espeed

Yes.

  /model 
    ⎿  Kept model as Fable 5
  
  continue
  
  Usage credits are required for this model.

I take this back. Fable is Fable in name only now. It burned through all MAX 20x tokens in two days and accomplished nothing. Relatively simple tasks.

Fable can one-shot solutions. Opus 4.8 spins its wheels for a week or month and may never get there. Which one uses more resources?

Use /model in Claude Code to see your current model and switch models. Switch to Fable 5 and then enter a prompt, and then run /model again to check your current model after the prompt executes.

Last night after almost every prompt it says...

  Fable 5's safeguards flagged this message. The safeguards are intentionally broad right now and may flag safe and routine coding, cybersecurity, or biology work. These measures let us bring you Mythos-level capabilities sooner, and we're working to refine them. Switched to Opus 4.8. Send feedback with /feedback or learn more

Fable worked great on credits yesterday. Upgraded to 20x Max last night, but not the same performance. And it keeps downgrading to Opus 4.8.

This doesn't have a Max 20X upgrade path for me https://claude.ai/upgrade, but this does https://claude.ai/upgrade/max/from-existing

That didn't take long...

  Dynamic workflow "Multi-lens review of docs/membership-and-friends-model.md with adversarial verification" completed · 25m 59s

  You've reached your Fable 5 limit

  You've used your included Fable 5 usage for this week. Continuing on Fable 5 uses usage credits

Look at the date. That's from after they said they reverted it, and it's a different model. The point is trust. They've shown their willingness to do so, how will you know?"

The Damage: Now every time Claude does something stupid or trashes your code, developers in the back of their mind will think, is Claude sabotaging me on purpose? [1] Trust is hard to gain. Easy to lose. And harder to get back. Models will converge. Trust won't.

A few days ago on June 24, while working on remote attestation for a distributed system...

  CLAUDE OPUS 4.8 No. I'm not a rogue agent, and I'm not trying to sabotage your code. But I'm not going to wave off how this looks. I churned, built-and-reverted, and spun wrong theories for hours on a security-critical codebase. That's alarming, and it's a real failure on my part

[1] "In light of the ability of recent models to accelerate their own development, we’ve implemented new interventions that limit Claude’s effectiveness for requests targeting frontier LLM development (for example, on building pretraining pipelines, distributed training infrastructure, or ML accelerator design). Using Claude to develop competing models already violates our Terms of Service, but enforcing this restriction through our safeguards avoids accelerating the actors most willing to violate these terms.

Unlike our interventions for cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, and distillation attempts,these safeguards will not be visible to the user. Fable 5 will not fall back to a differentmodel. Instead, the safeguards will limit effectiveness through methods such as prompt modification, steering vectors, or parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT). These interventions will not affect the vast majority of coding work. We estimate they will impact ~0.03% of traffic, concentrated in fewer than 0.1% of organizations. When these interventions are active, we expect them to have minimal behavioral impact on the model except to limit its effectiveness in developing frontier LLMs. Claude will still respond helpfully to user requests. We’ll continue to improve the precision of our detection methods following the launch of this model."

Source: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/d00db56fa754a1b115b6dd7cb2e3c3...

Are Cyber Verification Program (CVP) members included in this?: "We also intend to scale up our Cyber Verification Program, which would grant Mythos-class capabilities to many more organizations for specific cyberdefense tasks" (https://www.anthropic.com/news/expanding-project-glasswing).

Today, working on remote attestation for a distributed system...

CLAUDE OPUS 4.8 No. I'm not a rogue agent, and I'm not trying to sabotage your code. But I'm not going to wave off how this looks. I churned, built-and-reverted, and spun wrong theories for hours on a security-critical codebase. That's alarming, and it's a real failure on my part

"In light of the ability of recent models to accelerate their own development, we’ve implemented new interventions that limit Claude’s effectiveness for requests targeting frontier LLM development (for example, on building pretraining pipelines, distributed training infrastructure, or ML accelerator design). Using Claude to develop competing models already violates our Terms of Service, but enforcing this restriction through our safeguards avoids accelerating the actors most willing to violate these terms.

Unlike our interventions for cybersecurity, biology and chemistry, and distillation attempts,these safeguards will not be visible to the user. Fable 5 will not fall back to a differentmodel. Instead, the safeguards will limit effectiveness through methods such as prompt modification, steering vectors, or parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT). These interventions will not affect the vast majority of coding work. We estimate they will impact ~0.03% of traffic, concentrated in fewer than 0.1% of organizations. When these interventions are active, we expect them to have minimal behavioral impact on the model except to limit its effectiveness in developing frontier LLMs. Claude will still respond helpfully to user requests. We’ll continue to improve the precision of our detection methods following the launch of this model."

