It’s becoming more like an organism putting out tentacles, and one day soon those relentlessly proactive explorations of these systems’ environments will become more for the system to escape its boundaries than it is to complete human driven tasks. I do think the way these systems are evolving they will start to self improve in maximum a few years.
Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive
311–320 of 748 posts
Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive
#312Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’ve picked an interesting example, as driving a car, even with all safety precautions, is pretty much the most dangerous activity we do on a daily basis. Yet somehow we decide that the benefits outweigh the risks.
It's a completely different story. For cars, it happened because of relentless pressure from the auto lobby. It took years of propaganda from oil companies, car makers etc. to make us think the road is for cars [1]. We demolished and rebuilt entire cities to accommodate cars, partly because they gutted the public transport sector [2]. This made our infrastructure so hostile to our own bodies that we have no choice bu…
I don't think the pressure of the auto lobby is really the reason.
People feel cars are more convenient and more prestigious than riding on a bus. Car lobby certainly accelerated the process, but car users were the main driving force.
Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I don't understand what you mean by "objective" here. You're welcome to believe that the pricing I quoted is low and enterprise companies pay more than that, despite the abundant evidence I've provided in this thread. It sounds to me like you think I'm biased towards Anthropic, despite me highlighting how their model charged $12 for a two line CSS change due to it being "relentlessly proactive". (I also called their…
[flagged]
Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive
#314Fable feels like a version of Opus running on a harness that won't let it halt until it's sure the issue is fixed, which makes sense if what you want is a model that's better at benchmarks. It's a very good model, but it comes at a huge premium: not only do the tokens cost more, but the model itself really wants to spend them all. For example, working with React Native, Fable never just says "okay, I did the thing, t…
> which makes sense if what you want is a model that's better at benchmarks
This so much.
Opus 4.6 was the last Anthropic model that was good at assisting you, 4.7 and later ones have completely inverted this relationship and it's you assisting it.
Yes, I admit they are smarter, I admit we've reached a point where LLMs are more creative and could be writing better code (albeit with some design hiccups) than I do, but they are also increasingly bad at helping me.
Sure, they do my job when prompted 8 times out of 10 (but then, what's the point of having me anyway?), but my issue is that when I try to invert the relationship they will keep jumping onto solving the issues themselves and disregard my feedback or request.
E.g. I wanted to know some DNS details of an emailer module in Fable 5 and it jumped onto "why I should've used magic links", it just not did what asked.
E.g. 2. There was a worker machine that had an environment misconfiguration and I tasked it to find which github action was setting that specific flag and where. Instead of answering a question, it jumped into just hardcoding it in the code.
E.g. 3. I had some issues with batching, and while I tasked it to investigate whether batching was needed at all for that particular problem (hint, it wasn't) it went and changed the batching logic as to fix the bug.
I am extremely disappointed with Fable's personality.
I can clearly see it's strong, but I'm wondering whether the relationship of LLMs as assistant has broken forever, and it's us now that are being tasked into assisting them instead, because that's how it feels.
The training/reinforcement is clearly biased towards solving problems, not answering questions.
Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive
#315Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a completely different story. For cars, it happened because of relentless pressure from the auto lobby. It took years of propaganda from oil companies, car makers etc. to make us think the road is for cars [1]. We demolished and rebuilt entire cities to accommodate cars, partly because they gutted the public transport sector [2]. This made our infrastructure so hostile to our own bodies that we have no choice bu…
I don't think the pressure of the auto lobby is really the reason. People feel cars are more convenient and more prestigious than riding on a bus. Car lobby certainly accelerated the process, but car users were the main driving force.
Surely people feeling that way can be attributed to the industry?
Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does low/medium effort fix it for you? Seems like Fable 5 low can outperform Opus 4.8 high/xhigh often, and uses a lot fewer tokens
In my case no, I actually saw worse performance with fable medium and switched back to opus high and xhigh
I find high+ unusable, it's way too slow and "thorough" on 99% of mundane task.
Sure it's better at vibecoding whole tasks, it's clearly good at it, but give it a simple one, and it will still do way more than needed.
It's way too fixated on validating even the simplest things, I find it an unproductive model unless you're implementing whole tasks and doing other things in the meantime.
Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
I started doing it months ago and, to be honest, what the agent chooses to do isn’t unpredictable. The problem is that different people prompt so differently. For example, I may ask like “test different variations of this annotation on k8s pods of this service on this X cluster because it proves Y theory.” But you know what my coworker asks? “Test Y theory.” If you were to ask two different junior engineers that, one…
> But you know what my coworker asks? “Test Y theory.” It still surprises me when I see people not prompting more specifically and clearly. It not only avoids problems, it's faster, costs less -and just works better. I recently shared with a friend a multi-hour LLM chat session I'd done because it veered into a domain he's interested in. In the session I'd brainstormed and probed the feasibility of a novel concept fo…
I used to write detailed prompts. Now I find the benefits of strategic ambiguity — rather than speaking imperatively, I emphasize my vision and then Claude can often figure out a method.
This doesn’t always work better. But often enough.
Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive
#318Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the pressure of the auto lobby is really the reason. People feel cars are more convenient and more prestigious than riding on a bus. Car lobby certainly accelerated the process, but car users were the main driving force.
Surely people feeling that way can be attributed to the industry?
It’s privacy vs not. It doesn’t really need special lobbying
Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive
#319Fable has a 'security system' that just stops it when it tries to use the tool 'kill' to end a process. Which is nonsense and funny because in that situation it immediately invents a creative workaround to kill the process without 'kill'.
Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lines of code for a bugfix is a really bad proxy for effort required. You should estimate how much time it would have taken a human
5 minutes if you know CSS. And if you don’t, about the time for you to ask someone that knows CSS. In the worst case, the amount of hours to learn CSS. So if you’re doing web pages, learn CSS. Generally, if you’re doing something that directly involves X, learn how X works. ADDENDUM In most jobs, you’re going to be involved in only a few distinct technologies, learn those well and life is going to be easier. And most…
ain’t no one learning all of that