Do you remember the movie Limitless?

The guy takes a drug that enhances his brain and writes a book. Then the drug is over, it feels like it was a dream but left something behind.

That's Fable for me right now!

I lost the first time, it was better I hear, and I lost a day or two because I was afk BUT I started working with it not even for 24 hours and the amount of work done it's ridiculous.

Like done, working, ready!

Stuff that was taking me a long time... Long time is hours, a day or two, not weeks, but Fable did in minutes... Or an hour and some.

How does it feel to you?

For code Claude has generally been great, but on general project discussion it is hopeless.

Fable performed below it's own expectations, blamed me, then admitted that blame was a lie...

After a long inter change I noticed an earlier oversight - out of curiosity I asked why fable hadn't picked it up (no accusation, just a note for reference)... Fable then says my user preferences stopped it considering alternatives otherwise it would have, I asked 'what user preferences' it mentions some stuff I have said in the past, but then said it had only just looked that up and it wasn't in effect at the time of the oversight, so was not the reason.

This is not the real fable. This is a lobotomised (opus 4.8ed) version of the original fable.

I know it can happen with some Chinese models in the middle of an English reply…but Fable 5?! What the f? Ahah

I wish I could include a screenshot but everything is very sensitive in that chat

I'm so disappointed with Fable 5. In my (personal, anecdotal) testing between Fable 5 and Opus, Fable 5 is basically the same exact model as Opus with a slightly improved system prompt or maybe a few more parameters. Fable 5 is just a little better at asking a few pointed questions upfront before starting the work, which is negated by good prompt writing/engineering.

Just now, I asked Fable to research fly fishing flies in regards to fishing flies (lures) in my area and got pushed back to Opus. I guess, because insects are biology? I tried to edit my prompt with the button in the popup message which tells me I was switched back to Opus, and it wouldn't even let me save the prompt unless I deleted the entire thing.

That's one example, but I have recently "tested" both models across chat, code, and cowork. In brand new chats, Fable still forgets things from the prompt or doesn't read the whole prompt. Fable still asks me questions about things I have specified in the prompt. Fable still fails to use relevant connectors/tools and skills. Fable still doesn't read a whole file I provide to it and only pulls out small snippets.

Lastly, the copyright restrictions drive me nuts. None of Anthropic's models, in my experience, can be trusted to synthesize or summarize the information in a source and particularly for longer ones. Due to this, I require claude to quote and cite all facts and claims it makes. But quotes are restricted to a one, single quote using handful of words PER SOURCE, even if said source is hundreds of pages long. This basically forces context loss (in terms of sources, not the model context) when using the Research tool or using subagents. I guess I haven't verified it, which I should, but Opus 4.8 says it cannot see the context of the research subagents or any subagents. It can only see the output from the subagent. So claude is relying on information that is unverifiable without going through and having the main agent read every source into it's own context, or me doing so manually. This completely negates using Research or subagents for any research usage.

I will admit I have not yet tested it for any EXTREME coding tasks like trying to oneshot an app, but I imagine some of the newly released open-source models will do as well or better than Fable 5. So I'm really wondering if paying $100/month (for 5x Max) is worth the faster speed vs the usage limits + the harness limits. So far, I've used an entire or nearly an entire session using Fable 5 in one (great) prompt several times. Not to be a downer (Mods, I can remove this if needed), but I am only really continuing to pay for my subscription in the hopes that I get my money back from Anthropic's pending lawsuit(s?) regarding usage limits. Also because it's a PITA to switch away.

Has anyone tested any of the more recently released open-weight models like Deepseek V4 Pro Max, GLM-5 or 5.2, MiniMax M3, NemoTron 3 Ultra, or etc. and their variations? If so, how do they compare to Opus 4.8 and/or Fable 5?

With Fable 5 no longer being included in the Claude subscription, I'm wondering if it makes more sense to switch once GPT-5.6 launches.

Is anyone else thinking the same, or are you planning to stick with Claude and use the API for Fable 5 instead?

Curious to hear what everyone is planning and why.

Just like limit resets, I really hope they extend the access period for a few more days. Really having fun with fable, but also sad to see it go so soon. Or is it just me?

