Live data from Hacker News

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

jonready.com

431–440 of 534 posts

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

#431
post #5

I don't understand how businesses could trust cloud LLMs going forward with this ongoing "safety" paranoia. Building dependence on them doesn't feel like a sane strategic decision for users.

Because this effectively hinders 0% of people. I understand why people don't like it but day to day this is nothing. If you're using it for coding, it won't stop you. The pearl clenching here and over reacting is predictable and sad. If you are working for a large organization and you were going through the vendor procurement process, questions like Can this produce pornography? Can this tell my employees how to brea…

My very first prompt to Fable, which was a completely benign math problem, hit one of their visible triggers. Many tokens into the problem, frustratingly. The user experience (read peer comments) is that you run into these issues with high frequency.

I guess, given that, a pro tip would be to err toward sequential work rather than giving monster prompts. That constraint has got to degrade quality though.

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

#432
post #372
post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Pretty likely to be some degree of diminishing returns intelligence may be different. If we look at biological brains - do we get diminishing returns or completely opposite scaling law when we compare our brain against say gorilla's ?

Interesting thought to consider in principle but fails because gorilla brains continued to evolve too, just along a different path. They're not snapshots of ancestral species locked in time.

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

#433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[dead]

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

#434
post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but.. OpenAI and Anthropic can't stop China and EU, can they? Depends on your world view, they might or might not come up with something better. but I guess we can agree nothing with stop them from _trying_?

US successfully enforce DMCA and other copyright stuff on EU while giving free pass to own bigtech now. China will certainly compete though.

The EU is slowly getting out of the rectum of the united states. Let's see if that trend continues.

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

#435
post #421
post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in general stripping away the parts you agree with from the argument works great, because it strips away a whole lot of potential for ending up indirectly arguing over things that aren't in contention, and it often also defuses the rest when it turns out the core of the argument perhaps is much smaller than people are willing to get invested in.

How do you do that without sounding negative? Because by doing that there's the risk of the general impression "we didn't agree", as you basically focused on the disagreements.

"You're totally right about X and Y. I think the only thing we disagree about is Z". People like being told they're right, and you then downplay the importance of the actual remaining disagreement. Often that lowers the stakes for people. They've already "won" since you agreed with most of what they said, so the rest becomes less important.

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

#436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get really good results with Chinese models. You're putting Opus and GPT on too high of a pedestal.

I use Chinese models (for simple personal projects), they just don't compare to GPT or Opus for any serious work. I do not know why every Chinese model fan thinks that people that aren't impressed by them simply don't use them.

What constitutes serious work and how seriously have you tried to do serious work with them? While those trying to claim a 30B dense model can match Opus 4.6 are engaging in either beyond over-excessive over-exaggeration or performing rather routine tasks, it's disingenuous in the other direction to claim the latest open 1T models are not useful for serious work. I find those making such claims have rarely spent more than a few minutes on halfhearted attempts and often on recently obsoleted models.

Openweight models turned a corner around kimi 2.6, deepseek v4 pro/flash, hy3 and mimo 2.5 pro. Similar to how closed LLMs turned a corner around gpt 5.2 and opus 4.5.

While they remain a step behind closed frontier models, for real world tasks ranging across functional reactive programming, distributed systems, mathematical modeling, to-the-millisecond highly optimized spatial data-structures, complex compute shaders and shader effects and non-trivial systems involving parser combinators and algebraic effect systems, I can say that open models have very recently gone from useless to productive. For my work, mimo v2.5 pro is hands down better than sonnet 4.6.

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

#437
This accomplishes two goals that AI Frontier Labs have a vested interest in:

1) Blocking further AI development by competitors, and-

2) Blocking the ability for outsiders to truly discern AI capabilities.

I mean, just think about the past few years of FUD about AI from the Frontier Labs themselves. They claim to use AI to write the code for AI, but then also don’t let other people do the same and make the claims impossible to independently verify. They claim AI is improving itself, but don’t let other people use AI to improve their own AI tooling. They claim AI is this great automation engine, but then block self-bootstrapping from AI in favor of selling tooling.

It’s all smoke and mirrors and lies and deception, disguised as risk management. Truly excellent and advanced AI doesn’t need human-created harnesses and scaffolding, because it shouldn’t have a problem bootstrapping its own as needed. It should be able to coach users how to setup something similar at home. It’d be researching its own improvement in distillation and resource consumption so it could run in more places, and thus improve faster through different evolutionary lines. That’s the narrative these labs sell, but trying to accomplish it on your own with their tools results in stern rejections and claims of breaching “Terms of Service”.

If AI boosters really believe in the power of LLMs and Generative AI, ya’ll gotta start calling out hypocrisy from the frontier labs every time it happens. They aren’t building world-changing AI, they’re building products, with all the restrictions and hostility of Big Tech.

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

#438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately this has been happening almost forever. You can spend 10s of thousands of $$ design, prototyping, building & marketing anything, whether a physical product or software & some company where the wages are lower are going to come along, build it cheaper (not necessarily better quality either) and ship it to the world. As a result, the other countries import more stuff "because it is cheaper" and eventually…

>Unfortunately this has been happening almost forever. You can spend 10s of thousands of $$ design, prototyping, building & marketing anything, whether a physical product or software & some company where the wages are lower are going to come along, build it cheaper (not necessarily better quality either) and ship it to the world. >As a result, the other countries import more stuff "because it is cheaper" and eventual…

> overregulate, overtax and raise barriers

Also known as labor and environmental protections. I am in favor of labor and environmental protections, but when producers are allowed to avoid them simply by moving production abroad, well, the incentives are clear.

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

#439

I'm sure someone is gonna be able to jailbreak, abliterate, or equivalent, on this input moderation attempt they have going on.

Good luck getting around something when you have no idea how and when it affects you.

How is that even possible? If you receive any kind of output, including no output, would you not be able to verify it?

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

#440
post #85

The moat looks deep today but it's going to become more shallow every year. Training a new model from scratch takes serious resources. Post-training/fine-tuning an existing model, dramatically less. The knowledge for the process was esoteric two years ago, now you can ask a current model (one of several) to walk you through it, while building the tools to do it as you go. Several of my recent weekend projects have be…

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.

> it takes O(10) people to build one of these things

To build a working prototype, sure. To operate at production scale, definitely not. The same rule would apply to WhatsApp and many other world-scale products. Turns out that, the moment you need to monetize these machines, your O(10) stops working.

Post reply on HN