Hacker News Reader

Comment by JoshGlazebrook | Hacker News Reader

I really hope they reconsider adding Fable access back to the subscription plans, at least the 20x plan. I know it was the original intention when the 14 day (I think) time frame was originally announced, and they were working to keep it on subscription plans. But no word if thats even a thing anymore?

View on HN

The market will force them to bring it back. They're probably capacity constrained right now, or need to figure out whether they need another pricing tier for it to "fit in a subscription". What they don't want is for someone to code for 4 days of the week and cap out every week.

Ha! It’s silly easy for me to bum in the “premium” tier - the highest one my employer is able to select for me.

With proper skills and validations, it’s quite easy for me to spin out a Claude instance and keep it running in the background for every idea / problem / bug etc.

Like for example when a new request comes in, or when I have an idea for refactor / improvement, I brainstorm, weed out all the uncertainty and details, then just create a plan and let if follow it (using sonnet / haiku for execution)

I would have 4-5 simultaneous instances running - and all of them produce valuable results.

But then 2-3 days into a week I hit my weekly limit.

And the company can’t pay more for me within Anthropic’s enterprise structure, except for the “extra” api costs. Which itself sounds quite silly to me.

I’ve resorted to running the brainstorming and planning with Claude, but have other tools / companies execute the actual implementation… doesn’t work as well but what can you do…

Only for the next week.

> Fable 5 will be included for up to 50% of weekly usage limits through July 7, after which it will be available via usage credits.

Right, but originally they announced a period of time it was included in plans, and then they were "working hard" to extend the period and eventually make it a permanent fixture of the plans.

I'd imagine they want to do price segmentation. Sell the best model for $50k a year to corporations willing to pay full price, keep the rest of us on a lower tier. Gotta pay for that infra somehow.

I just don't really understand the entire strategy behind this. Or their horrible, horrible communication.

Because right now it's as if Fable/Mythos 5 is "the end of the line". It's as if this is the best their models are ever going to be. So what the hell are we going to get next? All of their models will forever inch closer to Fable, but never reach it? That doesn't make any sense.

It all seems so dramatic. Instead of just saying honestly "Look, this model is a beast to run, but we're striving to reach the same quality in a cheaper model down the line" all we get is "Oh my god, it's so big and scary, and it costs so much to run, woe is me!"

afaik there's somewhat painful economics. Not sure back-of-napkin but something like:

   • 150-500B: Sonnet
   • 0.9-2T: Opus
   • 3-5T/10T: Fable / Mythos

So if bigger model is "smarter" but you effectively wind up with a "shared hosting" model where a coherent inherence node(s) that cost $2m or something can run max 10x customer workloads simultaneously ... not sure what that can be priced at.

If it turns out a $10m/10x shared node can host even smarter models, then what?

Fable/Mythos are based on the same model. Not totally clear whether they have identical weights (just different external guardrails), or there's also some slight finetuning difference.

I'd imagine that depends on how it winds up being used.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com