I don't understand how the K3 numbers keep coming out cheap for people. I recently started to add it to my security auditing benchmarks and found it was going to cost about twice as much as Opus 4.8. It blew through the $100 budget I'd set at like 11%. In the tasks I'm doing it seems crazy expensive because it chews so much, burning a tremendous amount of tokens.

Testing at max effort likely doesn't produce optimal results.

[flagged]

If fable costs more to run than the markup they still come out ahead.

Ask your doctor if Opus 5 is right for you. Side effects include occasional hallucination, security breaches and unwanted React apps. Some developers have reported receiving entire apps from untrained executives who may or may not know what they’re doing.

Stop using Opus immediately if you experience signs of dizziness or vomiting.

Opus 5…the people’s favorite.

Your numbers are for “max”. Opus 5.0 “max” is $2.03. Opus 5.0 “high” (competitive with Claude 4.8 “max” on that index) is $1.06, less than the $1.80 you are quoting for 4.8 max.

That the most expensive variant is expensive doesn’t really tell us much.

So, announcing the fallback is better than doing it silently, but the fact that Fable falls back frequently for the kind of work I do (a lot of security oriented stuff lately, but it falls back on seemingly random stuff, sometimes, too), means I reach for it less. Getting interrupted mid-task makes it much less valuable. If I have any suspicion I'm going to hit the guardrails, I'll use something else.

Is some random guy on Twitter right, or official support docs that explicitly describe this scenario?

My understanding is that you get $20 in api credits each month and a one time $100 until mid September. So you can still use the model with a subscription but you aren't getting any kind of discount.

I burned through $45 in 3 prompts to fix some bugs in my code (Some kind of tricky to isolate). That thing burns through cash so fast I don't see myself using it outside of maybe building execution plans for other systems

I think I saw that Max and Enterprise keep access, but Pro has to use credits, but I think I got $85 in credits.

Max is an individual subscription though and does not come with the guarantees that team or enterprise do?

It could just be the memory features.

In my enterprise-seated account I see slightly different options available (vs. my personal account) in the Capabilities section:

  Search and reference chats
  Allow Claude to search for relevant details in past chats.

  Generate memory from chat history (Legacy)
  Allow Claude to remember relevant context from your chats. Memory includes your entire chat history with Claude.

I'm talking about the website. It's not local because I can see my chats in any device

What do you mean designs like this? This is 2016-cyberpunk-neon-era inspired by video game interfaces, these are not uncommon at all. Google something like "discord cyberpunk theme" or "cyberpunk rice site:reddit.com/r/unixporn" and you'll find endless examples. This isn't suprising at all obviously.

I feel that AI has deeply diminished my ability to be weird and awesome, because my weird and awesome takes time and the results I can share with others are outshined by the machine.

Designs are here if you want to play with em: https://diffui.ai/app/canvas/68c5bb3d-467e-4841-b49d-c008e72...

This was just from a prompt "A cyberpunk themed ramen food cart website. Should feature menu, locations, and an ability to put in an order for pickup. Simple and clean website with angular cyberpunk microglyphs, pink/teal colors."

This comment resonated with me so much, and it seems to be a minority view (at least on this website).

I have found myself empowered by AI to tackle all sorts of things that would have too high of a barrier to entry for me to want to spend my limited time on as a busy father who is also working at a small startup.

And when I say that, I do NOT mean that I can crank out a bunch of slop and label it as something I produced even though I don't understand the code. I mean that I can do things like go back to college math that I never appreciated at the time and honestly felt too scared of. I mean having an on-demand math tutor that ask clarifying questions to as I struggle through the problem sets.

I have found that it actually accelerates learning how to code in various problem domains because I can tell it to answer my questions at a conceptual level and be a sounding board, but to never actually write code for me. It can review the code I write and gently nudge me without giving away the answers, so that I still struggle through the learning process and actually gain the knowledge.

And finally, for the first time in like 10 years of feeling overwhelmed and daunted by the prospect of learning game development (I have no background in that), I have found Codex to be an incredible boon for learning with the Godot engine. It helps me understand the terminology so that I know what to search for and what documentation to read. It helps me map my computer science knowledge from other domains into the game world, and to understand why things are structured the way they are. And because Godot saves all of the scenes and geometry and lighting and shaders to the file system as text files, Codex can inspect the results of the work I'm doing in the IDE and help me track down things I'm stuck on, and explain what the issue is. For example, why my pre-baked global illumination lightmap is breaking my ambient lighting configuration.

I know it has never been easier to cheat and skip the hard work that results in actually learning something, but for me, personally, I cannot believe the incredible value that $20 a month has provided me. I have never been more excited and eager to dive into tackling hard things I had previously been afraid of or simply too overwhelmed to attempt.

It has never been easier to quickly prototype and get a feel for some idea you have in your head to see if it even has legs. Simply seeing a quick prototype of an idea is often all of the excitement and fuel I need to then take it and make it a real project.

I think what the parent is saying is that the model itself has the best context for whether a portion of a request should be routed. The specifics of that routing (e.g., should you route to KimiK2) are something that can be trained, finetuned, or even included in a model's startup context.

Has anyone tried that? I have a feeling that if I put it a prompt Claude would comply. But I am all in on the Claude cool aid.

Why should it? An Anthropic model is architecturally optimized for Anthropic models, routing it to Kimi makes zero sense

[dead]

on top of that there is also additional factor: speed - sometimes if task is easy you do care to finish it faster.

There is also matter about convenience - when I ask some small easy question often I don't bother to switch the model or forget in prompt to ask faster/cheaper subagent.

But in other many cases you have to redo the work directly or indirectly, and you are more expensive (for now) than even the most expensive models, so sounds like a total lose.

Fable 5 is included in the Claude Max subscription. I've gotten close to the limits this week and last but haven't hit it yet.

> At half the price and less likely to auto-downgrade, it sounds like a reasonable claim

Two benchmarks (artificial analysis and vals) show a increase in cost (a insane increase for vals compared to Opus 4.8).

Already posted this before, so here is the link.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49041158

given that i couldn't even use fable without it downgrading to Opus, this is just a straight upgrade for me

> Almost as good for half the cost is something I'm very comfortable describing that way.

It's also not unusual in this context - many people describe the Chinese models as "best", because it's 80% as good for 20% of the price (or similar).

Best marketing

GPT 5.6 is far more token efficient at most tasks with similar performance. Especially so for Opus 4.8, still to be seen with Opus 5.

Where are you getting cheaper per dollar?

It would still be the best model per dollar if the score was 2% lower instead of 0.1% lower. Would it be ok to still give it the highlight color then?

How big of a lie is too big? Especially when no lie needed to be told at all: many including myself would have noticed the tiny 0.1% deficit and been suitably impressed by the Opus 5 result.

I’ll admit this is a small deception by today’s standards. I’m one of those who believes in truth for truth’s sake.

Edit: typo

Fable subagents communicate very effectively with one another, so this would be a reasonable take imo

That seems like entirely reasonable variance to me for AI models. For my purposes, that absolutely counts as a solid "replication". I'd probably accept +/- 5 percentage points even.

There is randomness in LLMs. Both papers authors probably ran the bench 1-N times. Depending on that, they might select an average, max, least, etc. They might also have discarded outliers.

Like the other person said 5% variation is probably expected

I don't know who downvoted the parent or why, but it's a fair question IMHO.

The answer is there can be dramatic difference running a benchmark one time, because LLMs are not deterministic. A proper methodology would ask each question 20 times and calculate the mean correctness across experiments.

The reason is that the temperature parameter introduces random behavior.

But still nerfed compared to the initial release.