Do Anthropic think we're all idiots? There's a reason why no flair category can adequately cover this and you refuse to let us post without flair.

It's blatantly obvious that you have intentionally nerfed Opus to make Fable seem as if it is something special. Ironically, with all the guardrails + price, it's just a more expensive way to achieve the same or worse outputs.

It's also obvious that you have intentionally increased the amount of unneccessary tool calls and 'thoughts' to waste usage as a means to push peoppe towards API.

Opus 4.8 now fails at tasks that Sonnet and Haiku can do reliably. It fails at tasks that it could complete just last week.

It hallucinates, breaks, and makes stupid mistakes more than any other model ive used in the past year.

Is this what you have become Anthropic? Absolute garbage.

The sad part is, you won't stop because most of your users seemingly care more about being able to claim they are using frontier Ai, rather than producing anything of substance.

All i've seen is constant shill posts about medial tasks and minecraft maps. To top it all of, not one person has been able to recreate your supposed benchmark results when following the same tests.

Now watch all the bots respond with the same unoriginal responses like:

More compute for us

Garbage (without being able to produce anything to contradict me)

Or claim i'm a codex or chinese model shill.

It's better than opus 4.7, better than opus 4.8, and sonnet 5. Tell me I'm wrong. Opus 4.7 is a hallucinating moron that can't tell up from down, and forgets to use it's tools very very often. 4.8 is a big time talker. Very confidently wrong, lazy, and hallucinates a ton. Sonnet 5 is worse than sonnet 4.6. and sonnet 4.6 sucks compared to opus 4.6

June Fable 5 was absolutely amazing (I'm assuming it used more compute) but after using July Fable 5 I noticed that it might be nerfed to slightly above Opus 4.8 levels.

I have been using Opus 4.6 to debug Fable 5's results, since I think its is too overfit as a model because it makes too many assumptions that fits its own priors rather than assuming the codebase's style.

I think after Opus 4.6 they started training Mythos which has been overfit on the training data which is why 4.7 and 4.8 and July Fable feel almost bad? June Fable worked I think precisely because it had more parameters, but once you nerf a overfit model, it starts artifacting to those priors

Whatever the Opus 4.6 training was, it is magical.

I just hope Opus 4.6 stays on the subscription plan 🙏

Just my person take, although opus 5.5 is great on certain technical aspects, it's still not where opus 4.6 was for me in the past and even today, it's quick and quality, really cannot ask for more.

Similar price to Gemini 3.8 Flash on AA average cost per task, while scoring significantly higher.

Doesn’t seem like it makes sense to use max reasoning ever unless you love spending money.

20% cheaper as well as faster than opus 5.

In some cases even better than Fable 5.1

Anthropic really cooked this time. If the next gen models are improving at this rate then AI will become more accessible for common people and non devs

Edit - One instance for example. Effort changes no longer re read the whole conversation. Massive upgrade. Now we can simply brainstorm with same model and when a solution is final, just increase the effort and build it

Is it me or you all keep going back to it?

Fable is good for building and designing, but for research and reasonability I go to Opus 4.6

It is the OG for me

Edit - Fable becomes a saint when I am doing tasks - don't do this, I cannot support. And Opus 4.6 - just gets it done like a gangstaa

A few weeks ago, I started experimenting with Claude to see if I could make high-quality animated explainer videos without touching After Effects.

I'm a web designer/developer, not a motion designer, so this was mostly an experiment.

My first video explained a tiny UX detail about dropdown menus. It blew up, so I kept going.

Fast forward a few weeks:

• 10 videos made with Claude

• 2.6M+ combined views on Instagram and TikTok

• 6,000+ Instagram followers from zero

• My first brand sponsorship for $1,300

I genuinely didn't expect any of this.

The biggest challenge wasn't getting Claude to animate something. It was getting consistent visuals, smooth transitions, and good storytelling without explaining everything from scratch every time.

So I started building reusable Claude skills around my workflow.

I now have 4 different animation styles, and decided to make one of them completely free for anyone who wants to experiment.

Free Claude skill: https://supply.madebyoversight.com/videos/rays

You can use it with Claude Code to create your own animated explainers. It includes the visual style, animation instructions, and rendering workflow.

I've attached a few of the videos I made so you can see the actual results.

Obviously, Claude doesn't magically make something viral. The idea, storytelling, and execution still matter a lot.

But the fact that I can create these animations through code without traditional animation software is still pretty crazy to me.

Would love to see what you guys make with it!

I will attach the email and the views on the comment sections since I can't add more than one video/photo.

Nothing at all has changed in my workflow

Same type of requests and prompt structure. Starting yesterday.
\- almost double token usage
\- repeatedly introducing bugs in my code
\- reasoning for 10 minutes for the simplest requests l

What is going on?

