Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fable open sourced NanoClaw's agent factory. It cost $800

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 20 posts

Re: Fable open sourced NanoClaw's agent factory. It cost $800

#2

Post by bearjaws »

Since its behind an account wall, I can't tell if they are saying that Opus made the clone for cheaper or that Opus failed? It appears that Fable did far more "work" based on output tokens.

Aside: We should just ban Twitter links. Nobody should be required to make an account to view content on here.

Re: Fable open sourced NanoClaw's agent factory. It cost $800

#4

Post by rpdillon »

bearjaws wrote: post #2

Since its behind an account wall, I can't tell if they are saying that Opus made the clone for cheaper or that Opus failed? It appears that Fable did far more "work" based on output tokens. Aside: We should just ban Twitter links. Nobody should be required to make an account to view content on here.

Yeah, I have to manually edit the URL to be xcancel instead every time. Maybe there's a grease monkey script around that handles this kind of thing. I can write one if not.

Edit: going to try this out https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/531615-x-com-to-xcancel-co...

Re: Fable open sourced NanoClaw's agent factory. It cost $800

#5

Post by shaewest »

bearjaws wrote: post #2

Since its behind an account wall, I can't tell if they are saying that Opus made the clone for cheaper or that Opus failed? It appears that Fable did far more "work" based on output tokens. Aside: We should just ban Twitter links. Nobody should be required to make an account to view content on here.

On the aside, where's the difference between someone posting a Twitter link and an Economist link? Both are locked behind a wall, whether it account-wall or pay-wall.

Re: Fable open sourced NanoClaw's agent factory. It cost $800

#7

Post by bearjaws »

shaewest wrote: post #5
bearjaws wrote: post #2

Since its behind an account wall, I can't tell if they are saying that Opus made the clone for cheaper or that Opus failed? It appears that Fable did far more "work" based on output tokens. Aside: We should just ban Twitter links. Nobody should be required to make an account to view content on here.

On the aside, where's the difference between someone posting a Twitter link and an Economist link? Both are locked behind a wall, whether it account-wall or pay-wall.

We can ban those too.

Re: Fable open sourced NanoClaw's agent factory. It cost $800

#8

Post by [deleted] »

bearjaws wrote: post #2

Since its behind an account wall, I can't tell if they are saying that Opus made the clone for cheaper or that Opus failed? It appears that Fable did far more "work" based on output tokens. Aside: We should just ban Twitter links. Nobody should be required to make an account to view content on here.

[deleted]

Re: Fable open sourced NanoClaw's agent factory. It cost $800

#9

Post by kylehotchkiss »

It's really unusual that developers would rather write behind a twitter authwalled link than to write to their own site and just tweet about it.

If you can spend $800 on Fable in a day, you can launch a fantastic looking/performing personal site in 15 minutes ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Perhaps Hacker News could ban this style of link to help encourage that?

Re: Fable open sourced NanoClaw's agent factory. It cost $800

#10

Post by benj111 »

bearjaws wrote: post #2

Since its behind an account wall, I can't tell if they are saying that Opus made the clone for cheaper or that Opus failed? It appears that Fable did far more "work" based on output tokens. Aside: We should just ban Twitter links. Nobody should be required to make an account to view content on here.

Same with medium. Why?
Post reply on HN