Tesla has lost both house battery and car sales in my family -- we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars -- simply because we don't trust him not to remotely shut off our power/cars for petty political reasons.

Also, if you want true privacy you should run AI models on local hardware. (Guess which country's models dominate SOTA/near SOTA open weights? Yes, it's China, and it's not even close. You can run full-fat DeepSeek locally for (just) under $10K USD.)

Someone in another comment thread whataboutism’d a Chinese LLM. This isn’t a good gotcha. Musk has amplified the concept of “remigration” which is the forced deportation of non-whites. He would have me violently removed. I do not need to contextualize my decision within possible ethical quandaries.

> It's crazy that I'd literally trust a Chinese AI company with my data

It's crazy how much Chinese = bad the media or US companies have washed into you. Why lump it together?

Like any place and any company there are good and bad 1s.

It's not the Wild West over there...

Nobody wants a nazi AI

Is so dumb your attitude to mix political positions with technology and tools, it will hold you back, even worst, it is dangerous for you because that means you are aboslutely sure about your ideas. What a blindly and wasteful way to live a life.

Its possible no AI lab has any unique edge, and success is a combination of (a) having access to GPUs (b) having access to large amounts of data (c) know about the handful of techniques to build an LLM, of which nearly all are likely open source and documented in papers. So the cycle of growth is (a) and (b), get more GPUs and get more data and you have a better model.

4) There's nothing terribly special about Anthropic. No moat.

No, it has happened to almost every other "sota" model before. There used to be a meme with a circular arrow going through Anthropic, OpenAI, Google as a hype circle. Now we can drop Google and add a couple of Chinese companies.

It's not an explanation of why it happens, I am just pointing Fable is not an exception, it has happened with almost every other model release by all these companies over the last 2-3 years.

It's because Fable is just synthetic RL tasks + scale. The secret has been out for awhile now.

> 1) AI researchers talk and change companies often, so techniques circulate. This feels implausible because training and shipping a new model ought to take longer than 2 months?

The assumed timeline (2 months) is slightly wrong because Fable (Latin) is essentially the same as Mythos (Greek) albeit with protections against cyber and biological misuse.

Mythos (Preview) was publicly announced in April 2026 [1] which means other labs have had 4 months to catch up, not 2 months.

Assuming everyone had access to Mythos from the start, your expression, similar to other folks would have been "Mythos-level intelligence" and not "Fable-level intelligence".

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47679258

Yeah, I’m not convinced that there are any models as smart as Fable. Opus 5 definitely isn’t for all it has great benchmark scores. Fable displays judgement in a way I haven’t seen from any other model.

Possibility: They're all hitting the same plateau of what LLMs can do with their current architectures.

I'm not stating this as a fact, but it's a hypothesis I'm keeping in my mix.

I'm pretty sure both Anthropic and OpenAI haven't necessarily been secretive that they have internal models that are much more capable than commercially available ones.

It's probably a mix of all of that plus simply always keeping one in the chamber to 1up everyone else when the time is right.

I understand Mythos became internally available on the 24th of February.

Other labs catching up in half a year seems about right.

I think model level is more a function of the state of hardware. Once it exists and is available (and if a lab can afford it), then they can train their own 1T, 5T, coming up next 10T model.

> It's the near-concurrent release of the same jump in capability that I find suspicious; not the fact that labs can catch up eventually.

What are suspicious of? If the timing is similar maybe just everyone already are of similar capabilities and got there at a similar time?

> Anyone else find it weird how within 2 months of Fable releasing all the major labs suddenly had Fable-level models?

It means Anthropic had no real moat and no real lead. Is that weird to you?

I'm solidly in the "they are benchmaxxing" camp. This became very apparent with GPT 5.6 Sol. It, too, was widely hailed to have near-Fable level intelligence. But I used it non-stop for a week and realized that they had mostly just dialed up the relentlessness meter to eleven, most likely via heavy RLHF.

Last week I gave it a small-sized auth ticket to work on, then stepped away. I came back later that afternoon and found that it had worked for 3+ hours and written 25,000+ lines of code. I skimmed over the code and it looked like a small fix followed by a massive number of additional checks around it, including static analysis tooling.

I gave it to another GPT 5.6 and said "check this code and see if it addresses the ticket". It looked at it and said that 98% of it was garbage and should be thrown away (its own words). I then gave it to Fable, which said it was massively over-engineered. Fable's theory was that the agent implemented the fix first, but then compacted and lost crucial context, forgot what the original task was about, and kept going. After many compaction cycles it was completely lost.

Some people complain that Opus 5 stops before finishing a task. But to me, that behavior is vastly preferable to what GPT 5.6 Sol does.

More compute is coming online at all times.

> other reasons

Maybe research is sufficiently public and simple to reproduce or the next steps of how to improve things are sufficiently obvious to the smart people working on frontier AI.

Curious - what is the main issue you find polarizing with grok?

more competition is always good

> healthy

Kind of disappointed by how many people don't see any reason to boycott a model that nudified minors and makes money for a guy that does Nazi salutes.

I'm thinking of switching to Grok on Cursor (purely for $$ reasons). But Opus >= 4.8 has been fantastic; it's hard to leave, even just to dabble with other models.

In my tests Grok 4.5 is definitely not Opus level. It is somewhere in between Sonnet and Opus, I'd say maybe a bit closer to Sonnet.

We'll see with 4.6.

Presumably because Musk has been training it to be more like him.

(I work on Grok) We've been working on teaching the model how to reason about great visual design principles. Obviously this is hard and somewhat subjective, but through a combination of writing down these principles (e.g. how to think about systems, not just "use this italic serif font on marketing pages"), and then creating a lot of data to pairwise compare designs/outputs, we've made a notable improvement over G4.5 and see a path to improving much further in the next model.

But has it hacked anybody yet? Feels like xAi is behind on the hot new benchmarking meta.

I think both are after qwen 3.8 max release.

Yes -- power without trust is of no use.

Yes. Won't touch xAI things because of this.

People downvoting this comment: are they wrong? It does generate nazi stuff and CSAM, they're in the courts because of this.

I won't use their models for this reason. Musk tinkering too much with the RL to make it sound more like him is wild.

I don't care how smart or cheap the model is if it's run by Musk, I just can't use it.

don't know why you're being downvoted... "hey, let's please just focus on how good the model is, ignore the politics, okay?" a lot of these HN users are fucking idiots

> You may not like Elon, but you must respect him.

Your brain on grok

We do not celebrate pedophiles, regardless of what they do.

The last time grok made these statement, I tried using it for my workflows and it did not perform as good as opus or even sonnet.

My guess is that xai benchmaxxes a lot but fails in actual capacity to produce good models.

Why? Did Elon design Grok?

No, we mustn't. This improvement is in 1) merit of Cursor's team and ground-level "X-Ai" AI engineers and 2) despite Elon's meddling.

Just imagine how much he's trying to push internally that this new generation of Grok should be spouting his kind of propaganda.

>You may not like Elon, but you must respect him.

lmao no fuck him

You most certainly don't need to respect Musk