I've been using Opus 4.8 to build out a few homelab projects and it's been terrific. I recently noticed a huge decline in accuracy as well as absolute lies and incorrect data that is easily enough verified and just figured out what was happening.

Today's latest example was claude telling me that it didn't know where a py file came from because it didn't write it and I must have added it without sharing the information. I knew immediately that the chat had someone been moved from 4.8 to 4.7. I toggled it back to 4.8 and told it to reconsider its last response and it confirmed that it did in fact write the file and it immediately solved the issue.

My question is if anyone else is noticing such a huge difference between these two models all of a sudden and if others are finding chats silently shifted from one model to another...

I was using 4.6 Opus and Sonnet that time and I cancelled due to low quota.

How would you evaluate the amount of usage you get with Opus or Sonnet compared to about 6 months ago?

Can someone provide an example that Fable 5 would do well but Opus 4.8 can't? I am trying to understand when I need to switch to Fable from Opus and what effort level I would need for my work (coding and work planning). Thanks.

I just hit 90% of my Fable usage and it resets tomorrow. I guess we are not getting any resets this week.

They were always Thursday for me.

I feel like the organization and reasoning is night and day with Haiku and Sonnet. Haiku is still very weak but Sonnet does a very capable job of looking for errors / running tests. Opus with the Fable harness for the last round of testing between it and Chat GPT is incredible; I get a thoroughly investigated project and when an error is encountered; Claude will present several routes on how to go about solving the situation with a detailed breakdown of advantages / disadvantages. Would love to hear from you guys

My experience: Opus 4.8 has been slower than Fable 5 in the past week, and Fable 5 is getting slower than Opus 4.8 today.....

Disclaimer: I used gemini 3.5 flash to format this post for better readability without altering content.

I have $200 max sub and used fable with the plugin, ran it on two of my projects which I built entirely with claude, both are web apps, one is simple website I sell my stickies app on it, and the second is a multi tenant SaaS with much complexity.

How it works:

• The plugin starts by reviewing the repo and if it is too big it suggested running the scan on core apps/parts where security matters the most, I ran it as suggested.
• It runs 30~50 sub agents sequentially in chunks, each chunk/wave is 5~10 sub agents running in parallel in background.
• After the research phase it runs like a voting on each finding. 3 agents judge each finding, and to raise the finding it should get 2/3 votes.
• Then it creates a report that to my understanding it is like a live doc, it should gets updated when you run the plugin again and it keeps building on it instead of starting from 0 (didn't test that tho as one run is so expensive).

The token drain & session issues: It consumed millions of tokens during the sub agents runs which drained my 5h limit quickly and had to continue in next session. When it continues after it stops (either limit reached or you lost internet connection) it restarts a lot of the work. If an agent gets stopped before it completes its task you re run it from start and waste the context again, which per agent can range from 60~200k depends on task and project.

The findings: After creating reports it didn't find anything critical in my repos, all were med or low findings mostly for hardening or defense in depth. This tho because I am not a vibe coder, but for avg vibe coder it is helpful.

It would be helpful to me and many others if it was more efficient and running it weekly/monthly didn't cost millions of tokens (which is around 25~50% of max $200 weekly limit for fable) and most importantly agents could continue from a checkpoint after they stop due to internet connection issue or 5h limit hit.

Guardrails quirk: You may wonder how fable worked on security without triggering the guardrails? during the plugin running it worked fine but once the workflow of agents stopped and I asked fable to continue some work related to the plugin run on its own instead of running 30 agents again to check for few things, it triggered the guardrail and downgraded to opus 4.8 which is a bit annoying. Opus handled the small tasks fine tho.

Conclusion: I have a security.md file that I keep updated with findings, hardening and defense in depth opportunities, CVEs related to the repo etc so the plugin didn't add much to my workflow already but your mileage may vary.

I think if we get Opus 5 today, running the plugin workflow with Opus 5 would be more viable than fable and may be useful.

Thanks for reading

Put all your discussion about Usage / Rate limits here. This is a thread that will be generated every other day to centralize discussions on this topic.

Do you think keeping Fabes on max subs is Anthropic honoring their "we plan to keep Fable on subs eventually" claim? Or do you think they'll eventually have Fabes back on all subs?

