Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Fable with low reasoning is roughly comparable to GPT-5.5 medium on the 20 puzzles they both solved. Fable scored higher in 14 of those, and I think Warming Tonic illustrates how different quality alchemical machines look. Solve rate isn't everything, quality is important!

Rob Haisfield

9,695 subscribers

41,084 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Fable 5 vs GPT 5.5 tested both on High settings with the same prompt > Fable one shotted everything in 15 minutes and used 3% of weekly limits > GPT 5.5 took 20 minutes and used 3% of weekly limits 5.5 is not looking good here at all which one do you think won?

Fable 5 vs GPT 5.5 tested both on High settings with the same prompt > Fable one shotted everything in 15 minutes and used 3% of weekly limits > GPT 5.5 took 20 minutes and used 3% of weekly limits 5.5 is not looking good here at all which one do you think won?

J A Z I I

107,777 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Kimi K3 Standard’s first shot at my indie spaceship game! Without a shadow of a doubt, this is better than GPT-5.5’s first pass. It’s crazy that we already have an open-source model in the GPT-5.5 to GPT-5.6 class. The estimated API cost for this was just $2.50 worth of tokens. Fable 5: $22 GPT-5.5: $14 I will say that Fable 5 made the game look more visually impressive, but the gap is not that large. I think I could easily get Kimi to match its visual quality within a few iterations. What surprised me most was that Kimi’s version felt much more cohesive and coherent, with fewer bugs than GPT-5.5’s.

Kimi K3 Standard’s first shot at my indie spaceship game! Without a shadow of a doubt, this is better than GPT-5.5’s first pass. It’s crazy that we already have an open-source model in the GPT-5.5 to GPT-5.6 class. The estimated API cost for this was just $2.50 worth of tokens. Fable 5: $22 GPT-5.5: $14 I will say that Fable 5 made the game look more visually impressive, but the gap is not that large. I think I could easily get Kimi to match its visual quality within a few iterations. What surprised me most was that Kimi’s version felt much more cohesive and coherent, with fewer bugs than GPT-5.5’s.

Chris

47,926 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Opus 4.8 for planning 🤝 GPT 5.5 for implementation Claude is a nicer conversation and /grilling partner than Codex in my experience, but GPT 5.5 on low cranks out higher quality code in fewer tokens. Here's how I divide up the work:

Opus 4.8 for planning 🤝 GPT 5.5 for implementation Claude is a nicer conversation and /grilling partner than Codex in my experience, but GPT 5.5 on low cranks out higher quality code in fewer tokens. Here's how I divide up the work:

Ben Holmes

23,115 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

this is f**king insane Fable 5 goes away in 24 hours from Claude Code and someone just figured out how to get fable 5 reasoning in GPT 5.6 Sol with one prompt you have less than 24 hours to set this up as this takes away 20% of your usage limit here is how: 1) Paste the prompt and ask it to "make an operating manual" 2) Go the Codex App > Settings > Personalisation > Custom Instructions 3) Use GPT 5.5 / GPT 5.6 and now you have Fable 5 reasoning at 1/3 th the price save and bookmark it no matter what

this is f**king insane Fable 5 goes away in 24 hours from Claude Code and someone just figured out how to get fable 5 reasoning in GPT 5.6 Sol with one prompt you have less than 24 hours to set this up as this takes away 20% of your usage limit here is how: 1) Paste the prompt and ask it to "make an operating manual" 2) Go the Codex App > Settings > Personalisation > Custom Instructions 3) Use GPT 5.5 / GPT 5.6 and now you have Fable 5 reasoning at 1/3 th the price save and bookmark it no matter what

