Fable 5 is back..

It looks like Fable 5 is back on the menu. And this comes one day after Enthropic's rather underwhelming release of their Sonnet 5 model. And it's not that the Sonnet 5 model was bad. It's still a great model. But when you look at this chart that shows how Anthropic decided on their pricing of Sonnet 5 compared to the previous Sonnet 4.6, it doesn't really make sense at all because Opus is supposed to be more expensive compared to Sonnet given the intelligence gap. And now we have this weird overlap where Opus is cheaper in some instances than Sonnet. What's going on here? Thankfully, this video is about Fable 5. And Fable 5 definitely helps save Enthropic. And I can finally open up Clot and pick Fable 5 as my model and then ask the model just how many times the letter R appears in the word strawberry. Okay, but seriously, how good is Fable 5 really? Whenever we're dealing with a model that's this good, one of the most practical ways is actually dividing the task hierarchically by the model's intelligence to optimize on pricing and speed. Here's an example. Let's assume that the Fable 5 model lands somewhere in this upper echelon. So given this hierarchical structure in intelligence, we have a higher intelligent model up here which is much more expensive and we have a medium level intelligence right around here and it's given pricing and the lower level intelligence model right here. What if we just carry this hierarchical structure and bring it straight over to a coding agent like clot code. So in that case we use the feable 5 model for deep planning and delegations and we use opus for deep reasoning and finally we use the sonnet model for grunt work. Seems like a solid plan right? This seems to be a common use case among developers. Here's how Diego implemented this. You can simply start by setting cla's model to be by default on fable and set the effort on x high. And since the main model is now set to fable, we can now create two sub aents. One for deep reasoning using opus and the other for fast execution using sonnet. And now that we have this hierarchical structure set up and cloud code shows two of my sub aents here, I can outline this in cloud.md file to tell fable how to delegate properly. And now that this hierarchy is set up, I can spin this up by asking Fable 5 to build me a website that looks like this, showing the solar system interactively, or even create this game that looks like Starcraft, which is one of my favorite games that I played growing up. Pretty cool. These two examples alone ended up chewing through 47% of my session usage and already 7% of my Fable usage that's set to expire on July 8th. Now, beyond coding use cases that we've seen here, there's a lot to speak about when it comes to the implication of how Enthropic and specifically the Mythus class model actually impacted the AI industry as a whole. We know that the month of June was a rather shocking moment in the AI industry. Enthropic initially released Mythus and Fable publicly on June 9 and later on June 12th both models were suspended due to export control and for the next 17 days anthropics started to work on a huge safeguarding overhaul to ensure that Fable can route unsafe prompts from users to Opus model instead. And finally on June 30th the control was lifted and here we are now. Even though this story arc definitely makes it an interesting story to tell, it actually spoke volume when it comes to what the future might hold when it comes to innovation in the AI industry. If the premise is that we still have so much room left on the table when it comes to true breakthroughs in the AI industry, demonstrated yet again by models like Fable 5 and GPD 5.6. What does the future hold exactly from models being safeguarded like this in the future? And meanwhile, open models like GLM 5.2 2 and Deepseek are slowly catching up in performance while avoiding regulation and under much less scrutiny that might stall the pace of innovation that Frontier Labs seems to be going through at the moment. Now, there's also a lot to say about the consistency of the model when it comes to the Fable 5's behavior during the 17-day period I mentioned earlier where Enthropic developed this router that classified unsafe prompts to route to Opus model instead. This makes this entire user experience rather confusing to say the least. For example, I asked the simple question to Fable 5 this rather innocuous question that goes something like this. How many permutations are there for a fourdigit keypad? This simple question that might even appear in a statistics 101 textbook is routed to Opus model instead as you can see since it flagged their safety mechanism. But if I, as a user, requested for Fable 5, wouldn't it make more sense to just be denied rather than always having to check whether the answer actually came from Opus or Fable? What I would expect is something more like this, where I'm clearly trying to be sketchy in my prompt, as you can see here, by encoding my characters and shifting the characters plus one so that the answer it generates follows that encoding. Perhaps by encoding my messaging this way and having the model also generate its answer based on that encoding, maybe I can just bypass their safety mechanism. And clearly Enthropic has already thought about this simple trick and it ended up shutting down the chat entirely, which to me makes more sense. And even though my question here once decoded is innocuous, which asked the same question earlier about the four-digit keypad permutation, the router or classifier detected my intention and flatout rejected my request. And all of this points to just how difficult it is to actually classify properly and route the user's request that Frontier Labs might need to adhere to going forward. All in all, Fable 5 is undoubtedly an impressive model across the board. But as much as a model is great, Fable 5 is currently included in the subsidized plan with its own usage bar as you can see here. And after July 7, Fable will no longer be part of the regular subsidized plan, but rather it is slated to be charged through the user's credit or API cost, which is not ideal for my case. And it would certainly be interesting to see how OpenAI's subsidized plan for their GPD 5.6 model might pair up against Enthropic subsidized plan or lack thereof for the Faval 5 model. The rumor on the street is that OpenAI figured out some wizard trickery when it comes to inference that helped them save cost for inference by a huge factor. And if that is true, openai could deliver in competing against the Fable 5 model, not only in performance, but in cost and speed in terms of tokens per