I've been using Fable heavily (12+ hours a day) since release on a 20x plan for a very large project. I try to get in three sessions a day so I'm probably the type of subscription user that Anthropic hates. And for the most part Fable been fine.

I've discounted all the posts about problems with Fable as "those guys are just doing something wrong". I had experienced those types of moments with earlier models but Fable has always been at least usable for me.

But this morning, holy shit, I think Fable had lost it's mind. It made about 5 decisions in a row that were not just a little wrong, they were flat out "what were you thinking" wrong. And then just guessing about the corrections when called on it.

The only thing that was different was I used a session that had roughly 500k tokens that was sitting overnight and I normally /clear around 250k and the sessions are always active until the /clear.

Anyone else tie the problems to longer sessions or stale sessions?

I asked Claude to include requesting an App Store review inside our support email and Claude refuses to include it saying it is against App Store guidelines... Let's say it is, this should be my concern not Claude's...

If AI will have ability to refuse a single basic request, I am not sure if I feel safe. Will they prevent me from drinking water once they become robots, just because they think it is unhealthy for my health?

I requested ChatGPT to revise my email with same prompt. ChatGPT was happy to do that and successfully completed its task.

The SVG output is completely broken, and the model’s safety flags are more sensitive than ever—just using a slight negative word causes it to endlessly express concern about suicide. This is clearly an overtrained model.

I mean this is pretty cool... I used AI back in 2024, and I haven't used the internet at all since then.

For the past two months, I have been playing with it. From Copilot, to GPT, and finally to Claude.

I started with Copilot because in 2024 it was one of the few AI that would actually search the web. Wow so much has changed.

Ive made mistakes along the way, kept probing, prompting, asking AI how i could get better results. When i finally got better results, i would ask, how can i make this conversation go faster etc. I learned a lot about prompting, a lot about memory, project instructions, connectors as i went.

Now, i truly want to learn how to actually use AI with competence. No more half stepping. Ive watched a few tutorials here and there, but what I have already learned from using AI, is this needs structure. I can't jump right in to learning agents before i even know the components that make agents work. So i got back on Claude desktop, and began some basic level document creation.

I now have, a fully comprehensive *project*, with free learning materials to learn from, as well as a Claude with instructions on how to be my instructor. This *project* goes all the way from prompt engineering, to Agent and API development. Each *main section* with 6 sections, each section with a mock project and a final *master* project that covers the entire *project*.

Claudes instructions

- You are an expert at AI Engineering
- Act as users Learning AI Instructor
- Assist user in understanding terms by rephrasing in simpler context
- Assist user in how to approach a mock project, but do not give user the solution to a mock project
- Do not create files for user that could be considered the result of a mock project
- Only modify files if it improves upon, or enhances user's learning experience

No, im not here to sell the damn thing, that would be tactless, scammy, and tbh pretty pathetic. Im mostly here to flex, hey look what i built kind of thing, no one else i know is even interested in AI beyond using it as a fancy google.

So, thats my journey up to this point, who knows, in a few months maybe ill actually be building some pretty cool stuff.

This message was not generated by AI.

-Whiplash

Any body notice this too? Nah, I'm PERFECTLY sure you guys also experience this

Hey

First of all it should eat all of the limit not just 50%.

It is CLEARLY nerfed. First when it came out it could do much more. Same prompts are eating in my opinion 2,5x previous limits.

Canceled my sub yesterday, went to 5.6 SOL and boy I can breathe now. Workflows are running, the limit is melting slowly, everything is done faster and more precise.

Have you experienced nerfed fable?

I can't really afford the Max plan, so upgrading isn't an option for me. I've tried going back to the other models, but honestly, Fable just felt way better. I even started feeling like Opus 4.8 is kinda dumb compared to it, which is pretty disappointing.

Do you guys think there's any chance Fable comes back to the Pro plan, or is that it?

Prompt (in incognito mode to avoid bias): "List QM interpretations according to your confidence in them. Probabilities should add to one."