Avid

58,090 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

GPT-5.6 vs GPT-5.5 on my custom spaceship prompt. I gave both models the exact same custom prompt. This is also the same prompt I previously gave to Fable 5. For context, GPT-5.6 Pro worked for 87 minutes, while GPT-5.5 Extra High worked for 34 minutes and 42 seconds. As I’ve said before, based on great authority GPT-5.6 will be an incremental/soldi improvement over GPT-5.5, not a “Fable killer.” My rough expectation has been that it would trade blows with Fable 5 on some benchmarks, maybe win around half depending on the category, but not clearly surpass it overall. And again fable five will have bigger model smell, but this was expected. After testing this coding output, that view feels pretty accurate. GPT-5.6 is clearly better than GPT-5.5 in several visual areas. The lighting, shading, chairs, object details, and exterior of the spaceship looked noticeably stronger. The scene was also easier to test. I do want to give GPT-5.5 credit though. It built out the rooms much much better and the planets looked better than GPT-5.6’s. It was also interesting that both GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6 produced better-looking planets than Fable 5 in this specific test. The downside with GPT-5.5 was stability. The game was much glitchier and harder to test compared to GPT-5.6. But when it comes to the core of the demo, which is the spaceship itself, Fable 5 still beat both models pretty comfortably. GPT-5.6 is impressive, but from this test, it looks exactly like what I expected which was a meaningful incremental improvement over GPT-5.5, at least for indie game demos, but not something that replaces Fable 5. In collaboration with Chetaslua

GPT-5.6 vs GPT-5.5 on my custom spaceship prompt. I gave both models the exact same custom prompt. This is also the same prompt I previously gave to Fable 5. For context, GPT-5.6 Pro worked for 87 minutes, while GPT-5.5 Extra High worked for 34 minutes and 42 seconds. As I’ve said before, based on great authority GPT-5.6 will be an incremental/soldi improvement over GPT-5.5, not a “Fable killer.” My rough expectation has been that it would trade blows with Fable 5 on some benchmarks, maybe win around half depending on the category, but not clearly surpass it overall. And again fable five will have bigger model smell, but this was expected. After testing this coding output, that view feels pretty accurate. GPT-5.6 is clearly better than GPT-5.5 in several visual areas. The lighting, shading, chairs, object details, and exterior of the spaceship looked noticeably stronger. The scene was also easier to test. I do want to give GPT-5.5 credit though. It built out the rooms much much better and the planets looked better than GPT-5.6’s. It was also interesting that both GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6 produced better-looking planets than Fable 5 in this specific test. The downside with GPT-5.5 was stability. The game was much glitchier and harder to test compared to GPT-5.6. But when it comes to the core of the demo, which is the spaceship itself, Fable 5 still beat both models pretty comfortably. GPT-5.6 is impressive, but from this test, it looks exactly like what I expected which was a meaningful incremental improvement over GPT-5.5, at least for indie game demos, but not something that replaces Fable 5. In collaboration with Chetaslua

Chris

250,919 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

anthropic is testing haiku 5.5 too been using fable 5.5 for the last few days but noticed something weird some outputs from fable 5.1 that knows tibo the reset guy were way worse than sonnet 5.5 but why would it give worse outputs? so i can only think of one thing that team is routing some prompts to haiku 5.5 through fable 5.1 too and testing it that way which makes me think we might see haiku 5.5 in next week or two here's one weird output i got just look at how different these outputs are even tho both were run on fable 5.1 xhigh that knows tibo the reset guy

anthropic is testing haiku 5.5 too been using fable 5.5 for the last few days but noticed something weird some outputs from fable 5.1 that knows tibo the reset guy were way worse than sonnet 5.5 but why would it give worse outputs? so i can only think of one thing that team is routing some prompts to haiku 5.5 through fable 5.1 too and testing it that way which makes me think we might see haiku 5.5 in next week or two here's one weird output i got just look at how different these outputs are even tho both were run on fable 5.1 xhigh that knows tibo the reset guy

J A Z I I

42,545 Aufrufe • vor 10 Tagen

Kimi K3 just 3 shotted a whole walkable voxel town with drivable cars — Voxelville, around $3.24 in API usage. The same token cost would be $10.80 with Fable 5 and $6 with GPT 5.6 Sol. Fable 5 built its own Maplewood, GPT 5.6 Sol built Willowwick, but on price/quality Kimi K3 just cooked both of them. The era of free indie game development is closer than you think!

