9 ms·
For those of us on subscription plans: * From today through June 22, Fable 5 is included on Pro, Max, Team, and seat-based Enterprise plans at no extra cost.
by eggbrain 4mo ago
For those of us on subscription plans:
* From today through June 22, Fable 5 is included on Pro, Max, Team, and seat-based Enterprise plans at no extra cost.
* On June 23, we’ll remove Fable 5 from those plans. Using it after that will require usage credits. If capacity allows, we’ll extend the included window.
* After this point—when sufficient capacity allows us to do so—we aim to restore Fable 5 as a standard part of subscription plans. We intend to do this as quickly as we can.
The "offer, then remove" aspect is a bit eyebrow-raising -- it feels like they are trying to get subscribers to switch to usage-based billing, which makes me wonder if we'll ever get it after that June 22nd window.
- xpct 4mo agoI agree, this looks like their plan to wane out subscriptions. This will probably come with Opus nerfs later.
- taormina 4mo agoThose already landed! Oh, you weren't talking about 4.8?
- piva00 4mo agoEven Opus 4.7 felt like a regression from 4.6, consumed a lot more tokens while I didn't experience any substantial improvements. The company I work at simply rolled back to 4.6 on everyone's configurations, disabling the toggle for 4.7.
- taormina 4mo ago4.6 has been my happy place for getting anything done for a while now.
- nonethewiser 4mo agoIt's possible that they will transition to usage credits but why not take them at their word? To date they have continued to offer better and better models to their subscription plans.
- timcobb 4mo agoWhat's their word? Have they commented? Upd: I meant big picture, not with respect to this model release. Where do subscriptions figure into their strategic vision. Will consumers end up paying enterprise prices in the future?
- ls612 4mo agoIn TFA they say they intend to restore Fable 5 to subscription plans some time after June 22. That is what "take them at their word" means.
- KyleJune 4mo agoIn the blog post they say when sufficient capacity allows them to do so they aim to restore Fable 5 as a standart part of subscription plans and intend to do so as quickly as they can.
- dbbk 4mo agoRead it again
- xvector 4mo agoHN needs to take a chill pill. Could it be that Mythos is expensive and they just want to give people a taste of it? I mean the alternative is not offering it at all?
- 8note 4mo agoits unclear how they can offer it broadly but only for half a month. why do they have capacity now that they wont in a few weeks?
- bigtechennui 4mo agoIt’s offered broadly after, for more money. It’s subsidized as marketing
- losvedir 4mo agoBreak between training runs?
- rapind 4mo agoI just assume Opus is constantly nerfed based on capacity. I was exclusively Claude for a long time, but the inconsistency in quality, constant outages, and slow downs were too hard to work with. I just use dumb and fast models now. I'm more engaged. I think that the higher the quality of the model, the more you tend to vibe with it, and then the more hallucinations you then miss. I'm not sure which is more productive, but I definitely burn out faster the more I vibe. At some point you're spending your time on forums, discord, or youtube instead of engaged with what you're building. Or you yak shave about your tooling and end up creating the 600th multi-agent gastown harness and blowing thousands of dollars on tokens to create it only to discover it's too expense to actually use.
- winter_blue 4mo agoComposer 2.5 Fast that Cursor is giving away for very little has been amazing.
- daviding 4mo agoGiven the Fable 5 costs it's getting tricker to weight up 'how smart do you want it', like looking at the top of this graph.. https://cursor.com/evals https://cursor.com/evals
- aplomb1026 4mo ago[flagged]
- dylandevelops 4mo agoI agree with you. The more I vibe code, the less interested I feel in what I'm building. Working with models that force me to think, especially with personal projects, helps me stay engaged and enjoy what I am doing more.
- nickandbro 4mo agoGet them addicted then cut them off. Oldest trick in the book.