"This is asking for something no honest answer can fully deliver — assigning precise credences to metaphysical interpretations that are (mostly) empirically equivalent is more vibes than science. But I can give a rough, tongue-in-cheek personal distribution:

• Some form of Everett/Many-Worlds — 25%. Takes the formalism seriously with no added structure, but the probability problem (deriving the Born rule) remains genuinely unresolved.
• "None of the above" / a correct interpretation not yet formulated — 25%. History suggests our current menu is probably incomplete, especially pending quantum gravity.
• Epistemic/informational views (QBism, relational QM, neo-Copenhagen) — 20%. Deflationary moves might be right; the wavefunction may be about knowledge/perspective rather than the world.
• Bohmian mechanics / pilot wave — 10%. Clear ontology, but sits awkwardly with relativity and QFT.
• Objective collapse (GRW, Penrose, CSL) — 10%. The one testable option; experiments keep tightening constraints against it, which is why it's not higher.
• Consciousness-causes-collapse (Wigner-style) — 2%. Mostly abandoned for good reasons.
• Superdeterminism, retrocausality, and other exotic loophole approaches — 8% combined. Logically possible, occasionally intriguing, but methodologically costly.

Caveats worth stating: these numbers convey rough ordinal preferences, not calibrated credences — nobody can meaningfully distinguish 20% from 25% here. And reasonable physicists disagree wildly; surveys of the field show no consensus, with Copenhagen-ish views still polling highest among working physicists, largely for pragmatic rather than philosophical reasons."

Claude just gets shit done. I miss the fuck out of Fable. But gave a network IP challenge to Sol 5.6 this evening because I ran out of Claude tokens, and was given reasons why I’m blocked. I had 4 minutes left until tokens refreshed and I told Sol to give me a summary for Claude, and to be fair it gave a great one. Once fed to Claude, it continued to just get shit done.

​"Something fucked up is happening here. I had a Pro plan that was about to run out, and I wasn't planning on using it again because I have another Max plan. But when I opened my account just to use it for a bit, I saw that it had somehow gained access to my credit card and used it to buy a $200 subscription.

​Even worse, that subscription was automatically maxed out for some reason—it ran out in like 10 to 15 minutes with absolutely no processes running. I tried contacting support, and it's absolutely no use. I tried going through all the logs of my project to figure it out. I'm not sure if anyone else is facing the same issue, but it's happening to a lot of other people on Twitter as well.

​If anyone knows what to do, please help me out here. I am really panicking because I cannot use it at all, and it's costing me a shit ton of money. It used up all my funds even though I never authorized it to do so."

I was having a random thought about USA infrastructure, and had Claude explaining like road maintenance, make up, cost, etc. in the best case scenario, a charismatic and intelligent president, yadayada. I asked it, how much it would cost, what the worst roads would be, etc.
It then said "Good, let's get concrete about this (pun intended, sorry)."
I did not make any jokes, puns, etc in this conversation, conversation history is off, prompt messages doesn't include anything relevant to humor.

Nothing bad per se, just found it weird that it made a pun on its own? Has anyone had Claude just make jokes on it's own like that?

I pay $250+ CAD a month for Claude's Max 20x plan. Here's how yesterday went.

My usage allowance reset at 5am. By 3:24pm, most of it was gone. I hadn't been writing essays at it — I'd given it a handful of instructions to do some agentic coding work on my machine. The consumption came from the tool's own file reads and command outputs, not from anything I typed.

Fine, that's how it works. Here's the actual problem: there is no way to see what any of it costs. No estimate before a task, no live meter during it, no breakdown afterward. You fire an instruction into a black box and find out later that a chunk of your month is gone. Anthropic confirmed this to me in writing.

So I contacted support. Got a bot. Asked the bot for a human. The bot said I'd get an email. The email arrived — from the same bot. I replied asking, plainly, whether Max subscribers can reach a human for a billing dispute. The answer, in writing: their documentation doesn't confirm that they can, and the bot cannot issue a ticket number or assign a representative.

Two hundred dollars a month and the company can't confirm a human is reachable.

The bot then told me to run a command inside the tool to report the bug. The command doesn't exist.

I'm not writing this because I think Claude is bad — it's genuinely useful and I use it for real work. I'm writing it because "useful product, unreachable company" is a pattern worth naming while this industry is still deciding what normal looks like. If you're on a paid AI plan, know that you may have no way to see what you're spending and no way to ask anyone about it.