Kimi K3 just 3 shotted a whole walkable voxel town with drivable cars — Voxelville, around $3.24 in API usage. The same token cost would be $10.80 with Fable 5 and $6 with GPT 5.6 Sol. Fable 5 built its own Maplewood, GPT 5.6 Sol built Willowwick, but on price/quality Kimi K3 just cooked both of them. The era of free indie game development is closer than you think!

Kirill

65,087 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Kimi K3 absolutely mogs every open source model this is on par , head on head all case i tried in coding with fable , i feel weird to write , but sometimes it output better quality than fable too I don't know how to comprehend this , i have lots of test and comparison 😼

Kimi K3 absolutely mogs every open source model this is on par , head on head all case i tried in coding with fable , i feel weird to write , but sometimes it output better quality than fable too I don't know how to comprehend this , i have lots of test and comparison 😼

Chetaslua

131,304 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

🚨 Fable 5.5 XHigh vs GPT 6.1 Sol Ultra Fable 5.5 now seems to be routing through both the web app and Claude Code for most of us, On my Claude Pro x5 plan, this test used around 7% of my weekly limit without any agents, Running the same kind of test on Codex x20 used only about 1% of my weekly limit Quality wise, both were really strong. In terms of speed, they were also pretty close, with both taking roughly 30 minutes to finish, I’m running a lot more tests in parallel right now to see whether there’s actually a meaningful difference between them once you push both models harder

🚨 Fable 5.5 XHigh vs GPT 6.1 Sol Ultra Fable 5.5 now seems to be routing through both the web app and Claude Code for most of us, On my Claude Pro x5 plan, this test used around 7% of my weekly limit without any agents, Running the same kind of test on Codex x20 used only about 1% of my weekly limit Quality wise, both were really strong. In terms of speed, they were also pretty close, with both taking roughly 30 minutes to finish, I’m running a lot more tests in parallel right now to see whether there’s actually a meaningful difference between them once you push both models harder

Iam_

69,616 Aufrufe • vor 12 Tagen

🤯KIMI K3 ABSOLUTELY MOGS! BEATING Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5, and even Fable 5 in multiple benchmarks. They scored 1688 on GDPval-AA v2 🔥 This is a completely different breed of open-source models Kimi creates better games and front-end designs than Fable 5, but it's 8x cheaper! The results coming out are truly impressive! I will be testing this out further and posting multiple tests today. Stay tuned!

🤯KIMI K3 ABSOLUTELY MOGS! BEATING Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5, and even Fable 5 in multiple benchmarks. They scored 1688 on GDPval-AA v2 🔥 This is a completely different breed of open-source models Kimi creates better games and front-end designs than Fable 5, but it's 8x cheaper! The results coming out are truly impressive! I will be testing this out further and posting multiple tests today. Stay tuned!

Mark Santos

128,202 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Fable 5.1 is an absolute beast for game dev. I took my Opus 5 space game and told Fable to "just make it look better". It overhauled everything with a TON of detail, AND made it 2x faster 🤯 Code: Demo: Every pixel you see is made by AI. Fable modeled everything in Blender, generated textures with code, and in a few cases ran image models via CLI. In mere months we'll be vibe-coding AAA graphics at this rate. Just insane. Of course, Fable recorded and edited this comparison video too (with a little help from Opus at the end, because of the Fable outage)

Fable 5.1 is an absolute beast for game dev. I took my Opus 5 space game and told Fable to "just make it look better". It overhauled everything with a TON of detail, AND made it 2x faster 🤯 Code: Demo: Every pixel you see is made by AI. Fable modeled everything in Blender, generated textures with code, and in a few cases ran image models via CLI. In mere months we'll be vibe-coding AAA graphics at this rate. Just insane. Of course, Fable recorded and edited this comparison video too (with a little help from Opus at the end, because of the Fable outage)

Anshu

54,586 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Opus 5.2 cooked with this one!! Just look how amazing that looks! it took 51 minutes to make. -higher quality visuals -on par with astra and fable. -most visuals correct on the first run. Best one yet. can't wait for this to be saturated in 2 months.