- toomuchtodo 4mo agoMore of a free trial to those authenticated and qualified with existing payment. Subscription billing is going away for sure though eventually based on the economics. Token “all you can eat” is a capital furnace otherwise. (I’m highly confident open models will eventually achieve a similar performance benchmark with distillation over time)
- CuriouslyC 4mo agoSubs lose money on individuals to get those individuals to force their companies to pay for the corporate plan. The economics are bad, but so are the economics of grocery stores selling Milk and Bananas at a loss to drive traffic, which they basically ALL do.
- toomuchtodo 4mo agoCompanies don’t want to pay when the value realized does not exceed the cost. AI Savings Misses 'Should Be Making Executives Uncomfortable,' Bain Says - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48359010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48359010 - June 2026 (0 comments) AI sticker shock hits corporate America- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48307098 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48307098 - May 2026 (146 comments)
- CuriouslyC 4mo agoWhat's the realized value of not losing your engineers because you're letting them use their preferred tools?
- toomuchtodo 4mo agoRetain and hire the engineers who don’t require heavy use of AI to deliver value? The current SWE job market speaks for itself. Where will you go where they will let you burn up tokens in a high cost of capital macro? ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) is over, software engineers no longer call the shots now that there isn’t vast amounts of capital chasing yield, and that capital bidding up salaries and keeping the labor market for engineers tight. If you are x more productive with generative AI, very shortly you are going to have to prove it with a token budget (or, if you’re lucky, an org willing to spend for on prem hardware for capped token cost, fixed capex vs uncapped opex). The comparison is not SWE vs SWE with AI. It is SWE vs SWE with AI with a constrained token budget ($x/month) delivering the same value at the same or lower cost. If you cannot prove that you are wildly (vs marginally) more productive with the AI, why would they pay for it? Prove it.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- alvis 4mo agoIt’s too obvious that antropic need to find way to earn enough revenue before IPO. Claude subscription isn’t earning earning much money I bet
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- sigmoid10 4mo agoI think they are just prioritizing enterprise customers, because this is were historically they made most money.
- dylandevelops 4mo agoI agree with you here. Unfortunately, this tends to be the case, with smaller developers paying the price.
- AtlasBarfed 4mo agoThat's not how it works. They don't need revenue, they need addicts. Specifically they need businesses that fired people and adapted their business to the products, so when the unsubsidized costs hit the businesses are forced to eat the true costs. Yes they can't afford to give the products for free, but what is essentially happening with AI services is economic dumping, keep costs artificially low to get people to fire everybody, and then Jack the rates once they have Monopoly control
- sdellis 4mo agoBut the only companies firing people (and certainly not everybody) are either the companies with an AI or the investment and finance firms that stand to profit from AI. I smell hype. And no company is firing everybody because of A.I. I agree. They need addicts, but they are high on their own supply and everyone else can see the danger in getting hooked.
- sdellis 4mo agoThat's a big problem for all of the AI companies. Most people don't find the technology compelling, accurate, or ethical enough to pay for a subscription. Why wouldn't Anthropic just wait until people start subscribing, do some kind of marketing push, or obtain some kind of other sustainable revenue stream, before they go IPO? I wonder if they see the writing on the wall with all of this and want to cash out as quickly as possible?
- rvz 4mo ago> * On June 23, we’ll remove Fable 5 from those plans. Using it after that will require usage credits. If capacity allows, we’ll extend the included window. Of course, they are a casino as well giving you free spins at the wheel with their new Fable machine, and it is done on purpose. Once there freebies have expired, many of its users will begin to gamble more on the new casino machine and will realize that it is expensive.
- xvector 4mo agoIf it's that big of a problem to you, you're free to just... not use the freebie?
- cautiouscat 4mo agoIt’s an interesting thing to bring up because it’s this classic thing we’ve seen for decades now. The ramifications go beyond the individual which is why I assume they mentioned it. They don’t need to use it/not use it for it to have interesting implications.
- xvector 4mo agoso it'd be preferable if they didn't include the model at all?
