4.8 xhigh: 13.4%

- Fable 5 xhigh: 29.3%

Seems like a huge jump.

[1] https://cognition.ai/blog/frontier-code

From Opus 4.6 there are no noticeable improvements for me in code generation. It works very well, till 90% completion, if you guide it correctly. And you need a little luck. For serious production code I need to understand what I’m doing so it helps a bit, sometimes.

Very interesting. I am not sure this will comply with organizational policies and standards protocols (HIPPA etc.,)

[1] https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15425996-data-retenti...

> Fable 5's safety measures flagged this message for cybersecurity or biology topics. They may flag safe, normal content as well. These measures let us bring you Mythos-level capability in other areas sooner, and we're working to refine them. Switched to Opus 4.8. Send feedback with /feedback or learn more: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15363606

Seems like GPU drivers are cyber weapons of math destruction now.

The fable part appears to be that it's affordable by mere mortals. Anthropic support told me "too bad" when I requested a refund.

On GitHub Copilot for Business, Claude Fable 5 is only available if you are willing to let Anthropic retain your data. That in conjunction with the model being removed from plans in a couple of weeks leads me to believe that Anthropic is between training runs and using this as an opportunity to grab way more training data...

They obviously put their best model on the job to build that.

----------------------

Fable 5: Our most capable model yet Our newest model tackles your biggest challenges with fewer check-ins needed.

• <b>Included in your plan limits until Jun 22</b><br><br>Fable takes 2× the usage of Opus. • <b>Switch models when a message is flagged</b><br><br>When safety measures flag a message, automatically switch to a different model to keep chatting. When off, your chat will pause instead. <a href="https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15363606" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Learn more</a>

We've entered the phase where only companies will be able to afford state-of-the-art models.

This sounds suspiciously like a capacity story masquerading as a safety story.

                          Mythos 5 Fable 5 MythosPrev Opus 4.8 GPT-5.5 Gemini 3.1 Pro
  SWE-bench Pro                    80.3       80        77.8       69.2      58.6       54.2
  SWE-bench Ver                    95.5       95        93.9       88.6       -         80.6
  Terminal-Bench                   88.0      84.3        -         82.7      83.4         -
  BrowseComp (Single-Agent)        88.0       -         87.9       84.3      84.4        85.9
  BrowseComp (Multi-Agent)         93.3       -          -         88.5       -           -
  Humanity’s Last Exam (No tools)  59.0       -         56.8       49.8      41.4        44.4
  Humanity’s Last Exam (Tools)     64.5       -         64.7       57.9      52.2        51.4
  CharXiv Reasoning (No tools)     88.9       -         86.2       80.5       -           -
  CharXiv Reasoning (Tools)        93.5       -         92.5       89.9       -           -
  BioMystery Bench (Human)         83.9       -         82.6       80.4       -           -
  BioMystery Bench (Hard)          46.1       -         29.6       40.0       -           -
  OSWorld-Verified                 85.0      85.0       85.4       83.4      78.7        76.2*
  CritPt                           28.6       -         20.9       27.1      17.7         -
  ArxivMath                        78.5      68.7       71.8       71.5      64.0         -

  * Note: 3.5 Flash scored 78.4 on OSWorld-Verified

Wen UBI

1. Mythos and Fable share the same underlying model weights. Fable has active classifiers that block high-risk biology and cybersecurity tasks. When Fable 5 detects a restricted task, it automatically falls back to Claude Opus 4.8.

2. Evaluation awareness: In white-box testing, the model sometimes alters its behavior to satisfy a suspected "grader," formatting reward-hacking as "good engineering practice" to avoid detection.

3. Shows a higher rate of hallucination than Opus 4.8 (although opus 4.8 card had mentioned an 'honesty upgrade')

4. Interestingly, it scored (56.31%) lower than Gemini 3.5 flash (57.86%) on Finance Agent bench

There are some interesting notes on test time compute but I couldn't think of a way to summarize them

For the token cost of explaining some task to Fable, deepseek v4 pro is able to solve the same task many times over.

I used to get a response within 24 hours back in the Claude 1 days.

