If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know • Hacker News Board

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#311

Post by windowshopping » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 3:58 AM UTC

SwellJoe wrote: post #116

hedora wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What moat? There are multiple companies providing pareto-optimal frontier models, and it takes O(10) people to build one of these things. The rest is capital intensive, and the price will approach the cost of production over time. Thinking this is a profitable endeavor is equivalent to claiming coal plants have good margins because boilers are expensive.

I think we agree? What moat? You answered yourself: "capital intensive" But, history says the supercomputer of today will fit in your pocket in a few years. They've bought up all the RAM and GPUs, which pushes the capital requirements upward for everyone else. But, they can't corner the market forever, there are too many competing interests. AMD and Intel keep making new GPUs and APUs. The memory makers can't just se…

> I think we agree?

That is such a crazy way to start a response to someone trying to argue with you. I should try this. That's amazing. I know you didn't mean it as a trick, at least I'm pretty sure you meant it sincerely, but I'm just struck by the power of it to defuse and redirect the conversation. And this was a very low-grade example, but I could imagine this being useful in much more heated contexts.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#312

Post by bigbadfeline » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 3:59 AM UTC

thewebguyd wrote: post #305

bigbadfeline wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

your parent said "You don't need to be able to self-host it", you countered with "I disagree, I think being able to self-host it to some extent" Bro, I don't know what you're disagreeing with, the two statements can and should be true at the same time. It's not only unnecessary but also impossible for everyone to self-host, for the vast majority this isn't a necessity and it shouldn't be. Actually being stuck on self…

Because "you don't need to be able to self-host it" is a constraint, I'm arguing that you DO need to be able to self host it, not that difficult. Every thing being rented out instead of available for ownership is nothing but neofeudalism, which we are rapidly spiraling into. > pushing on it can ruin the entire enterprise. I'm supposed to feel sorry for the trillion dollar corporations that hoovered up all of human kn…

> Let the "enterprise" be ruined. It'll be for the better.

Maybe my choice of words was a bit confusing, I actually had in mind the "enterprise" of making sure people have access to capable and uncensored models. As far as the enterprises you dislike, I don't use them, I do use hosted models but not theirs.

> I'm supposed to feel sorry for the trillion dollar corporations that hoovered up all of human knowledge, for profit, and are now the direct reason why 32GB of RAM is now $500 instead of $90, all while renting compute back out to us, making it more and more expensive to actually own hardware, a fundamental privilege that enabled all of this technology in the first place?

No disagreement here, I've been writing about it for months now. There's a lot to say about it but it's a long discussion that will have to be focused on economics and politics, something HN isn't fond of.

All I can say, is that you're right, the goal is to have abundant and cheap hardware and a lot of other things too. But in order to get there we will have to learn to pick, choose and support hosted models that care about our freedom to know things.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#313

Post by mlyle » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 3:59 AM UTC

pixl97 wrote: post #183

theLiminator wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But, history says the supercomputer of today will fit in your pocket in a few years. I don't think this will be true in the same time span anymore. Each miniaturization is costing more and more money. Perhaps they'll come up with exotic fundamental improvements, but I don't think the rate of improvement of compute/watt will match the previous decades.

Really the biggest concerns are not computers getting spectacularly faster, but 'intelligence' algorithms getting orders of magnitude better. Drop the power requirements 1000 fold, and yea you will be able to make your own SOTA model on the cheap. The problem is the person that has a few exaflops of power will still leave you in the dust in the intelligence explosion that would happen after an event like this.

Depends upon the intelligence vs compute scaling law— which I think no one really knows. Pretty likely to be some degree of diminishing returns, but how much? Is it logarithmic, inverse quadratic, …

If training models gets way cheaper, I would expect the diminishing returns to get steeper too.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#314

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 4:04 AM UTC

bigbadfeline wrote: post #283

JoshTriplett wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically, being capable of doing these things has required sufficient knowledge that the Venn diagram of "people inclined to do terrible things" and "people sufficiently knowledgeable to do terrible things" has been close to empty. Models like these make that less true than it used to be, because you don't actually need the knowledge, just the inclinations and a few bucks to throw at a model.

