upvote
Agreed, it's extremely frustrating. It's the only model that actually makes me curse when talking to it, even knowing how counterproductive it is.
reply
The cursing thing blows my mind. "User is upset? Let's make decisions even faster (ie. more wrong) because clearly that's what they want!"

It's a simple switch to make: cursing = try harder instead of cursing = stop trying. Is it really impossible to train Claude that way?

reply
I'd certainly rank it at the very top of the want to kill yourself when using it benchmark. It outperforms everything else on that leaderboard.

With weaker models you can sort of understand, they're trying their best and failing, but this thing just channels its immense inteligence into being as annoying as possible instead. I know it can do what I'm asking it to do, but it just finds a way to weasel out of it, or maybe just thinks for 10 minutes instead, then fixes one thing and breaks four additional ones.

reply
yep matches my experience completely

But even fable has the annoying tendency to invent new jargon and produce an incomprehensible soup of text.

reply
Is there any model that knows how to smooth an overly literary text over? I find Opus and Fable constantly decorate the documentation they write like a damn 19/20th century writer. We're working with IT stuff yet it writes like it's going to win some Pulitzer prize. It's that one thing I don't get why they can't train them to do properly: I have not encountered a model yet that sticks to the current language of the domain it's tasked with.
reply
I'm dumbfounded to see Opus 5 making SO MANY mistakes in coding simple stuff. Most times, Fable 5 comes out to be cheaper because it nails so many things much quicker than Opus 5.
reply
I have Fable plan and Opus implement. I haven't had any major issues working this way; however, Opus does seem plain fucking stupid compared to what I experienced with Sonnet previously.
reply
I do the same, and generally have good results, but it does stupid things with gusto.

I'd open a blog with "weird things Opus did". Today it launched a swarm of cpu-hogging processes to test if the widget showing machine and I/O load is rendering nicely and correctly. The test went fine, but it was no longer able to kill those processes since they were really effectively hogging the CPU in various ways - being diligent, some of them were hogging CPU, some were murdering the SSD, some were pounding on the network adapters. Took me 30 mins to recover the machine to a working state without killing the meaningful, messy, in-flight sessions i had going on on other projects.

reply
> however, Opus does seem plain fucking stupid

Infuriatingly so, in a way I don't remember Opus 4.8 being, but maybe I've just been ruined by Fable 5.

reply
I bought my first LLM subscription with Claude right before they gave access to Fable 5.

I got so used to it, when they finally pulled access for me and I had to go back to Opus I felt like I was working with my hands tied.

I finally know what those women with AI boyfriends felt like when their app updated and it won't dirty talk with them anymore.

reply
Fable has spoiled us all.
reply
Weird how different people's experiences are. If it's making simple mistakes something must be wrong in your setup/context I assume? It's been solid for me, beyond the usual LLMisms that all models have. But I keep context pretty minimal.
reply
Statements like this typically come from working on the same setup and context using different models. I actually have that very experience now; I work on something security-adjacent so Fable often drops out, at which point Opus behaves like its lobotomized half-sibling. Pardon me the language, but I can't find a better example to be honest.
reply
Agreed. Opus 5 is doing just fine, slightly better than 4.8. It's personality is insufferable, but I find myself catching fewer problems at code review. It generally understands my conventions and isn't so eager to accrue tech debt.
reply
Ironically, Opus 5 is the most benchmaxxed model I've seen from Anthropic. It is legitimately smart in a lot of ways but it has communication issues, both in terms of how it communicates (all the autism of GPT class models, without the brevity) and how well it catches all the nuance of what you tell it.
reply
Sent to solve one task, came back with half of it solved and 2 more problems.
reply
"One thing worth your attention", "Two things worth knowing", "One thing to eyeball"
reply
And one of them is always something just completely out of scope and the other is something obvious it missed.

“One thing worth your attention, if you were to detonate a pipe bomb in your house, it would have a negative effect on your living room”.

reply
This is driving me crazy. opus 4.8 did not do this to me not (at least during pre-5.0 timeframe). Feels like the new cycle is one step forward, two steps back.
reply
Yeah, I've dropped back to 4.8 entirely for the remainder of this billing cycle. I'm going to be seriously looking into Qwen adoption and harness migration options over the course of August.
reply
Same.

I could not get Opus 5 to do anything without losing a few years of my life from stress.

Fable has been okay but I am doing ML work and not allowed to use it which feels insane.

reply
It's my daily driver. I like it and find it noticeably better than Opus 4.8.

After I started reading complaints about Opus 5, I gave Fable the task of evaluating a bunch of code Opus 4.8 had written and compare it to Opus 5's code. Fable ran a dynamic workflow and the scores came back 15-20% higher for Opus 5's code in terms of quality, correctness and readability/conciseness. I did not tell Fable which Opus wrote which code, and I turned off memory as well to ensure there was no pollution from that angle.

My only complaint is that Opus 5's prose is annoying as hell. I wrote a custom skill for it for concise debriefs and it has been working pretty well for me.

reply
It is infuriating to interact with, but it is also first in many blind test leaderboards on LLMArena
reply
Can not confirm, for me it's the complete opposite.
reply
What's the clear best, that you see?
reply
I have some internal tests I use for areas where one particular solution/paradigm is dominant but worse.

Opus 4.6 is the last model that's actually useful and can "adjust" its perspective to use the newer & better solution.

Where Opus 4.8-5 has over fit training on worse/older but "dominant" solutions it refuses to adjust.

Not only does this create an existential threat to adopting progress but it also means that if you have a code base that has rare but real world tradeoff the newest versions of Opus 4.7, 4.8 and 5 are worse than useless and become a major dev timesink.

reply
"As you requested, I've finished task X. Honestly, task X turned out to require task Y, which I haven't actually done. Task Y is the next step if you'd like to continue along this route."
reply
Yeah, I told it to save in its memory that I don't want to have any more word salad!
reply
This is the hard-won load-bearing quote.
reply
Belt and braces all the way down
reply
It's an infuriating model
reply