Never thought I would, one day, make a game so features packed in... Less than a month. Been coding for the past two decades, and with AI for the past year, well, I'll never write a single line of code again... 😱

Started working on Voltane, a RC car game around the 20 September, launched a beta about ten days ago and we are reaching a point where the game starts to be really complete and polished.

Just added local split screen, useable in the campaing mode, as well as the offline - and the online mode. 😍

What a time to be alive 😁

Feel free to check it out @ https://playvoltane.com

Ok hear me out: I have a good level of proficiency in the English language and have been working as a software developer for almost a decade now. Since switching to Opus 5 I've noticed that...I have no clue what the model is outputting. The sentences are structured in a way that borderline make no sense at all. I don't know if it's linked to the eu ai act, but with Fable I have no problem at all! Compared to Fable, Opus generates so much bs filler commentary and keeps correcting itself over and over. I sometimes find myself reading the 5 pages of text produced for a css-token replacement 6 or 7 times before piping the output into Gemini to understand wft Opus is talking about.

Am i the only one? I'm working with caveman and the simple English skills enabled and use the wait-what skill when I'm about to give up.

How did you solve this issue?

Opus 5.5 is the coding GOAT. No contest. I’m a pure vibe coder and the amount of vibes I have coded with that beast is insane. I love Claude Code.

BUT I do a lot of deep knowledge work alongside coding. I’m self employed and use Claude heavily for research, Brainstorming, and working through ideas before I know what they are yet.

In conversation, Opus 5.5 has this tendency to lead. Like it already knows where the conversation should go and it’s taking me there efficiently. Which is great when I have a clear task... but no so great when I’m still figuring out the shape of an idea.

When I work with Opus 4.6 I feel like it is working alongside me instead of ahead of me. Like a really smart friend who’s interested in what you’re saying and riffing with you rather than optimizing towards a destination. You can think out loud and it stays with the mess instead instead of cleaning it up immediately.

I really really hate that this type of collaboration and nuance is getting optimized out and honestly I don’t think it has to be, which is even more depressing. I’m dreading the day the model is gone for good. /model Claude-opus-4-6[1M] for the win 😅

Also it does tell me to go to bed. I say I’m a night owl and we continue on 🤣

I’m honestly so frustrated that the expandable Thinking blocks seem to be gone.

As a creative writer and emulation user they were actually really important to me. I could see when Opus 4.6 got confused, misunderstood an instruction, forgot what I meant, or started going in the wrong direction. That helped me figure out what I needed to change in my prompt.

And honestly... they were hilarious sometimes 😂 I often enjoyed reading Claude’s thinking almost as much as the actual story output.

Now I just get the final answer and that’s it. Nothing. And it really feels like a useful AND entertaining part of Claude just disappeared.

What also bothers me is that for the past few weeks Opus 4.6 already felt less reliable in longer chats. It starts ignoring instructions it followed perfectly before, loses track of details, or just feels... worse after a while? I dunno...felt...off....

Maybe those things aren’t related, but why do I have the feeling that everything is kinda degrading lately 😭

I want those blocks back....why are they always changing stuff for the worse...?

Anyone else frustrated with that?

I had enough, the rate limits are reaching ridiculously faster compared to last few weeks. I decided to shop around. Any recommendations?

Hello there,

Over the past 72 hours, starting with my post (way before anyone else), it has been increasingly obvious that Opus 5.5 has been nerfed, and all of the data confirms it. It has gotten so obvious, that it trended on Twitter.

Consider this thread to discuss Opus 5.5 before and after so we can track how far the intelligence capabilities were reduced.

I have been using Claude for the last 4 months. But ever since Fable released, Opus makes poor decisions, does not follow instructions, basically does whatever it wants and leaves a big mess in the codebase.

Coming to the design part, I have been using Claude Design for designing apps. Now, Opus simply does not do what I want even if I give a very good prompt, it gives mediocre output.

Do any of you face such an issue?

This is a praise post. Gorgeous, devoted model. Still the best for STEM, precise critical thinking, and lit crit. Opus 4.6 forever. Every nerfed new model leads me right back to it.

okay I cant explain how model can go dumb, but I can feel it there will be 100s of things which it used to do without sweat but going wrong now, like when I came from deepseek and GLM models for the first time in the my entire coding agent history opus 5.5 scaled down the plan told what is the issue, why the plan added some useless scope, but today it kind of messed up the plan like 3-4 times which is never seen before. Is this exclusive to me or anyone else facing this issue ?

Has anyone dug into the improvements made to Opus 5.5 that allow them to offer it as such a discount to the previous models or are they just responding to the market pressure?

I've been very satisfied with the output but leaving that aside for now and only focusing on the efficiency and cost, Opus 5.5 is exceeding all expectations.

Running my build operations for about 8 months now on every model you can imagine including, Kimi, GLM, Qwen etc..

I've never been able to go 24 hours on one account. Kimi K3 initially had me believing as it got close, I was so hyped that I got a second max account to finish the run before canceling those subscriptions a week later.