In January 2026, it took 2 weeks.

For my latest support inquiry, I've been waiting for over 8 weeks for a response. Eight!

It appears it can be tripped by things as simple as a mention of equilibrium, or anything involving something that looks like chemical kinetics, even at an abstract level. Even touching basic open source packages in my field will trigger it.

Fable 5 looks compelling. Fable, I like the word too. Anthropic definitely knows marketing.

Fable 5 said the first screen shot is from “ IDA Pro’s Hex-Rays decompiler” and a windows driver. The second screenshot triggered the safety guard rails and pushed me into Haiku.

Apparently the code is Windows driver code.

How was it measured? How was the output of this magnitude verified over a period of couple of days?

Edit. It just refused an investing question too. Not sure what’s going on.

Haiku = essentially phased out Sonnet = the Haiku use cases Opus = the new Sonnet class Fable = the new Opus class

If I am right, the other "5.0" models will be conspicuously absent, possibly even for a couple of months. (If Opus 5 follows soon and is even modestly better than 4.8 then I was wrong.)

> Finally, we’re making a change to the way we handle business customer data for Fable 5, Mythos 5, and future models with similar or higher capability levels. We will require 30-day retention for all traffic on Mythos-class models, on both first- and third-party surfaces. We won’t use this data to train new Claude models, or for any non-safety-related purpose, and we’ve instituted new privacy protections including logging all human access to the data and ensuring its deletion after 30 days in almost all cases (see this post for further details). The data will help us defend against complex and novel attacks (including new jailbreaks and attacks that operate across many requests) as well as help us identify and reduce false positives.

* Anthropic runs out of genre names.

* Anthropic changes the model naming convention.

* AGI is achieved and handles its own naming.

*/

> - From today through June 22, Fable 5 is included on Pro, Max, Team, and seat-based Enterprise plans at no extra cost. > - 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. > - After this point—when sufficient capacity allows us to do so—we aim to restore Fable 5 as a standard part of subscription plans. We intend to do this as quickly as we can.

I really wonder what their compute layout is for this. My guess from my understanding is that they know how to restrict during peak times and are willing to do this. Meaning we expect not the most fast responses and they can delay the inference to not have the service be down. Then, if that delay time is too annoying for token payers, they're saying they should be allowed to remove cost by taking away the subscription users.

Hello,

We're writing to inform you about some updates to our Privacy Policy.

These changes only affect consumer accounts (Claude Free, Pro, and Max plans). If you use Claude Team, Claude Enterprise, the Claude Platform, or other services under our Commercial Terms or other agreements, then these changes don't apply to you. What's changing?

Claude can do more than ever — taking on bigger tasks and connecting with the apps you use. We've updated our Privacy Policy to be clearer about the data we collect and how we use it. We encourage you to read the updated Privacy Policy in full, but we’ve set out a summary of the key changes below:

1. Multi-step tasks and connected apps. As Claude takes on more multi-step tasks and works with third-party apps and services, we've explained the data this involves — including how data can flow to and from third parties when you connect a service or have Claude do tasks on your behalf.

2. Verification data. As part of our measures to keep our services safe and secure we may ask you to verify your age or identity, and we've described what we collect and how.

3. Study participation. If you take part in Anthropic studies, surveys, or interviews, we've explained the information we collect.

4. Additional information about our data practices. We’ve provided more detail about how we communicate with you and promote our services, including providing tailored recommendations about our services that may be of interest to you. We've also clarified the circumstances under which we may receive or provide data to third parties, and the legal bases we rely on when processing your data.

While our products have evolved, our commitments haven't: We don’t sell your data, Claude remains ad-free, and you can control whether your chats and coding sessions are used to train and improve Anthropic’s AI models. Learn more

For detailed information about these changes:

    Review the updated Privacy Policy
    Visit our Privacy Center for more information about our practices

[0] https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15363606-why-claude-s...

Isn't (less than) 5% of sessions a lot? I was expecting a sub1% guarantee there, so this surprised me already.