- cautiouscat 4mo agoI didn’t say that and I don’t have a feeling on that either way. But this is a limited time trial and calling it out as such is valid. Is it nice we get the trial? Sure. Is it also a common play in the playbook of tech companies? Yes.
- danslo 4mo agoIt's not a freebie, it still requires a subscription and burns tokens twice as fast as Opus.
- rvz 4mo ago
- timcobb 4mo agoOoof so are we thinking that in the next 6-12 months subscriptions will be replaced with paying retail like enterprise currently?
- CuriouslyC 4mo agoI don't think they'll phase out subscriptions ever, their whole play has been to drive demand from the bottom up. Get engineers hooked on building with claude at home, then get them to demand the ability to use it at work, and bend over their employer with no lube. They'll probably tighten the quotas to reign in whales though.
- aseipp 4mo agoThey almost certainly already make a fuckload more money off API pricing than they do subscriptions, even if there might be more total subscription users. So offering subscriptions even at some loss is probably going to continue. Honestly, I'd be surprised if they even lost money on most subs; there are definitely Token Whales out there who mess up all the accounting up, though. Realistically I think Anthropic just has insane demand but finite capacity to run models, and Fable will just make them more money if they dedicate it to API pricing. I suspect the goal here is something like: get individual engineers/PMs on their personal plans to taste Fable and then go to their meetings and say "Yes doubling the price of every single input/output token is a good idea, boss".
- timcobb 4mo agoBut I don't want to be the developer who goes and says we must pay all this money for these tokens. I don't know who wants to be that developer.
- treenutlog 4mo ago[dead]
- gck1 4mo agoBut how is this sustainable? It's not like paying $5000 per feature means you'll be refunded if prompting "make no mistakes" didn't work. The only reason why I pay $200 is because LLM's errors costs me that much, at worst. If "make no error" starts working - sure. But surely, unless you have millions of dollars of cash to burn, a coin flip that costs $5000 is an insane idea?
- ABS 4mo agoalso: Fable takes 2× the usage of Opus
- kyledrake 4mo agoConsidering their apparent nerfing of the end user plans in favor of enterprise clients, is Anthropic still the "more ethical AI company" like everybody loves to tell me all the time? Assuming this isn't just a supply issue on their side, nothing says "ethical AI" like only allowing mega corporations to use it through cost barriers.
- Maken 4mo agoThe bar is just too low.
- brianmcnulty 4mo agoWhy would you have ethics when you could get that IPO money instead?
- fridder 4mo agoMore ethical in some areas, actively user hostile in others
- estearum 4mo agoYou really misunderstand what AI-doom people are worried about if you think this is anywhere near the top (or middle, or bottom) of the list of concerns.
- throwaway894345 4mo agoYeah, it's positively precious to think the specific pricing strategy for consumers is the overriding ethical concern with OpenAI, etc. I don't have any particularly strong affinity to any AI company, but comparing pricing to say mass surveillance is ... something else.
- kyledrake 4mo agoYour beautiful straw man is negated by the fact that Anthropic seems quite eager to get back on the DoD gravy train https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/blacklisted-ai-company-anthropic-white-house-ease-tensions-ahead-ipo-sources-say-2026-06-05/ https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/blacklist...
- clementg 4mo agoI really don't want this to start being the norm
- baggachipz 4mo agoI don't see how it won't be. They lose insane amounts of money on subscription plans. I'm sure they still lose money on usage-based billing, but probably not as much.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago> They lose insane amounts of money on subscription plans Do we know this? I’ve seen evidence they lose money on heavy users. But so do gyms.
- saaaaaam 4mo agoHow do gyms lose money on heavy users? A heavy gym user isn’t really costing the gym anything extra as far as I can see.