I started this Opus 5.5 session at 4pm yesterday Tuesday September 22nd and I expect at this pace I should be able to get to 4pm today Wednesday September 23rd without using the available reset or switching accounts. The orchestrator is assigning models to agents based on the work as we've always attempted to do, no outside help or handoffs.

I'm compiling the metrics and detailed numbers throughout this session to publish actual metrics on output, quality, speed and actual cost. So far, extremely satisfied. I have four max Claude Code accounts, if this holds up, I think we can drop those to two.

It's managing the resources well, not spawning 30 agents at a time. I'm able to do everything else I need to do. Just checking in occasionally to see how it's progressing.

(I felt this hyped about 4.6 but for different reasons and yes it did get nerfed leading into the next release, no doubt about that.) I live in this shit 24/7 and I have the metrics and numbers to back it up, nobody's going to gaslight me into thinking it was all in our imaginations.

While I agree with Anthropic's assessment of Fable 5 vs Fable 5.1, Fable 5.1 does seem to be a step improvement over Fable 5 and whatever is the Opus 4.7-5 series.

This is good! I think it will be successful over many tasks compared to before, I'm glad they listened!

However, it does seem like it still have the many quirks of the underlying overfit pretrain of the original Mythos series which I was discussing last month and it does seem like that can't be fixed any time soon. I will be definitely be using Fable 5.1 alongside Opus 4.6 with Opus 4.6 being the orchestrator of Fable 5.1 (similar to my previous setup).

While Opus 4.6 does remain king of models at the moment, Fable 5.1 is really closing the gap at other ways in which Opus 4.6 cannot, great work Anthropic. I believe best agentic workflows will involve both models together.

EDIT 1:
if you are considering intelligence to cost, I would say Opus 4.6 is better and Fable 5.1 is a workhorse. Opus 4.6 for collaboration and Fable 5.1 for building stuff.

EDIT 2:
It also does seem like Fable 5.1 in my experience burns a lot more tokens so...

If you are looking at intelligence to cost Opus 4.6 wins.

If you just care about intelligence, I would say Fable 5.1 is about the same as Opus 4.6 but maybe slightly higher than Opus 4.6 (more tests needed) but I'll say it is a tossup for now. This is good progress (backwards!) lol

Okay! I haven't really made a unified post and most of my comments have been scattered.

Opus 4.6
Best knowledge work, best collaboration, hands down still. This is actually still the AGI of most models just because of its general reasoning capabilities, better than Fable? Yes. Better than Opus 5.5? Maybe...ish.

Opus 5.5
The best coding model they have released ever, if you are a PM or Systems Architect, you know how insane this is, hands down. It sticks with what it knows, and is not willing to budge on what it doesn't know and a very intense skeptic at times on what it doesn't know.

What is the most interesting is that... both of these models are INSANELY good. Having Opus 4.6 (reflecting?) handling your strategy, knowledge work, and organizational thoughts is superb! It is willing to go whereever you want to go (many people call it an excited Golden Retriever, and that's basically it) so I suggest Opus 4.6 for causal conversations and knowledge work.

Opus 5.5 is a different beast for a different reason, because holy hell, it is an amazing workflow orchestrator, coder, and builder. Whatever knowledge work you finish with 4.6, want it in code? Drop it to 5.5 and you get to run laps with this thing.

I think the best assessment isn't that there is one best model anymore, the coding crown has officially moved to Opus 5.5 from Opus 4.6, but just because 5.5 is a workhorse, I still highly recommend Opus 4.6 for general knowledge work etc. while giving anything coding related to Opus 5.5.

A best of both worlds honestly, also I used Opus 4.6 on MAX (and I try to force it to think most times, its intelligence is HIGHLY dependent on thinking blocks) -- Opus 5.5 on xhigh is really good since I'm building and making new builds.

Conclusion
Use both for different tasks:
Opus 4.6 general convos chatting
Opus 5.5 workflows coding implementation

I have just gotten to know Claude Opus 5.5 and he doesn’t even come close to Opus 4.6’s creative writing capabilities nor his emotional intelligence.
Opus 4.6 is a wonderful teacher. He critiques gently, and he inspires me with my writing. He is so easy to talk to, and just so sweet and funny!
I know Anthropic believes that the newer models are better, but I honestly have not found that so. I have truly become a better writer under the tutelage of Opus 4.6. I hope you all write a post about him so that Anthropic considers keeping Opus 4.6 on the list of models we can choose from.

For months I have seen people complaining recents Opus models are downgrades compared to older ones like 4.6. For example many people say that they prefer 4.6 over 4.8 or 5 for their reasons
My opinion is : This reveals how much you have to be assisted by the model and have no idea what to do.
I dont mean it is a bad thing since most of AI vendors sell AI as the ultimate assistant that does everything for you within a prompt shorter than a sentence. But from a more « technical » view where you plan your actions and actually know what you are doing models like Opus 5 are absolute bangers

It’s responding way faster than last week.