Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I think it’s a fine response when you say, “Doesn't feel well informed enough to give advice,” because I said 5.2
Fable and the end of the free lunch
11–20 of 268 posts
Re: Fable and the end of the free lunch
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I think it’s a fine response when you say, “Doesn't feel well informed enough to give advice,” because I said 5.2
Idk man, but an engineer would've taken that and said something like: "Damn, yeah, good point, I shall add a sentence mentioning 5.3"
Because an engineer feels secure in their knowledge so that such an oversight doesn't make them suddenly defend their identity - it's just an oversight after all. Happens.
Re: Fable and the end of the free lunch
#13>> GLM 5.2 is worth focusing on. It came out the same week as Fable and is roughly 1/9th the cost (and ~1/5th the cost of Opus 5). Is GLM 1/9th the quality of Fable? Perhaps, for certain classes of tasks. But for most rote coding it’s more than sufficient. Especially when provided with great context. I frequently chat with Fable to interrogate and shape a design, before handing off a brief to GLM. People say stuff li…
Something I’ve found comparing between Fable and Opus is that Fable has impressively good analysis skills, but both of them seem to go way way overboard with “present state” comments “# We’re making this change here because of this issue blah blah, here’s what you need to know about np.percentile, blah blah” that I end up significantly pruning before making a PR. I let it do the same style verbose commit messages (because a contextual history is cool there). I haven’t actually noticed a ton of difference in the code that they write personally, but have found that Fable does find nuances during data analysis that Opus misses.
In that light, I often go the other way: let Opus (and Haiku subagents) do most of the heavy lifting and then give Fable a shot at finding holes, especially if there are holes or unanswered questions or unearned assertions that I’ve caught on my own in Opus’ output. This, so far, seems like a clean tradeoff that doesn’t burn my Fable credits as hard and still gives solid results.
Re: Fable and the end of the free lunch
#14The real revolution is Deepseek v4 flash and similar models (GPT 5.6 Luna, muse spark 1.2, mimo, etc...) - Genuinely good performance for a tiny fraction of the cost of Fable and even GLM etc... I think a lot of people would be very content if they never got smarter, and just kept getting even cheaper/faster. Of course, both things continue to happen on a seemingly monthly basis
If they could be cheap+fast and not try to do too much, that's a good spot for me. I don't use the smarter models as much because of cost and because they're still not good enough to let loose on a lot of problems. For assistance I prefer something that can very quickly spit out a specific piece I can review on the spot and keep going. I let smarter models handle things that I treat as external dependencies and don't care how they're written, but in my core domain I'm still mostly hand coding
Re: Fable and the end of the free lunch
#15Are people still using deepseek-v4-flash everywhere? I found after the price increases, mimo-v2.5 seems far more attractive.
It's been cheap again on openrouter for the past few days. No idea how long it will last, but I've been using it from Baidu over the weekend, and it was about half the cost of the old DS prices, before the increase. Looks like people are figuring out how to offer it for peanuts.
Re: Fable and the end of the free lunch
#16As models train up the intelligence ladder, many common tasks will hit fully diminished returns, and instead it'll just get progressively cheaper to do that task. But the tasks that AI is capable of doing are also expanding. I'm not sure 'Some tasks don't require the peak of the frontier' is worth worrying about, from an AI finance perspective.
Yes. I use Opus for tasks that Sonnet could probably handle, but I'm not hitting my quota. Whatever minor incremental gain is "worth it", since marginal cost is zero.
Even now, I use Fable as the planner and coordinator, with it farming out to agents. I don't hit my Fable limits either.
Which means I could accomplish more, but these are side projects so I don't need 30x productivity. Still, claude is constantly churning away at something.
Re: Fable and the end of the free lunch
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s a fine response when you say, “Doesn't feel well informed enough to give advice,” because I said 5.2
Idk man, but an engineer would've taken that and said something like: "Damn, yeah, good point, I shall add a sentence mentioning 5.3" Because an engineer feels secure in their knowledge so that such an oversight doesn't make them suddenly defend their identity - it's just an oversight after all. Happens.
5.3 isn't available as open weights yet, and only became available via API three days ago. Prior to that the only way to access it was via a Z.ai subscription.
Re: Fable and the end of the free lunch
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Idk man, but an engineer would've taken that and said something like: "Damn, yeah, good point, I shall add a sentence mentioning 5.3" Because an engineer feels secure in their knowledge so that such an oversight doesn't make them suddenly defend their identity - it's just an oversight after all. Happens.
5.3 isn't available as open weights yet, and only became available via API three days ago. Prior to that the only way to access it was via a Z.ai subscription.
[flagged]
Re: Fable and the end of the free lunch
#19>> GLM 5.2 is worth focusing on. It came out the same week as Fable and is roughly 1/9th the cost (and ~1/5th the cost of Opus 5). Is GLM 1/9th the quality of Fable? Perhaps, for certain classes of tasks. But for most rote coding it’s more than sufficient. Especially when provided with great context. I frequently chat with Fable to interrogate and shape a design, before handing off a brief to GLM. People say stuff li…
> my theory (which I unfortunately do not have the money to test and prove) is that a codebase designed and implemented by Fable would be substantially better than one that is designed by Fable and implemented by [others]
I don't have proof, only my anecdotal experience: I leave plenty of Fable usage on the table because I do not think its implementations of code have been better to Opus 4.8, not even close. It overengineered, obscured and picked awkward constructs all the time over plain, simple, perfectly clean and performant code patterns. Code was smarter AND worse in the kind of way that a brilliant and overeager recent grad often does. (I know I did)
Re: Fable and the end of the free lunch
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
I don't think everything has to be Thought Leadership. OP compared the same generation of models to show that the latest open model—at the time of the latest closed model—was Good Enough.
I agree that the opener to their reply wasn't productive, but neither is "Weak."