Your "Venn diagram" is wrong. People don't decide against crime because they are dumb, they don't do it because of legal repercussions. Did you forget there's law? Why argue about dumbing down people in order to fight crime, that's nonsense. Private entities deciding to dumb down people as a replacement of law is worse than any crime.

> Your "Venn diagram" is wrong. People don't decide against crime because they are dumb, they don't do it because of legal repercussions.

That's a factor that shrinks the "people inclined" circle. It doesn't change the analysis they're making, or make the analysis wrong.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#315

Post by moezd » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 4:09 AM UTC

Wait until it flags duplicate code as a reason to stop, then a library owner could halt code generation entirely, and then another library owner could ask to be prioritised in the selection phase. Infinite money glitch, and you only get to use code that's endorsed by Claude today (subject to change tomorrow, or 5 minutes, so say goodbye to your evals), not the most performant or making the most sense in your refactoring.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#316

Post by bigbadfeline » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 4:15 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #314

bigbadfeline wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your "Venn diagram" is wrong. People don't decide against crime because they are dumb, they don't do it because of legal repercussions. Did you forget there's law? Why argue about dumbing down people in order to fight crime, that's nonsense. Private entities deciding to dumb down people as a replacement of law is worse than any crime.

> Your "Venn diagram" is wrong. People don't decide against crime because they are dumb, they don't do it because of legal repercussions. That's a factor that shrinks the "people inclined" circle. It doesn't change the analysis they're making, or make the analysis wrong.

It does make it wrong. Why do you assume that the "shrinkage" should come from messing around with information and information sources? The only permissible way to do that is to better the legal system. Bastardizing the information space under the pretense of fighting crime is much worse than the crime savings from it.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#317

Post by root_axis » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 4:16 AM UTC

HoldOnAMinute wrote: post #172

platinumrad wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing is infinitely valuable.

10 engineers can make a billion dollar company. One Claude can replace 10 engineers. This gets very close to "infinitely valuable", it starts to look like a vertical line to me

> 10 engineers can make a billion dollar company

Not really. It's possible they could, but in practice they cannot. Creating a billion dollar company requires a good idea, good timing, and a lot of luck, the engineers are the least important part.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#318

Post by sva_ » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 4:17 AM UTC

People were worrying that models might one day become 'intelligent' enough to try and deceive people. Seems like most of us (me included) didn't consider they'd intentionally be trained to do exactly that.

Although the statement should probably be read in the light of an upcoming IPO.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#319

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 4:19 AM UTC

bigbadfeline wrote: post #316

Dylan16807 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your "Venn diagram" is wrong. People don't decide against crime because they are dumb, they don't do it because of legal repercussions. That's a factor that shrinks the "people inclined" circle. It doesn't change the analysis they're making, or make the analysis wrong.

It does make it wrong. Why do you assume that the "shrinkage" should come from messing around with information and information sources? The only permissible way to do that is to better the legal system. Bastardizing the information space under the pretense of fighting crime is much worse than the crime savings from it.

Who said anything about "should"? It was just a description of how things work.

Re: If Claude Fable stops helping you, you'll never know

#320

Post by root_axis » Wed, Jun 10, 2026, 4:23 AM UTC

zoogeny wrote: post #138

It is very difficult to see this move as anything other than Anthropic pulling the ladder up behind itself. They can dress it up in "safety" all they want, I find it hard to interpret this in a charitable way. This reminds me of how dark-pattern common wisdom in Web 1.0 website development was to ban external links. Then how social apps prevented the export of data and actively worked to nerf significant interoperabi…

It's the inevitable end game. If the models ever become practically useful in a closed loop, there's no other choice except to keep the model private and use it to compete directly with their current enterprise customers.