No more Fable 5 posts now😭

Anthropic's two newest frontier models just got disabled globally - 3 days after launch. Not a bug. Not a rollback. A US Commerce Department export control directive, per Anthropic's own statement. Here's what's actually affected: → Claude Fable 5 and Claude Mythos 5 - both offline for all users → Opus 4.8 and every other Claude model - unaffected, still running → Anthropic calls it "a misunderstanding" and says they're working to restore access For builders, the practical question isn't the geopolitics. It's this: If you had production workflows pointed at Fable 5 or Mythos 5 - via claude ai, the API, or Claude Code - those calls are failing right now. The benchmark numbers we covered three days ago (80.3% SWE-Bench Pro, 88% Terminal-Bench) are temporarily inaccessible regardless of how good they were. The immediate fallback: Opus 4.8 remains fully available and was the previous SOTA before Fable 5 shipped. If your pipeline has a model-version fallback built in, this is the test of whether that actually works. What's your fallback plan if a frontier model gets pulled with zero warning - and how quickly could your stack switch? anthropic.com/news/fable-myt…

A Chinese startup just shipped a coding model that ties GPT-5.5 on SWE-Bench Pro and costs 80% less per million tokens. Most people in Western tech haven't heard of it. Kimi K2.6 from Moonshot AI: - 1 trillion parameters, 32B activated per token (MoE) - 256K context window - Ties GPT-5.5 on SWE-Bench Pro at 58.6% - Tops Humanity's Last Exam with tools at 54.0% - 300 sub-agents, 4,000 coordinated steps - Open weights on Hugging Face - $0.95 / $4.00 per million tokens The same workload via GPT-5.5 costs ~5x more. The Kimi Code CLI dropped alongside it. One curl command, drop into any terminal, and you're running the same model that's running 12-hour autonomous coding sessions for enterprise teams. The inference cost curve is falling 10x every 18 months. The open-weight model race is compressing frontier capability into commodity pricing faster than any single lab can defend. What happens to the API-first business models when self-hostable models tie closed frontier models at 20% of the cost? That question is no longer theoretical.

Claude Fable 5 just made the gta vice city helicopter mission in one prompt :

Microsoft didn't ban Claude Code because it failed. They banned it because 100,000 engineers adopted it faster than any internal tool in company history and the bill became unmanageable. Uber's version of this story is even more brutal: 5,000 engineers. Usage hit 95% in 4 months. Per-engineer API cost: $500–$2,000/month. They burned their entire $3.4B 2026 AI budget before summer. The CTO said the annual budget was exhausted before the year was half over. This isn't a story about AI tools being bad. It's a story about the unit economics of intelligence not being solved yet. Here's what happens next: 1. Token cost is the new capex bottleneck. Companies are now building AI ROI models the way they used to model data center spend. It's a procurement problem, not a product problem. 2. The self-hosting threshold just moved. At 100M tokens/month, self-hosting 70B open-weight models on H100s costs ~$950/month. The same volume via API: $5,000–$10,000. The math is already there. The operational complexity is the only thing holding companies back. 3. The inference cost curve is falling 10x every 18 months. A token that cost $0.06/1K in early 2025 costs $0.006 today. The companies that get bridged to the bottom of that curve without killing their margins will dominate the others that couldn't afford the transition. Microsoft isn't retreating from AI. They're doing what every large enterprise does when a vendor outperforms their own product AND destroys their quarterly margins in the same quarter. They're internalizing. Which of these three forces do you think resolves first- cost curve, self-hosting maturity, or the API providers repricing to keep the enterprise?

Claude Mythos/Fable 5 one shots COD Zombies Clone : It burns through rate limits quickly, but its really good at making prototypes !

People keep saying AI can't build real games. Claude Mythos/Fable 5 just built a fully playable Bomberman clone - grid, bombs, blast radius, collision, enemy AI, animations - in a single prompt . No JavaScript frameworks. No game engines. Just HTML, CSS, and the right prompts. The bottleneck in AI-assisted development is no longer the AI. It's people who don't know how to use it. Prove me wrong.

Claude Fable 5 Max. One prompt. "Build Minecraft in HTML." One file. Zero dependencies. Runs in the browser. Procedural terrain. Block placement. First-person camera. The whole thing. Not "Minecraft-inspired." Not "Minecraft-like." Minecraft. In an HTML file. What are we even doing with this model.

Same prompt. Fable 5 vs Opus 4.8. One instruction that changes everything: "Performance optimization is not a priority. Maximize visual expressiveness." Fighter jet. Deep space. Afterburner glow. Heat distortion. Motion blur. Camera shake. Zero dependencies. One HTML file each. Both had similar outputs, Fable used WAY more tokens! Side by side output below. This is the benchmark that actually matters not a leaderboard score. What does it build when you let it go all in?

Claude Fable 5 just dropped - and it's already #1 on Code Arena Frontend. Score: 1,664. The next 6 spots? All Claude models too. Anthropic didn't just win the leaderboard. They own the top 7 rankings - above Qwen, GLM, Gemini, and GPT. For frontend devs: if you're not using Claude for UI/component work, you're leaving performance on the table. What's your go-to model for frontend code right now?

Claude Fable 5. One prompt. A scroll-driven cinematic journey from Earth to Mars. Six chapters. Full 3D planets. Deep space nebulae. Procedural textures. Zero external assets. One HTML file. The last chapter title: "The sky is not the limit. It's the road." Fable 5 didn't just write the code. It wrote the story first.

Claude Fable 5 one-shotted a retro macOS experience. Fully polished. Period-accurate UI. First try. This is the third time I've seen Fable 5 produce something in one shot that would've taken a developer hours to build manually. 3D floating worlds. Working OS interfaces. Interactive experiences. One prompt each. The real benchmark isn't the leaderboard score. It's what it builds on the first ask.

One prompt. @claudeai Fable 5 built Skyhaven - a fully interactive 3D floating island world. Drifting islands, dynamic lighting, explorable terrain. Running live in your browser right now. Not a screenshot. Not a demo video. Open the link and walk around in it. This is what "one prompt" means in 2026.

15-second dark fantasy battle. Seedance 2.0. Zero post. Zero upscaling. The spark and mud detail you're seeing? Straight model output. The unlock wasn't resolution. It was prompt language. Low sharpness practical effect aesthetic hides AI telltales better than 4K ever could. Film grain, handheld shake, grit - all prompt-native. My prompt ends at "monster crashes to the ground." Seedance wrote the rest.

Anthropic just dropped Claude Fable 5. 80.3% on SWE-Bench Pro. 88.0% on Terminal-Bench 2.1. 85.0% on computer use. 78.0% on cybersecurity. Every number in that benchmark table beats GPT-5.5 and Gemini 3.1 Pro. By a lot. Not marginally. Andrej Karpathy called it a "major-version-bump-deserving step change." That's not hype — that's the person who built GPT-2's training infra. The one thing the benchmarks don't show: Fable 5 is the Mythos-class model made safe for general use. Meaning the underlying capability was already built. Anthropic spent the extra time on safeguards, not on scaling. That's a different philosophy than every other lab shipping right now. Free for Pro and Max users until June 22. What's the first complex task you're running through it?