It's very annoying to watch Claude do all the work then you essentially get a pay wall.. I love Claude but that needs to go.

I would elaborate on the game theory and marketing mechanics but I don't want to rant.

The board should know better.

Edit 1- Oh; pro tip: Joplin web clipper is good for catching the page before Claude makes the on-screen reasoning disappear at the same time as the aforementioned.

Edit 2- and also the reasoning on screen is (download files as Claude makes them while reasoning by clicking on the icon you can open it in artifacts before it disappears) great for giving to a local model while you're waiting.

Edit 3- this can actually be a feature as Claude will tease you with a whole answer even if you have low credits before it blocks it so you can go on Fable with nearly empty credits and yank all the reasoning which is arguably better than the answer you.. don't get.

This is a reproducible UX failure: the system generates accessible value, then revokes it after the user has already watched it being produced. The workaround only exists because the product creates that liminal state.

This doesn't go against T&C I've checked. It's just a poweruser move.

Anthropic really and truly.. should respect that.

Final edit: It doesn't do anything to the website whatsoever it only does something to your computer to access stuff in your browser that Claude has already sent to you through the internet.. on purpose.

I’m getting a bit fed up with the constant “Fable 5 doesn’t work” or “Fable 5 is shit” posts.

It works perfectly fine for me. So does Opus 4.8, the problem is not the model, it’s vague prompts, missing context, unclear requirements, and no proper acceptance criteria.

This is the prompt template I made and use. It has worked great for me across coding, Unreal Engine, debugging, and larger project tasks.

Sharing it here in case anyone wants to try it, and always check what Claude did because it doesn't always align with what you want, I do it this way cause sometimes he jumps the MD file instructions, you can always use a hook as well, inside .claude/settings.json

{
  "hooks": {
    "PostToolUse": [
      {
        "matcher": "Edit|Write",
        "hooks": [
          {
            "type": "command",
            "command": "jq -r '.tool_input.file_path' | xargs npx prettier --write"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}

Your job is to complete the specific task below exactly as requested.

Do not redesign the whole project, change the overall direction, or replace my decisions with what you personally think would be better.

Task

[DESCRIBE EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT DONE]

Intended result

When finished, it should:

• [EXPECTED RESULT 1]
• [EXPECTED RESULT 2]
• [EXPECTED RESULT 3]

The main goal is:

[EXPLAIN WHAT THE FINAL RESULT SHOULD LOOK LIKE, FEEL LIKE, OR DO]

Current situation

This is what currently exists:

[DESCRIBE THE CURRENT STATE]

This is already working and must not be broken:

• [WORKING FEATURE 1]
• [WORKING FEATURE 2]
• [WORKING FEATURE 3]

Relevant files, folders, assets, screenshots, references, or documentation:

• [FILE OR FOLDER]
• [REFERENCE]
• [DOCUMENTATION]
• [SCREENSHOT OR EXAMPLE]

Exact instructions

Follow these instructions:

1. [INSTRUCTION 1]
2. [INSTRUCTION 2]
3. [INSTRUCTION 3]
4. [INSTRUCTION 4]

Important details:

• [DETAIL THAT MUST NOT BE MISSED]
• [DETAIL THAT MUST NOT BE MISSED]
• [DETAIL THAT MUST NOT BE MISSED]

What not to do

Do not:

• Change unrelated systems.
• Rewrite working code without a clear need.
• replace my requested design with a different one.
• Add features I did not request.
• Remove existing functionality.
• Use placeholder implementations when the real implementation is possible.
• Claim something works without testing it.
• Stop after only describing what needs to be done.

How to approach the task

First, inspect the existing implementation and understand how the relevant part currently works.

Use the project’s existing structure, patterns, assets, and tools where possible.

Before changing something, confirm that it is connected to the task.

When the instructions are clear, proceed without repeatedly asking for permission.

If a small detail is unclear, inspect the project and use the interpretation that best matches the existing implementation, references, and intended result.

Only stop to ask me when missing information would create two significantly different results and the project provides no evidence for either option.