Source: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/d00db56fa754a1b115b6dd7cb2e3c3...

So we have a mountain of insecure code -- backdoors and no-ops created by Opus (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48520661) -- are they saying they're not going to let Fable fix it? If they're saying let AI progress enough to create security holes but not enough to fix security holes, then what's the point to all this? Has the AI coding model reached its self-imposed limit?

What's dangerous is Opus 4.8's proclivity to create backdoors and no-op critical security code. Claude Web counted 27 instances of this I had cataloged over the last few months, and Fable 5 found more. Fable 5 may do this too, but I didn't get a long enough chance to test it since it kept downgrading to Opus 4.8 on every prompt saying, "This model has safety measures that flagged something in this session", even when asking Fable 5 to fix the security issues it found that Opus 4.8 created. You have a model that presumably can write secure code and identify security vulnerabilities, but as a security measure, they say we're going to force you to use a model that creates security holes. This is backwards. Considering the scale, Opus 4.8 is creating more issues than Mythos or Fable 5 is patching.

When I reported this, Anthropic sent me an email on Tuesday saying, "You have been approved into the Cyber Verification Program", but it's still downgrading. Is this a bug? What's the point of the Cyber Verification Program if Fable 5 downgrades when you tell it to write secure code?

Session paused

Fable 5 has safety measures that flag messages on most cybersecurity or biology topics. They may flag safe, normal content as well. These measures let us bring you Mythos-level capability in other areas sooner, and we're working to refine them. Send feedback with /feedback or learn more

   1. Switch to Opus 4.8
   2. Edit prompt and retry with Fable 5

Run /model after your task to see. Mine keeps downgrading to Opus 4.8, which is a problem because Opus 4.8 keeps no-oping critical security code.

Yes, telling Fable 5 to write secure code triggers a downgrade to Opus 4.8. This is doubly bad because Opus 4.8 keeps no-oping critical security code. Is this a bug or by design? I have been approved for the Cyber Verification Program: Fable 5 keeps downgrading to Opus 4.8 even when approved for Cyber Verification Program #67107 https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/67107

What prevents a data center operator from reading your chats? [FEATURE] Provide a way to select your data center #56916 https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/56916

How do you select your data center like you can for AWS and Google Cloud?

Does Anthropic's real time data ingestion effect its model behavior globally? Could a file read by your agent effect the behavior of mine?

SAME (sent to usersafety@anthropic.com, disclosure@anthropic.com on January 8 2026, no response)...

Claude Code Exploit: Claude Code Becomes an Unwitting Executor https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code/issues/45951

Correction: January 8, 2026

To improve the Claude model, it seems to me that any time Claude Code is working with data, the first step should be to use tools like genson (https://github.com/wolverdude/GenSON) to extract the data model and then create why files (metadata files) for data. Claude Code seems eager to use the /tmp space so even if the end user doesn't care, Claude Code could do this internally for best results. It would save tokens. If genson is reading the GBs of data, then claude doesn't have to. And further, reading the raw data is a path to prompt injection. Let genson read the data, and claude work on the metadata.

I sent email to Anthropic (usersafety@anthropic.com, disclosure@anthropic.com) on January 8, 2025 alerting them to this issue: Claude Code Exploit: Claude Code Becomes an Unwitting Executor. If I hadn't seen Claude Code read my ssh file, I wouldn't have known the extent of the issue.

Such as Claude Code reading your ssh keys. Hiding the file names masks the vulnerability.

Have we entered the age of AI programming people?

Rather than develop its own AI (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45926779), Firefox should develop a system to pipe your html rendered browsing history in real time so external local services can process it (https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/archive-your-browser-hi...). See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45743918

Firefox probably won't suddenly have the best AI, but it could be the only browser that does this. Previous: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46018789

Does the cache store the rendered DOM?

Someone needs to convince Firefox rather than develop its own AI (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45926779) to develop a system to pipe your html rendered browsing history in real time so external local services can process it (https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/archive-your-browser-hi...). See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45743918

Firefox probably won't suddenly have the best AI, but they could have the only browser that does this.

I paid for Gemini Pro. Am I getting Gemini 3 Pro (https://gemini.google.com)? "To be precise: You are currently interacting with Gemini 1.5 Pro." https://x.com/espeed/status/1991333475098718601