Live data from Hacker News

Working on Economics with Fable 5

wilsoniumite.com

31–40 of 91 posts

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#32

the paper abstract is generated by ai: https://www.pangram.com/history/c480c94f-2d19-4cc3-95e0-c4fa...

Yes? The author is very clear in the blog post about having used AI very heavily:

Up until now you have been reading the words of Anthropic’s Claude, in particular Fable 5. In part, this is because I simply could not have written this piece. ... Although it might seem strange I thought it wrong to impose too much upon the machine, changing its voice to emulate mine. Richard Sutton’s bitter lesson would likely advise as much. Instead it has its unique voice, grating to some perhaps but altogether fitting that it should be able to keep it, and I only gave it advice on what considerations during writing would bridge the gap between its understanding and that of a reader.

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#33
post #32

the paper abstract is generated by ai: https://www.pangram.com/history/c480c94f-2d19-4cc3-95e0-c4fa...

Yes? The author is very clear in the blog post about having used AI very heavily: Up until now you have been reading the words of Anthropic’s Claude, in particular Fable 5. In part, this is because I simply could not have written this piece. ... Although it might seem strange I thought it wrong to impose too much upon the machine, changing its voice to emulate mine. Richard Sutton’s bitter lesson would likely advise…

I don't know if putting a disclaimer at the very end of the blog, that you also disclaim, should be considered "very clear".

"Here is, for those that have read this far, the acknowledgements that used to be in the formal paper but we decided to remove it, mostly because the paper has been reworked and rewritten so many times by us."

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#34
post #29
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may well be, but also Pangram is ridiculously transparent pseudoscience. Let's not play pretend that it's authoritative, please. Edit: Just for fun I just defeated it with AI-generated text that it reported as 100% human-written. Great stuff. Truly genius scam.

What were the text, your prompt, and model?

It was actual work output I generated a few weeks back with Sonnet 5. Not posting here for obvious reasons, but it was nothing special or engineered for Pangram deception.

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#35

This is a topic I'm interested in, but the presentation and exposition on the website leaves a lot to be desired. Yes, it does make you sound like a crank. Almost all of the theory and predictions presented seems to be those of regular classical economics, per Smith, Riccardo, and particularly George. You can find them in Wealth of Nations, Progress and Poverty. This surprises people who have been failed by our educa…

So, like, legit pro AI tip, at least for 3rd-quarter 2026... whenever you're working on something interesting, ask the AI about prior art, or to do a scan of the scientific literature. Whether it's economics, health, or something algorithmic at work, at least the AIs I've used (as we've not all spent all the time with all the models) are still generally inclined to give you exactly what you ask for. They may do a good job at giving you what you asked for, but they won't generally do a whole lot more. Ask them to go looking around and it's like giving them a 30 point IQ boost sometimes. They all operate way better when you fill the context window with relevant information then when you're operating just in the latent space of their training, but they only rarely seek it out without being prompted on their own.

On my near-term todo list is to explore a particular crank physics theory of my own with AI... but not as a way to validate it, I know it's a crank theory that is far too simple to have been missed by pros in the relevant fields, but as a window into the literature and figure out what's wrong with it and thereby learn something. I will be framing it to the AI in pretty much precisely that way: Go get literature and reputable sources and talk through why this is already well known, probably well known to be a bad and wrong idea.

I still feel like not enough people are talking about this here on HN... AI has opened the scientific literature like never before. It's like being able to interrogate it and interview it as if it was a person, rather than just searching papers, for keywords you don't know, for lines of thought you've never heard of, in a sub-sub-sub-field you didn't even know existed, and failing before you even knew what it is you wanted. I've read more papers in the past 6 months than the past 10 years. Whatever opportunity you have to try this out, be it some question bothering you for the last 10 years, or a crank theory of your own to prove out against the literature, the foundation of some vibe-coded program informed by the literature rather than just vibing on the neural weights directly, or just asking something random about the studied effects of beavers on local ecosystems, you gotta try this. Prompt it specifically for "reputable sources and scientific papers", that helps a lot. It does not make you suddenly an expert in the field, but it does let you poke through the pile of literature far, far more effectively than you could hope to before.

And then don't forget to ask it why your summary is wrong or incomplete. Even if it doesn't convince you, you'll learn yet more.

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, quite a bit actually. It's directly analogous to e.g. "Red sky at night, sailors' delight", i.e. a pseudo-scientific approach that probably has a better-than-random success rate.

So it’s a heuristic. Lots of very valuable heuristics exist.

None of which is authoritative, per my initial comment.

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MMT job guarantee

Boy I sure love my ditch digging job for the government! My friend also loves his ditch filling job too!

About 100 years ago, American capitalists drunk-drove the US economy into a ditch and the government had to jump-start it by allocating capital itself. The jobs were in national parks, schools, housing, and rural electrification. If you've ever been to a national park, chances are decent you walked by/over a plaque or stamp commemorating it.

It's reasonable to want most capital allocation to happen privately, thereby ensuring these decisions are made by people with a track record of success and skin-in-the-game. That's capitalism, it's good, and I'm a capitalist too. But the propaganda that the government is so inherently bad at this game that one should fight it even in an emergency is reductive, defeatist, and ahistorical.

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#38

This is a topic I'm interested in, but the presentation and exposition on the website leaves a lot to be desired. Yes, it does make you sound like a crank. Almost all of the theory and predictions presented seems to be those of regular classical economics, per Smith, Riccardo, and particularly George. You can find them in Wealth of Nations, Progress and Poverty. This surprises people who have been failed by our educa…

I feel bad for the humans who rediscover what we have already discovered and position it as something new. If this keeps happening soon we will be in an endless loop without gain.

Ah well.

Re: Working on Economics with Fable 5

#40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MMT job guarantee

Boy I sure love my ditch digging job for the government! My friend also loves his ditch filling job too!

You say this, but if the US actually expanded nationwide fiber like we were supposed to there would have been a whole lot of ditches to dig up and refill. Public works projects don’t have to be wasteful.
Post reply on HN