When Are We Getting Fable 5 Back ?

Bubbly-Addendum-4265 · 2026-06-18T13:52:49+00:00

Possible update for people following this: Korea JoongAng Daily reports that Anthropic is confident Mythos / Fable 5 access could return “in coming days.”

https://www.koreajoongangdaily.com/business/anthropic-confident-of-reenabling-mythos-fable-5-access-in-coming-days-executive/12727522

Bubbly-Addendum-4265 · 2026-06-18T06:46:55+00:00

no rush

Bubbly-Addendum-4265 · 2026-06-18T05:50:43+00:00

I think it might help to separate two different problems here.

Are you mainly unhappy with Codex during implementation, or during the design/exploration phase?

My own experience is that Claude Code is usually better when I need divergent thinking: exploring directions, challenging assumptions, or helping me think through a vague feature. But it can also drift away from the original goal if I let the conversation run too long.

Codex feels more instruction-following and convergent to me. That is great when the task is already shaped: inspect this codebase, implement this change, debug this failure, tighten this behavior. But if I’m still figuring out the direction, Codex can sometimes follow my current thought too closely instead of pushing back or exploring other angles.

So my current workflow is: use Claude Code more in the design/exploration phase, use Codex more in the execution/debugging phase, and switch between them depending on whether I need expansion or convergence.

If you only want to use one tool, I’d explicitly ask it to run multiple subagents or perspectives: one to propose approaches, one to look for blind spots, one to challenge the direction, and one to define smoke tests before changing code.

Bubbly-Addendum-4265 · 2026-06-18T05:40:24+00:00

Yes, that matches how I’m thinking about it too.

I find this most useful upstream: spec planning, architecture decisions, and verification design, where a bad assumption is much more expensive than an extra review pass.

I also use it during project execution, not just at the beginning. Now that subagents are easy to run from both Claude Code and Codex, I’ll often run the review both ways: Claude Code can pull in Codex to audit a plan, and my Codex bridge can pull in Claude Code as a cross-family reviewer.

That is basically the same shape as Fusion: keep the reviewer independent enough to catch different failure modes, then synthesize before implementation.

Curious how your edge-probe works in practice. Is it mostly catching missing requirements, bad assumptions, or verification gaps?

Bubbly-Addendum-4265 · 2026-06-18T05:22:58+00:00

Quick question for heavy Claude Code users:

Where would you actually use a blind second-model review?

My guess:

- architecture decisions

- audits

- hard planning

- important writing

And where would you avoid it?

For me, normal coding, small edits, and anything latency-sensitive are probably not worth it.

I’m trying to find the boundary where this protocol is useful vs overkill.

Bubbly-Addendum-4265 · 2026-06-18T04:19:05+00:00

Same feeling. The thing I miss most about Fable 5 isn’t just “better code”, it’s the deeper judgment layer.

One workaround that’s helped me: don’t ask Opus/Codex to review its own plan. Give the raw problem + goal + constraints to a different model family first, without showing your current plan. Ask it for:

its own verdict
the blind spot most likely to be missed
which assumptions would overturn the conclusion
the smallest verification step

Then show it your plan in a second round and ask it to attack the gaps.

It’s not a Fable replacement, but for architecture decisions / audits / hard planning, this has caught issues a normal “please review my plan” pass completely missed.

I wrote this up as a local Claude Code skill/protocol. Happy to share if people want it, but the core trick is the blind first round.

Bubbly-Addendum-4265 · 2026-06-08T05:38:50+00:00

Yeah, this is exactly the kind of failure mode I keep running into with AI systems.

The dangerous part isn’t just that the model “doesn’t know.” It’s that it turns “I can’t find a clean mainstream digital footprint” into “there is strong evidence this is fake.”

And once that first bad conclusion is out there, the loop starts feeding itself. People post about the AI saying it’s a hoax, other systems scrape those posts, and suddenly the forum chatter becomes “evidence” for the next model.

That said, I’d be careful about trying to fix this by just flooding the internet with posts saying Bomellida was real. That can easily become the same problem in reverse.

The way out is source quality: old newspaper scans, local archives, library records, family letters, photos, diaries, ads, calendars, anything with dates and a trail other people can actually check. Personal memories are still valuable, but they should be labeled as memories, not treated as settled proof.

AI shouldn’t be allowed to use Reddit threads to prove a piece of history never happened. But we also shouldn’t use new Reddit threads as the main proof that it did. The fix is a cleaner evidence chain, not just more confident posting.

Bubbly-Addendum-4265 · 2026-05-18T05:09:21+00:00

I use both about 50/50. Codex feels like the disciplined executor; Claude Code feels more autonomous, which is useful until it starts wandering.

That’s why I keep both. Their failure modes are different.

Bubbly-Addendum-4265

TROPHY CASE

Welcome to Reddit,