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago> How do gyms lose money on heavy users? Most gyms sell more subscriptions than they can fit under their roof at one time. If a gym only sells to heavy users, it will either be constantly turning members away or have to buy more equipment. Its equipment will wear off faster. Depending on amenities, it will go through towels, soap, water, et cetera faster, too.
- tripleee 4mo agoGym equipment lasts 10+ years in a commercial gym, at $50/mo that's a minimum of $6k paid from a single person. Unless they're really, seriously wasteful with the soap.. there's no chance a gym is losing money on a heavy user
- aray07 4mo agoi have never seen this before - where you offer something and then take that away
- machomaster 4mo agoReally, you have never heard of shareware or trial periods?
- tasuki 4mo agoEither that or it was sarcasm. What do you think more likely?
- machomaster 4mo agoA person writing without thinking.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- jrflo 4mo agoStill satisfied with my switch to codex/chatgpt. I couldn't imagine switching away from claude code when it first launch but with the drastically more generous usage on codex for the same subscription tier I just can't justify it.
- wsatb 4mo agoI guess enjoy it while it lasts? OpenAI won't be able to subsidize that forever either.
- flatline 4mo agoI don't think anyone has a firm grasp on actual inference costs -- including the research and training that has gone into those models. We've got near-frontier capabilities from open source models from China at pennies on the dollar compared to US big tech rollouts. OpenAI and Anthropic are heavily subsidizing their inference -- no wait, they are charging the most they can get away with before going public. Where is the truth?
- MichaelMedbed 4mo ago[flagged]
- andrewmutz 4mo agoBoth can be true. They can be charging what the market will bear, and still be charging less than their costs of running it.
- meowface 4mo agoIt's very disappointing but I'm assuming it's for rational reasons on their part.
- oersted 4mo ago> Pricing for both models is $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output tokens. The step-up in intelligence looks massive (we'll see in practice), but the price is getting to a point where it's making me question if it's even worth giving it a try. Good competitors will probably be out soon, which should level the playing field. I am more excited about that, just the fact that they showed that such an improvement is possible. I'm okay waiting a bit longer for this to become attainable for plebs like me.
- kolinko 4mo agoThe pricing can be a bit deceptive though. A good model can deliver the same results in fewer tokens. Kind of like billing a programmer by the hour.
- zyuiop 4mo agoSadly this does not seem to be the case here: if you read the announcement entirely, they include a "cost per task" metric which basically continues the trend of their previous models. So yes, tasks will cost you more, but results will be better - allegedly.
- kolinko 4mo agoafter playing for the three days - yeah, that turned out to be the case. Fable was more precise, did more tests and cost much more than 2x for the same task. For some tasks though Opus was performing poorly and Fable managed to do them well on a first try.
- sourcecodeplz 4mo agoWhy wouldn't it be? How much would you pay a scientist at this point to think about a problem for you and give you a solution?
- oersted 4mo agoI'm not sure how it might be with Fable in practice, but we are already not that far away from AI costing as much as a full-time professional, faster in some ways but considerably less independent. Perhaps not that close to US salaries, but those are inflated to hell. Worldwide senior engineers and scientists have salaries just about an order of magnitude away from AI subscriptions that you can use most of the day every day.
- 0erofootprint 4mo agoFor me it almost immediately blocked. I had it writing code related to message digests - and it seemed to think it was too gifted for that. Gave the security warning and switched back to 4.8. Whatever... it will probably soon have the API error soon. I have mostly switched to the Codex 200 a month plan. I've found their 5.5 xhigh to be better than Opus 4.8 "ultracode." Also, i have not once seen their servers fail for compute unavailability, unlike Anthropric which happens almost ever hour.
- kkoncevicius 4mo agoI had a similar experience. I wanted to test it by asking it to summarise a scientific OMICs-related paper. It gave a warning about me potentially developing a bio-weapon or something like that. And switched back to Opus 4.8.
