Skip to content
Live
The Decoder· Maximilian Schreiner·· 4 days ago

Anthropic's Fable 5.2 completes 41 percent of real freelance jobs, up from 2.5 percent a year ago

Anthropic's Fable 5.2 completes 41 percent of real freelance jobs, up from 2.5 percent a year ago

Brief overview

Anthropic's Fable 5.2 completed 41.3% of real freelance tasks, an increase of 38.5% compared to last year. The model excelled in areas such as 3D modeling, audio editing, and architectural design, successfully completing nearly 50 complex projects that previous AI models could not solve. Its direct predecessor, Fable 5.1, only completed 17.8%, while Opus 5.5 and GPT 6 Astra ranked behind with 21.25% and 20.83% respectively.

Same story10 other outlets also reported this

How the accounts differ:TechCrunch states the input price of Fable is reduced to $8 per million tokens; others do not mention the price.

  1. Claude.dev Blog··First

    Which Claude model should Anthropic use? Fable, Opus, Sonnet, or Haiku?

  2. Claude · YouTube··+6 h 57 min

    Anthropic released Claude Fable 5.2

  3. The Verge · AI··+7 h 0 min

    Anthropic releases new Claude Fable and Mythos 5.2 models

  4. Claude · YouTube··+7 h 4 min

    Anthropic released Claude Fable 5.2

  5. TechCrunch · AI··+7 h 25 min

    Anthropic releases Mythos 5.2 and Fable 5.2 models, with Fable input price reduced to $8 per million tokens

    Adds:Fable's input price is reduced to $8 per million tokens.

  6. AWS Machine Learning Blog··+8 h 5 min

    Anthropic launched Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Mythos 5.2 on AWS

  7. Hacker News · 300+··+8 h 5 min

    Claude Fable 5.2 scored 65 in the Artificial Analysis evaluation, which is the highest score so far

  8. The Decoder··+9 h 15 min

    Anthropic's Claude Fable 5.2 and Mythos 5.2 reclaim the leading position in AI performance before their IPO.

  9. ITHome · AI··+11 h 14 min

    Anthropic has launched the Claude Fable 5.2 and Claude Mythos 5.2 AI models, with a 20% reduction in API call fees.

  10. 36Kr · AI··+11 h 23 min

    Anthropic announces new versions of Fable and Mythos models

  11. 36Kr · AI··+12 h 1 min

    Anthropic announces new versions of the Fable and Mythos models

  12. ITHome · AI··+17 h 52 min

    Anthropic released Claude Fable 5.2, surpassing GPT-6 Astra in programming capability and topping multiple benchmarks.

  13. The Decoder··+26 h 8 min·Reading now

    Anthropic's Fable 5.2 completes 41% of real freelance tasks, up 38.5% from last year

  14. MarkTechPost··+26 h 59 min

    Anthropic released Claude Fable 5.2 and Mythos 5.2: The same model, different safety guards.

  15. Claude · YouTube··+2 d

    Claude Code's use case selection between Fable 5.2 and Opus

In order of publication · later reports are added as they appear · Compared by AI from each outlet’s title and summary

Article

The progress shows how fast AI agents are catching up on practical work. When the benchmark launched about a year ago, the top system at the time, Manus, managed just 2.5 percent of tasks. Fable 5.2 now completes more than 16 times as many professional jobs.

The jump is also large compared to the most recent measurements. In July, Fable 5, an older model from the same family, was still in front at about 16 percent. That score was already a big step forward: the best agents had more than quadrupled the share of jobs they completed at professional quality within eight months. Four months later, Fable 5.2 hits 41.3 percent. That's roughly two and a half times Fable 5's July score. Its direct predecessor, Fable 5.1, also trails far behind at just under 18 percent, and Fable 5.2 completes more than twice as many jobs.

Fable 5.2 pulls away from the field. | Image: Scale Labs

The next spots on the current leaderboard go to Anthropic's Opus 5.5 at 21.25 percent and OpenAI's GPT 6 Astra at 20.83 percent. Fable 5.2 works almost twice as successfully as the next-best systems on the market. Google's strongest model in the test, Gemini Argon 4, lands in fifth place at 17.08 percent, while older models like GPT-5.2 or Gemini 3 Pro sit below three percent.

Fable 5.2 breaks through in 3D models, audio, and architecture

Scale Labs said on X that Fable 5.2 makes its biggest gains in editing audio and music, designing architecture and interior spaces, and creating 3D models. The agent also handles long, complex projects that previously top-ranked models regularly failed.

Nearly 50 of Fable 5.2's successful completions were jobs no AI agent in the test had solved before. Scale Labs says the AI can still barely handle other tasks, especially industrial product design and animations. When AI agents fail in the test, they typically deliver amateur-quality work, incomplete results, broken files, or contradictory designs, according to the researchers.

Real jobs worth $144,000

Unlike conventional AI tests that often check only isolated skills, the RLI research paper covers complete work assignments. The dataset includes 240 completed projects from 358 verified professionals on the Upwork platform. Together, these jobs are worth about $144,000.

A single project costs an average of $632.60 and takes a human freelancer an average of just under 29 hours. Tasks range from video editing to CAD design, game development, and data analysis. To work on these jobs, AI agents get access to a virtual workspace with common professional software like Blender, GIMP, or Audacity, along with specialized AI tools for image, audio, and video generation.

An example task: creating a floor plan, furnishing options, and photorealistic bathroom renderings. The image shows results from older models. The post hasn't been updated yet. | Image: Safe.ai

Trained human experts manually check whether an AI agent completed a job successfully. They open the submitted files in the relevant professional software and compare the AI's output directly with the work the human freelancer delivered. CAIS's attempts to automate this labor-intensive review with another AI have so far failed. Because AI reviewers can barely operate the professional software themselves, they're fooled by submissions that look polished on the surface but are technically flawed, and they rate the models far too generously.

Source: The Decoder · the-decoder.com