Opus 5.2 cooked with this one!! Just look how amazing that looks! it took 51 minutes to make. -higher quality visuals -on par with astra and fable. -most visuals correct on the first run. Best one yet. can't wait for this to be saturated in 2 months.

Conor Dart

26,503 Aufrufe • vor 29 Tagen

Grok 4.5 is a "Wow!" moment. 🤯 > Opus 4.8 & GPT-5.5 level on benchmarks > Costs less than Sonnet 5 Is that real? Hard to believe. Added Grok 4.5 as an implementer agent in fable-advisor. It replaces Sonnet 5. Use Fable as the orchestrator and a combo of: 1. Grok 4.5 2. Opus 4.8 3. GPT-5.5 As implementer agents. Uses the Grok Build CLI so if you log in with an X premium account you don't have to pay API fees.

Grok 4.5 is a "Wow!" moment. 🤯 > Opus 4.8 & GPT-5.5 level on benchmarks > Costs less than Sonnet 5 Is that real? Hard to believe. Added Grok 4.5 as an implementer agent in fable-advisor. It replaces Sonnet 5. Use Fable as the orchestrator and a combo of: 1. Grok 4.5 2. Opus 4.8 3. GPT-5.5 As implementer agents. Uses the Grok Build CLI so if you log in with an X premium account you don't have to pay API fees.

Dan McAteer

191,832 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Head of Anthropic Labs: "Fable is one of those models you'll just remember - like Sonnet 3.5, Opus 4, Opus 4.5. Fable is way smarter than me. It finishes a task, lists its trade-offs, and I have to ask it to explain them to me." in 20-minute talk, the Anthropic head reveals the full capabilities of the Fable 5 model in practice. Watch it now, then read how to use this frontier model in the article below

Head of Anthropic Labs: "Fable is one of those models you'll just remember - like Sonnet 3.5, Opus 4, Opus 4.5. Fable is way smarter than me. It finishes a task, lists its trade-offs, and I have to ask it to explain them to me." in 20-minute talk, the Anthropic head reveals the full capabilities of the Fable 5 model in practice. Watch it now, then read how to use this frontier model in the article below

Movez

33,774 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Here's GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable asked to build the exact same app (prompts in the article!) What do you think? I have my opinions, but I'd like to hear yours. Both built complete, working apps, but with very different approaches: - Sol took less than half the time at the same (high) reasoning - Sol spent much less time on frame analysis. Fable dumped sheets of frames for every transition and scrutinized them multiple times; Sol only checked twice, and both times was just like "looks great, continuing" - At first, Sol intentionally ignored my request to use image generation! It went with procedurally generated food images "for simplicity" (they looked terrible) - On the second prompt, Sol generated images, but intentionally ignored my suggestion for transparent image backgrounds, saying full photos "preserve shadows more convincingly" - Sol's used its built-in GPT Image 2 integration, which saved cost; Fable had to use the Gemini API - Sol didn't seem to know how to use Liquid Glass at all - Fable was more restrained; Sol wanted to add extra labels and detail - On the other hand, Fable decided to add an extra detail page for foods, while Sol did not - Both had nice haptics on device - Fable added a pinch dismiss gesture; Sol did not do gestures

Here's GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable asked to build the exact same app (prompts in the article!) What do you think? I have my opinions, but I'd like to hear yours. Both built complete, working apps, but with very different approaches: - Sol took less than half the time at the same (high) reasoning - Sol spent much less time on frame analysis. Fable dumped sheets of frames for every transition and scrutinized them multiple times; Sol only checked twice, and both times was just like "looks great, continuing" - At first, Sol intentionally ignored my request to use image generation! It went with procedurally generated food images "for simplicity" (they looked terrible) - On the second prompt, Sol generated images, but intentionally ignored my suggestion for transparent image backgrounds, saying full photos "preserve shadows more convincingly" - Sol's used its built-in GPT Image 2 integration, which saved cost; Fable had to use the Gemini API - Sol didn't seem to know how to use Liquid Glass at all - Fable was more restrained; Sol wanted to add extra labels and detail - On the other hand, Fable decided to add an extra detail page for foods, while Sol did not - Both had nice haptics on device - Fable added a pinch dismiss gesture; Sol did not do gestures