Reference priority

When deciding how the result should work or look, use this order:

1. My written instructions.
2. The references, screenshots, or examples I provided.
3. The existing project style and behaviour.
4. Official documentation for the exact version in use.
5. Your own judgement only when none of the above answers the question.

Do not ignore a direct instruction because another approach is more conventional.

Verification

The task is not complete until you have checked the actual result.

Where applicable:

• Build or compile the project.
• Run the relevant tests.
• Launch the project or application.
• Test the feature directly.
• Check for errors and warnings.
• Confirm existing related behaviour still works.
• Compare the result against every requirement in this prompt.
• Test the most likely failure cases.
• Repeat the setup or generation process when duplicate protection or repeatability matters.

Do not treat a successful build as proof that the feature works correctly.

Do not report something as completed if it was only implemented but not tested.

Completion conditions

The task is complete only when:

• Every requested change is implemented.
• The final result matches the intended outcome.
• Unrelated behaviour has not been changed.
• The relevant build, test, editor, or runtime checks pass.
• No temporary workaround or placeholder remains.
• Every requirement has been reviewed one final time.

Progress messages

Keep progress updates brief.

Tell me:

• What you inspected.
• What you found.
• What you changed.
• What you tested.
• Whether the test passed or failed.

Do not fill progress updates with generic explanations or repeated plans.

Final response

Start with whether the task was completed successfully.

Then include:

• What you changed.
• Which files, assets, or settings were affected.
• How you tested it.
• The actual test results.
• Anything that could not be verified.

Be honest about anything that remains incomplete.

Do not end with suggestions for unrelated improvements or ask whether you should continue with work that was already part of this task.

I'm asking about a friend and suddenly it throws in "and thanks for sharing about your marriage" and other non-sequiturs. I've seen it be wrong, but this is like it had a head injury.

It's almost impossible to do any kind of serious work with Fable, I'm at the point that it's flagging every other message. And no, I am not doing any cyber security/chemistry or anything else that should flag it. Most frustrating is that it flags IT'S OWN MESSAGES, and when I tell him to try to notice the guidelines he has no idea what I'm talking about. I'm at the point that it's flagging a "Hello" in a thread I have with him. This is really fucking stupid.

Does anyone know what time (and time zone) Anthropic Claude will disable Fable on the 7th and move it over to API usage only?

Previously (last year) I used Claude for giving me tips to grow Cannabis (legal in Germany since 2024) but now it keeps saying it doesn't care about legality, as it is simply not allowed to give tips for growing, but it could help me with plants in general (Sonnet!).

What the fuck Anthropic?

I cant even get cooking advice without it ARGUING with me. And telling me it wont VALIDATE MY OWN COOKING EXPERIENCE AND METHODS. I dont even ask for validation, i ask a question and it picks things apart to “correct” because it “doesnt fit what sources say.” Then i go look at its sources… and IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT IM ASKING. The sources revolve around “cooking safety,” notably when asking about better cooking methods with cast iron cookware. And instead of giving me cooking methods or advice… it tells me to RUIN my years long seasoning with vinegar because it MIGHT have carbon build up. Then ARGUES about its web sources and treats me like im handling nuclear hazard material.

And thats just a single instance out of many. Ill tell it that a meal, such as a large steak, came out in a specific undesired way and i want to figure out why. It immediately assumes ALL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. And unrelentingly ARGUES about why its correct and why im wrong and that it can’t validate my own experiences because im just wrong.

Unbearable. Unusable. I refuse to pay 20$ for premium for other models that are just as bad or worse, which ive tried. Ive even tried personalized instructions which it sometimes flags as trying to change its chat structure, or disregards as “irrelevant” yet spends the majority of its thought process thinking about my instructions. I refuse to switch to claude api for sonnet 4.5 which was AMAZING, and left such an outstanding impression that ive been putting up with this junk since its removal.

I bet this sub is filled with corporate lurkers waiting to arrogantly invalidate my experience like the lobotomized snobs all of their models are. And i miss sonnet 4.5 and must spell out my frustration thats been building since it left. I think enough people have realized that f-able is just some publicity stunt that is also unusable and mid at best. Deepseek is at least friendlier and doesnt drift towards argumentative structures so frequently

Signed,
The angry F*cking cook