I’m not sure if the underlying data is counting subscription use for Fable, which is where a lot of people are using it because token pricing is very expensive. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was counting enterprise token usage only. As rich as enterprise customers are, they’re not exactly willing to double the cost of SWE salaries on tokens.

Either way, a model used to solve the top 10% of problems that people use AI to solve for, being used 10% of the time … seems like it’s in a decent place.

I find Fable indispensable, and measurably better than alternative models, for complex feature development in an existing codebase. It’s the closest thing I’ve seen to nearly one-shotting features. Even still, I only use it for the hardest features and Opus 5 does a good enough job on the rest.

▲

wj 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Very much agree on Fable. Over the past month or so it has shown to be the only Anthropic model that can understand a largish dbt model codebase. Opus 5 gets almost everything wrong. (High reasoning on both)

	▲	dmix 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		More importantly other way cheaper models can do what Opus 5 does. So you can pay for Claude to use Fable 5 exclusively for harder stuff and planning, then get the same value you'd otherwise get from switching back to Opus by using other cheap LLMs for day-to-day coding tasks.
	▲	brianwawok 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Wouldn’t you need to bump opus reasoning a few levels to be apples to apples?

▲

anon7000 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah as soon as CFOs realized AI was racing to become one of the most expensive line items along with salaries and AWS bills, they started cracking down on the most expensive ones.