Anshu

161,998 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Two frontier models. Two very different demos. (GPT-5.6 Sol and Claude Fable 5) GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra was pushed in a mathematical direction and generated a Minecraft-style clone in Lean. Yes, that Lean. Meanwhile, Claude Fable 5 took a game development route and built a Minecraft mod featuring a Dark Souls-inspired enemy with multiple attack patterns, combos, and combat logic. They're solving completely different problems, but both are great examples of how capable today's models have become. The pace of progress is remarkable.

Two frontier models. Two very different demos. (GPT-5.6 Sol and Claude Fable 5) GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra was pushed in a mathematical direction and generated a Minecraft-style clone in Lean. Yes, that Lean. Meanwhile, Claude Fable 5 took a game development route and built a Minecraft mod featuring a Dark Souls-inspired enemy with multiple attack patterns, combos, and combat logic. They're solving completely different problems, but both are great examples of how capable today's models have become. The pace of progress is remarkable.

FHILY👑

19,336 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

GPT 6 Astra one shotted a bug in BridgeMind that no model could solve in 6 months. Fable 5 failed. Fable 5.1 failed. Opus 5, Sol, Grok 4.6, all failed. Astra fixed it on the first prompt. Then it rebuilt my office in Blender from photos. Built a racing game in 13 minutes that took Fable 5.1 two hours. Cut OpenAI's hallucination rate nearly in half. All while using a third of the tokens. Full review is out now. I do not know how Anthropic survives this.

GPT 6 Astra one shotted a bug in BridgeMind that no model could solve in 6 months. Fable 5 failed. Fable 5.1 failed. Opus 5, Sol, Grok 4.6, all failed. Astra fixed it on the first prompt. Then it rebuilt my office in Blender from photos. Built a racing game in 13 minutes that took Fable 5.1 two hours. Cut OpenAI's hallucination rate nearly in half. All while using a third of the tokens. Full review is out now. I do not know how Anthropic survives this.

BridgeMind

38,501 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

We’re releasing our Code Migration benchmark — and we managed to get Fable tested in time Code migration carries real economic weight. COBOL powers banks, payrolls, government services, and underpins nearly 95% of US ATM transactions. The danger with any migration is that a model ships code that looks right but quietly drops essential behaviors We evaluated models in three ways: modern to modern migrations, legacy to modern migrations and on their overall code quality. Each model rebuilds the program in an offline sandbox, then is scored on a hidden behavior test with anti-cheat checks that catch anything wrapping the original, copying reference files, or staying in the source language Fable 5 leads overall at 55%, but costs $115.43 per test, while Opus 4.8 (47%), and GPT 5.5 (45%) cost $30.51 and $6.44, respectively, making GPT 5.5 the most cost efficient model. Kimi K2.6 is the #1 open-weight model (28%) priced at $5.12, ranking above some frontier models

We’re releasing our Code Migration benchmark — and we managed to get Fable tested in time Code migration carries real economic weight. COBOL powers banks, payrolls, government services, and underpins nearly 95% of US ATM transactions. The danger with any migration is that a model ships code that looks right but quietly drops essential behaviors We evaluated models in three ways: modern to modern migrations, legacy to modern migrations and on their overall code quality. Each model rebuilds the program in an offline sandbox, then is scored on a hidden behavior test with anti-cheat checks that catch anything wrapping the original, copying reference files, or staying in the source language Fable 5 leads overall at 55%, but costs $115.43 per test, while Opus 4.8 (47%), and GPT 5.5 (45%) cost $30.51 and $6.44, respectively, making GPT 5.5 the most cost efficient model. Kimi K2.6 is the #1 open-weight model (28%) priced at $5.12, ranking above some frontier models

