Being (probably overly) cynical about their recent bout of safety handwringing, I think they’ve a) increased the hype as much as humanly possible about their incremental improvements sprinkled with the occasional regression, b) know they soon will have to multiply their prices several times when the VC subsidies dry up, and c) will probably still need to partially close the faucet on compute. They’re priming us for a heroic explanation why their service (not necessarily models — service) is simultaneously becoming a lot more expensive AND shittier. “We’ve largely failed to deliver on 5 years of promises that this will reduce knowledge work labor costs dramatically after wasting hundreds of billions of dollars… sorry” is a death knell. However, “We’ve decided to not deliver on 5 years of promises after wasting billions of dollars… for safety… but keep those investments rolling in” is like crack to the true believers.

Some people made grandiose claims about its capabilities and I wanted to experience it myself.

I’ve also been trying to use it a lot due to all of the hype, but when I compared it side-by-side on a specific problem against Opus, I think that the solution Opus came to was cleaner and more accurate, although also more verbose.

Small sample size, but if Mythos/Fable was that much better, I feel like it should’ve given me an obviously better answer than Opus.

Considering that this is a brand new release of a frontier model that Anthropic is hyping hard, I'm not sure that the conclusion to draw from their repeated attempts to use it is that it's impressive... Anthropic is promising that it's impressive and we're all trying to test it out.

I, for one, have tried using it several times today and the guardrails kept switching the model back to Opus, so I have no clue if it's impressive or not.

It isn't reasonable to infer that OP was claiming to have universally been unimpressed about every facet of Fable, and now some unrelated impressiveness is the evidence of their false claims.