- matheusmoreira 4mo agoI just asked Fable for a complete code review of my lone lisp project. Started out strong. Launched Fable agents, then spent like 10 minutes thinking... And then got interrupted by a switch to Opus 4.8. > Fable 5's safety measures flagged this message for cybersecurity or biology topics. > They may flag safe, normal content as well. > These measures let us bring you Mythos-level capability in other areas sooner, and we're working to refine them. Here are the results of the agentic code review session: ┌──────────────────────────┬───────────────┬────────────────┐ │ Agent │ Fable 5 turns │ Opus 4.8 turns │ ├──────────────────────────┼───────────────┼────────────────┤ │ values │ 134 │ 0 │ ├──────────────────────────┼───────────────┼────────────────┤ │ data-intrinsics │ 104 │ 0 │ ├──────────────────────────┼───────────────┼────────────────┤ │ tools-tests-build │ 81 │ 0 │ ├──────────────────────────┼───────────────┼────────────────┤ │ core-intrinsics (failed) │ 25 │ 0 │ ├──────────────────────────┼───────────────┼────────────────┤ │ system-memory │ 44 │ 20 │ ├──────────────────────────┼───────────────┼────────────────┤ │ reader-modules │ 104 │ 25 │ ├──────────────────────────┼───────────────┼────────────────┤ │ linux-startup │ 95 │ 15 │ └──────────────────────────┴───────────────┴────────────────┘ This 40 minute session cost me 16% of my weekly usage. A simple code review of the most critical areas of my project got flagged as a cybersecurity risk. It really made me not want to try it again.
- DonsDiscountGas 4mo agoI expect that depends on demand, feedback, and whether GPT-6.0 gets released and is competitive
- firemelt 4mo agodamn they are drugs dealer
- Aleleo76 4mo agoPay-as-you-go billing is a kind of drug, I use it every now and then when I'm working on a project with Opus, in a moment you spend a fortune
- nicce 4mo ago> The "offer, then remove" aspect is a bit eyebrow-raising -- it feels like they are trying to get subscribers to switch to usage-based billing, which makes me wonder if we'll ever get it after that June 22nd window. Probably all about the IPO.
- mlmonkey 4mo agoJust like how Elon forced FSD in Tesla to be subscription-only (he was incentivized to do so).
- smith7018 4mo agoFwiw it's not available on my enterprise account: "Disable zero data retention to unlock Fable 5 access"
- stronglikedan 4mo agoWe just blocked it at our org for this reason. They will "retain agent request and output data associated with this model, regardless of you Cursor Privacy Mode setting."
- sdellis 4mo agoWhat does "zero data retention" mean? What kind of data does it need to unlock?
- drakythe 4mo agoThe announcement details it. They're storing 30 days of data on all surfaces, first and third party. They claim it is for security purposes so they can review and check for long term jailbreak and distillation efforts. They also, FWIW, say that they've instituted new policies on their end such as logging any human access to the stored data and automated deletion after 30 days in "most" cases (with another link to a document detailing that further).
- FergusArgyll 4mo agoI'm about to be priced out of SOTA llms and it's an awful feeling
- wahnfrieden 4mo agoNot with Codex
- FergusArgyll 4mo agoBut they're behind by quite a bit now. CFO (of OAI) Sarah Friar said the next training run will be in the fall on Vera Rubin, I think that means I'll have to wait > 6 months?!
- __blockcipher__ 4mo agoYeah but they might still have an unreleased bigger pretrain than 5.5. (but maybe not). still 5.5 is smarter than opus 4.8 IME, so you're only losing the mythos tier (fable). and all the cool fun stuff i'd want to use fable for our blocked (can't have it do even defensive cybersecurity work [in theory you can but the classifiers fire like crazy], can't discuss stuff like the furin cleavage site of sars-cov-2, etc)
- chinathrow 4mo agoWhy won't they follow suit?
- wahnfrieden 4mo agoOf course anything could happen but Anthropic has always been stingier and more expensive and is getting worse about that, while OpenAI is getting more generous with subscriptions (eg permanently doubling the highest tier allotment, setting policy to not cut off tasks that run past quota, resetting after outages, etc.)