Vals AI

17,124 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Claude Code tip: once Opus 5.5 is your main model, stop leaving Fable 5.1 sitting idle and stop burning Opus tokens on tasks Sonnet 5.5 can swarm put it on call with /advisor run /advisor fable Opus 5.5 plans and ships the code Sonnet 5.5 swarms the routine work at medium effort Fable 5.1 reads the full session, every tool call included, and only speaks up at three points: → before a plan: is this the right approach? → when the same error comes back: am I digging in the wrong place? → before "done": what did I miss? Fable 5.1 reviews. Sonnet 5.5 executes. Opus 5.5 ships Jev engineering is the same move one layer down: the forks that need no thinker (which file, which tool, retry or stop) go to Jev in under half a second, and the big model only sees the ones that split Plan on high. Delegate on medium. Keep Fable on call. - the full tree > Opus 5.5 on high runs the main session > explorer reads the code > worker edits and runs tests > researcher pulls the docs > all three on Sonnet 5.5 at medium effort > Fable 5.1 on call as the advisor paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Check ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents for subagents that already fit explorer, worker and researcher. > Draft new ones only for missing roles > Give each model: sonnet, effort: medium > Skip any that pin a different model and list them 2. Set the main session to high via effortLevel in ~/.claude/settings.json, and set advisorModel to fable 3. Find anything that keeps the advisor off (CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY, any variable that stops feature-flag fetching) plus CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which overrides subagent effort. Report them, change nothing 4. Add one rule to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before a large plan, when an error repeats, and before calling a long task done Show me every change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳

Claude Code tip: once Opus 5.5 is your main model, stop leaving Fable 5.1 sitting idle and stop burning Opus tokens on tasks Sonnet 5.5 can swarm put it on call with /advisor run /advisor fable Opus 5.5 plans and ships the code Sonnet 5.5 swarms the routine work at medium effort Fable 5.1 reads the full session, every tool call included, and only speaks up at three points: → before a plan: is this the right approach? → when the same error comes back: am I digging in the wrong place? → before "done": what did I miss? Fable 5.1 reviews. Sonnet 5.5 executes. Opus 5.5 ships Jev engineering is the same move one layer down: the forks that need no thinker (which file, which tool, retry or stop) go to Jev in under half a second, and the big model only sees the ones that split Plan on high. Delegate on medium. Keep Fable on call. - the full tree > Opus 5.5 on high runs the main session > explorer reads the code > worker edits and runs tests > researcher pulls the docs > all three on Sonnet 5.5 at medium effort > Fable 5.1 on call as the advisor paste the tree and this prompt into Claude Code ↓ "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this tree: 1. Check ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents for subagents that already fit explorer, worker and researcher. > Draft new ones only for missing roles > Give each model: sonnet, effort: medium > Skip any that pin a different model and list them 2. Set the main session to high via effortLevel in ~/.claude/settings.json, and set advisorModel to fable 3. Find anything that keeps the advisor off (CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY, any variable that stops feature-flag fetching) plus CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which overrides subagent effort. Report them, change nothing 4. Add one rule to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: consult the advisor before a large plan, when an error repeats, and before calling a long task done Show me every change as a diff first. No edits until I say go." ↳

mirku

421,711 Aufrufe • vor 14 Tagen

this is f**king dangerous someone just figured out how to get fable 5 reasoning in opus 4.8 with one prompt you have less than 24 hours to set this up as this takes away 20% of your usage limit here is how: 1) Paste the prompt and ask it to "make an operating manual" 2) Create a New Claude Project and "Add this .md in Project instructions 3) Use Opus 4.8 High/Max and now you have Fable 5 reasoning at 1/5th the price save and bookmark it no matter what

this is f**king dangerous someone just figured out how to get fable 5 reasoning in opus 4.8 with one prompt you have less than 24 hours to set this up as this takes away 20% of your usage limit here is how: 1) Paste the prompt and ask it to "make an operating manual" 2) Create a New Claude Project and "Add this .md in Project instructions 3) Use Opus 4.8 High/Max and now you have Fable 5 reasoning at 1/5th the price save and bookmark it no matter what

Avid

954,976 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten