Its essentially swapping out the psuedo random number generated with a differently seeded one iirc.

It has an effect on the output, but not the output quality

It seems fine to me. The model is still solving my problems and writing code that works as well as any other.

Google has been watermarking text with SynthID for a while now and nobody complained about it. Why all the fuss about Claude?

It feels like the real reason behind most complaints is that people want to use AI for writing and not have others find out?

It reduces diversity, which they don't talk about much. Wrote about it here. https://blog.keyvan.net/p/ai-text-watermarking-and-quality

It has an effect, 50% of the time it's positive, increasing the quality of the answer, and 50% of the time it's negative.

I am pretty sure they did A/B testing to show it didn't. I could gave sworn they even released a quiz were the user has to try and guess which answer is watermarked or not and it was impossible to tell.

Why do you claim that?

There is no reason why there has to be a negative effect of text watermarking.

You're on Hacker News - I suggest you have technical curiosity and actually understand this very unusual and innovative algorithm, before you claim things about it that aren't true.

Before OpenAI, before bubble burst, before open-weight Mythos.

I never actually managed to use fable successfully even once on a pretty standard mvc/microservice app.. It would always find the endpoint permission checks and revert to opus 4.8.

I also had glm 5.3 flash fix an issue that opus 5 could not solve. glm took 4 times as long and a sub-agent tried to cheat (sleep; echo ...), but in the end it actually solved the issue. opus 5 never figured it out.

I think the safeguards might be cooking the anthropic models.

Agreed. I was trying to get it to review some auth refactoring in my app recently, and it appeared to find some vulnerabilities. as it was aggregating the results it was flagged and restarted the whole process with Opus 4.8 and all of my usage credits were gone.

Anthropic told me to use their `security-review` tool - as this was the exact scenario the tool is for - and it still got flagged.

Mythos and Fable are the same cost, aren’t they?

Weird. I'm using it to do a bunch of work on something that manages security rules, with a bunch of sample data with spooky scary fixtures all over with "Mimikatz" and "CobaltStrike Beacon" and "Crowdstrike EDR" type stuff everywhere, including work to harden my system, and I've never been downgraded.

It is a vastly superior model for complex, real-world coding tasks. I've constantly had Opus 5 hit road blocks where it spins in circles at xhigh, where switching to Fable immediately solves it. I've had Opus create solutions that Fable then points out the gaps and limitations with, and have never seen the opposite happen.

The fantasy that Opus is superior for coding, much less the incredibly weird clutching onto some far obsolete model, is not reality based.

That's, uh, a great contribution. Thanks. It's super important that HN learns how this sounds like to you.

The classic one is "should have" or "should've" to "should of" because when spoken, it really does sound similar. I don't know what the fuck people are learning in English classes these days though, or if they even still have them.

I've been using the same agent for 15 months. I think this statement is laughably wrong.