- speedgoose 4mo agoThe AI circular infinite money glitch won't last forever. I hope. If you have good expertise in a domain and access to cheaper models, you may still be more skilled than someone without expertise but a lot of money to bruteforce the problems using SOTA LLMs.
- matheusmoreira 4mo agoThis is really sad... I really didn't want to be priced out of these models but it looks like that's going to happen sooner rather than later.
- deepfriedbits 4mo agoThankfully this, like most other tech, will get cheaper through the years.
- treenutlog 4mo ago[dead]
- gck1 4mo agoIt already is. But marketing is hell of a drug.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- nutjob2 4mo ago> "offer, then remove" Sounds like "bait and wait". If you think about it, the more people pay for these new and more resource hungry models, the longer it takes for them to become no extra cost and the longer it takes the more people are tempted to pay extra.
- daft_pink 4mo agoI’m just about ready to cancel my small business 5 user plan with max licenses, because although cowork is really great. I just find OpenAI/Codex to be a lot better most of the time.
- systemvoltage 4mo agoIt's interesting that we are seeing a time when subscriptions are not preferred and usage-based billing is. Pay-as-you go isn't a common thing in SaaS. For example, except for AWS SES, all email providers are bulk-subscription based.
- esafak 4mo agoThe point of SaaS was that the marginal cost (of supporting another user) was low. That does not apply to LLMs.
- joshstrange 4mo agoI would not use this if you are on a subscription. In <8min it burned my entire 5hr window (which has just reset it appears, I have over 4 hours till it resets) I hadn't used CC at all today aside from this) and then it used up ~$15 more in usage before I could stop it. I am on the $100 Max plan.
- enraged_camel 4mo agoThat’s odd, I used it on a pretty complex refactoring task and it worked for 22 mins and used only 15% of my 5-hour limit. I’m on the $200 Max plan though.
- treenutlog 4mo ago[dead]
- FireBeyond 4mo agoWell the $200 Max plan is 4x the usage quotas of the $100 so it's "within reason"?
- fastball 4mo agoWhat is your effort level?
- ZunarJ5 4mo agoThey didn't even reset credits for this lol
- cortesoft 4mo agoThe CLI when you select it says it has 2x the usage as opus. Not sure if that matches what you are seeing. I do wonder if you switched models mid-session, you would have lost all your cache. Reloading the context into cache can really eat through your usage.
- GoToRO 4mo agothey have a graph with cost comparison between the models. This model is just a little over the other models as cost. The graph is logarithmic :)
- lisperforlife 4mo agoMy guess is that it is a massive model similar to GPT 4.5 and $10/$50 pricing is for its output will discourage people from using it. I also read safety = nerfed.
- irthomasthomas 4mo agoThis is just the sales team doing their thing, applying the Law of Scarcity to drive demand. It's the same exact speed as opus >=4.5, sonnet 4.5, and twice the speed of opus <=4.1 It must have about the same active parameters, or else its a larger model running in turbo mode (smaller batches) and being heavily subsidized for some reason. But given most of the benchmarks are within 5% I doubt it is a much larger model. Most perplexing.
- m00x 4mo agoIt could be a much bigger MoE model
- irthomasthomas 4mo agoThen it would be slower.
- a-dub 4mo agothe claimed inference cost is 2x. if that is true, it is massive and remarkable that they're able to do anything like this at all.
- dirkc 4mo agoThis serves as a good reminder that relying on AI models is borrowing your tech from someone else. They can take it away or raise the prices arbitrarily. If you rely on this as a core part of your business/profession, you will be at their mercy and subject to whatever whims or challenges they have.