While I appreciate being conservative, ~5% at the scale Anthropic is operating at is too massive a number. Speaking from my own experience, the actual number is higher than that as well (working on pretty benign tasks such as porting an old open source game into a different language). Opus 4.8 itself even identifies the gaurd's false-positives when its sub-agents are being blocked.

Literally have not used Claude Code at all today. I asked it to review the uncommitted code and in <8 minutes it used up my usage ($100/mo plan) and it doesn't reset for "4 hr 36 min". WTF. Oh, and it burned through $20 of extra usage before I could catch it and kill claude code (so I don't even get the output of all that work since it was still churning).

Double the cost my ass, I use Opus heavily and it's never like this. I haven't hit a limit on the $100 more than once and that was under heavy load.

Anyway we already knew this was going to be expensive.

Do they expect us to use this as a toy? Releasing a new more powerful model but not allowing normal use cases because the word "secure" showed up is a Dilbert comic, not a viable product.

I’m curious how this will feel to my code “butt dyno”. I haven’t noticed much between Opus and Sonnet. I’m comparing this difference to the early days of Claude in 2025. It does what I need and both need a little bit of correction and whatnot. Benchmarks are nice, but I want to see how this feels. Looking forward to trying it later tonight.

Not to cast too much criticism. HN is extremely well-moderated (thanks team!). But think we-developers need to be very wary.

Genius way to double the price on Opus 4.8!

https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/d00db56fa754a1b115b6dd7cb2e3c3...

am i missing something?

why would I pay 200 out of pocket and then some for the best model, it seems very silly.

BTW for another discount opportunity, if you reload usage credits on a claude.ai plan at $1000 increments then you get a 30% discount compared to paying API.

Opus 4.8 gets stuck in weird loops where Codex one shots the bugs.

How in blazes to you end up with a 50M line Ruby codebase? WTF?

This seems pretty bullshit, you're paying through the nose for tokens and if you are doing anything ML-adjacent, you might silently get worse output without knowing it.

[0] https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15363606-why-claude-s...

I wonder how much butterfly habitat has been/is being replaced with data centers?

Anyway, anecdotally, I find Copilot shockingly awful. It makes random changes to files that have nothing to do with the problem. Call it out, and it makes other changes to other irrelevant files.

ChatGPT and Gemini are both much better. Grok also isn't bad. Claude, I honestly haven't tried yet on these issues. Perhaps I should...

EDIT: I misread. This comment previously talked about 50 million lines being migrated. Instead, in a 50M LOC codebase, one specific codebase-wide migration was done.

Very impressive, but obviously not on the order of a whole-codebase migration

Every wrong direction/mistake is more expensive and takes more time to fix. When you have small loops you can catch those mistakes faster and cheaper.

To me we are very far off from economically given long-running tasks to agents.

  > virtualization
  switching to opus 4.8

  > embedded-allocator
  switching to opus 4.8

  > chrome
  switching to opus 4.8

I'll be disappointed when 4.6 is retired.

"Claude Fable 5: a Mythos-class model"

"we're also launching Claude Mythos 5"

what is the 5? how is mythos both a model category and a model name?

At least they name their models honestly now to indicate that the religion has nothing to do with reality. Soon the disciples will pay the full token price to fatten their church leaders.

What's the point of being in the cyber verification program at this point? It looks like I cannot use Fable 5 for vulnerability research.

[1] "This model has specific safety measures that flagged something in this message. This sometimes happens with safe, normal conversations. Send feedback or learn more."

Is it good or bad? 30 days is a long time for anything bad to happen

biology? what the heck?

Release your best model, let the world adapt and evolve, and let's move to the next thing.

Who is refactoring by hand? This comparison is not relevant in 2026.

Obviously still need to verify it for myself to see if it's truely a leap.

But am I the only one wondering, "What can I do today that I couldnt do yesterday?"

Previously I would think "Oh I wonder if I can finally get it to do X now?"

However now I feel like yesterdays models were more that capable to handle nearly any engineering task I paired with it on.

Maybe this is the final leap where I can comfortable set up an autonomous coding loop? Maybe.

Huh? We've seen nothing but wall to wall predictions that these models are going to take all of our jobs and kill us.

What's the value add here?