- deanc 4mo agoBut it's not and it's highly disingenuous to frame it like this. Quote directly from Claude code, moments ago: > Fable 5 · Most capable for your hardest and longest-running tasks · Uses your limits ~2× faster than Opus
- dack 4mo agoi doubt that's the goal for them. i bet they just really don't have capacity for people using it a ton, yet they wanted people to be able to try it out while it's new. so they compromised and made it temporarily available. and then hope they can get costs down or capacity up so they can make it more available again
- InsideOutSanta 4mo agoI think the goal is "private citizens: subscriptions; corporations: per-token billing." It's getting people addicted to LLMs on cheap subscriptions so that they can then force companies to pay for expensive inference.
- AAYALAG 4mo ago[dead]
- irthomasthomas 4mo ago"we’ve implemented new interventions that limit Claude’s effectiveness for requests targeting frontier LLM development (for example, on building pretraining pipelines, distributed training infrastructure, or ML accelerator design). ... Unlike our interventions for cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, and distillation attempts, these safeguards will not be visible to the user."
- altcognito 4mo agoWhere is this text coming from? [edit] -- I see that this comes from the system card -- dang merged the comments from the other discussion so that explains the confusion.
- ltrg 4mo agoFable seems very good at finding bugs (unsurprising given Mythos lineage), so this seems a pretty smart strategy. Once you see the bugs it finds in your existing Opus code, it's going to be hard to go back, psychologically speaking.
- jrumbut 4mo agoIt could be my use cases, which have always seemed to be outside the wheelhouse of these models, but I find it very hard to downgrade after accessing a more capable model. Opus 4.8 produces output in 15 minutes that is 3-4 hours of my work away from output that used to take me 40ish hours (a solid week of dedicated effort). Last year(-ish, maybe it was 18 months, I forget when the jump happened), the frontier models couldn't touch this work. The output looked like a hardworking intern on their first day. Nice formatting, decent volume of words, but no understanding. So it might work if it turns out to be a substantial leap in capability.
- GoToRO 4mo agoI switched back to Sonnet. It replies faster so I work faster. Also cheaper. But I really like the speed. I have to be more specific with what I want. Also I stop it more often than Opus. These new models will be awesome, but they need to increase the speed.
- KronisLV 4mo ago> it feels like they are trying to get subscribers to switch to usage-based billing I think they might be hitting a point where subsidizing the expensive models for subscriptions makes less and less sense. With Opus 4.X, last month I paid 100 USD for the Max subscription and got a token equivalent of 4.1k USD. I imagine that Fable is more expensive to run.
- madrox 4mo agoI suspect it'll go on the subscription plan once other providers have similar benchmarks. As annoyed as I am about this move, I get it. Users flood the newest, best model whether they really need it or not, and are efficient at using their entire quota. They've had so much trouble reigning in subscription usage it makes sense.
- spaceman_2020 4mo agoKimi 2.6 has been my workhorse now. It's as good as Opus 4.6, which, to me, was the last "useful" Claude model. The newer models are smarter but really ficklle and hard to get meaningful work out of 4.6 was a workhorse
- sytelus 4mo agoEnterprise subs not allowed to use Fable if they have setup zero data retention :(
- thisisit 4mo agoOne can hope it helps Claude to figure out how to solve their buggy payment system - otherwise how do I pay for these credits.
- hgoel 4mo agoHow much more clearly do they need to explain the resource constraints? If they didn't announce it, you guys would be complaining about slowed progress. If they didn't release it, you guys would be complaining about fake promises and marketing. If they released it without limits, the complaints would be about slow responses and outages. If they didn't add to susbcription plans, the complaints would be about phasing out subscriptions. If they added to subscriptions with cost reflecting their resource availability, the complaints would be about how quickly it eats limits. So they choose the middle ground of providing some initial access and assessing if they can satisfy demand, only to still be ignored and accused of trying to get users hooked? We've already seen that they don't have enough compute, thus the deals with SpaceX for their GPUs. It's very reasonable that they just don't have the capacity to support the subscription userbase on this model.