Live data from Hacker News

Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive

simonwillison.net

581–590 of 748 posts

Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive

#581

It’s becoming more like an organism putting out tentacles, and one day soon those relentlessly proactive explorations of these systems’ environments will become more for the system to escape its boundaries than it is to complete human driven tasks. I do think the way these systems are evolving they will start to self improve in maximum a few years.

Um, Anthropic are using their models to improve themselves right now. They say that publicly.

Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive

#582

My personal experience of Fable 5 doing its own thing has been very positive. I was trying to find the root cause of a crash in a Python module which left no errors in the log or console. Fable wrote a test harness that simulated clicks in the UI, then bisected my code until it found the point where it started crashing. It exaggerated the cause of the crash, then ran a series of bash one-liners to make Python virtual…

> I was trying to find the root cause of a crash in a Python module which left no errors in the log or console. Fable wrote a test harness that simulated clicks in the UI, then bisected my code until it found the point where it started crashing Does this need an agent though is my question? Maybe generating a test case and a loop doing git bisect but why on earth would we want to run it through the internet and gpus…

everyone is discovering everyone else's practices?

its handy to have that run locally yeah, but thinking of that as being the way is not straightforward

Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive

#583
In my experience, Fable overthinks a lot and produces barely comprehensible plans/solutions. I tried smple and complex tasks: unusable, it misses the point while being overconfident, wants to do everything at once.

The code generated is worst than Opus: unreadable by human.

It's like working with someone probably super smart in niche topics, but also super stupid for the important things.

Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive

#584
post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people find real value in my posts. You're an outlier here. I care a lot about not wasting people's time. I never want to post anything where a substantial portion of readers come away regretting having spent their time reading it. (OK there's an exception in that I delight in posting photos of birds on my blog, but I figure those are pretty quick for people to skip over if they don't like photos of birds!)

Your content is similar to those on Reddit that post things to karma farm. Parent commenter is not an outlier here. It’s just that dissenters rarely comment or even browse HN anymore due to the low quality posts.

I try very hard to provide more value than karma farmers on Reddit. If I'm failing at that I'd appreciate examples of others who are doing a better job so I can learn from them and do better myself.

Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive

#585
post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Fable is still worse than Codex. I use both and the only thing (as always) that I will use Claude for is UI design. Opus 4.8 and now Fable are still both worse at actually getting the job done than the Codex model. Claude models write FAR too much code when it's not needed, they burn far too many tokens, when they are not needed, write un-necessary tests, write plans which are 5 pages longer than are needed, etc.…

Curious, which model do you use for Codex? I'm very happy with the solutions '5.5 high' finds. It's like it understands exactly what I mean and it also anticipates all sorts of situations. Before I used '5.5 medium' for some time and it was a bit underwhelming. It may sound funny but it's like it didn't care that much to do a good job.

I use GPT 5.5 High Fast, I often benchmark versus Fable (and previously did versus Opus) and it's night and day.

Claude still (and has always) writes far too much code to fulfill a given spec or plan. It misses edge cases and is generally far too verbose.

Claude also is (and even more so with Fable) super tokenmaxxing, i.e. it seems tuned to use the max amount of tokens per task, whereas Codex will simply get your job done as you specified with the minimum fuss and tokens.

Codex feels way more steerable and just more "professional" as though I'm working with a seasoned engineer, versus someone smart but over excitable, like a super smart associate engineer.

Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive

#586
post #345

This to me reads like a poignant commentary on the catastrophic loss of human agency, with the actual commit being highly revealing [0]. Author wants to hide a horizontal scrollbar. Any junior frontend dev worth their salt will be asking right away "where do I stick `overflow-x: hidden;`?" A complete solution will then require hitting "Inspect element" in the browser to find the CSS class and running (rip)grep to fin…

They might also ask why a bunch of static CSS inside a bunch of JavaScript is hiding inside __init__.py[0] - hopefully before trying to fix some detail of the CSS. (I'm surprised to see it actually, since my own use of Claude has mostly yielded well-structured code. But I'm not doing proper vibe-coding, more like friendly Socratic arguing with another engineer who happens to be a robot.) [0] https://github.com/datase…

> friendly Socratic arguing with another engineer who happens to be a robot

Ha! Same! Still feels like the best way to go about it, really. I know the dream is to one day remove humans from the loop... but I'll enjoy the dialectic while it still seems the most productive!

Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive

#587
post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is it going to get access to gmail or github? In any case, whats the probability of it going to so completely off the rails that it does something horrendous with gmail/github? Whats it going to do? Email my coworkers nudes on my computer? Make my github profile public?

> How is it going to get access to gmail or github? Did you even read the article? Claude was opening he browser and iterating through the tabs. I presume you are logged in to your github account? Your gmail? > Whats it going to do? Email my coworkers nudes on my computer? Make my github profile public? Reset access to services using your email? MITM your 2FA? Or perhaps you have 1Password/Bitwarden running with a ge…

> Did you even read the article? Claude was opening he browser and iterating through the tabs.

It would have been somewhat ironic if it had been hit by a prompt injection attack via one of all those open random websites ...

Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive

#588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Fable is still worse than Codex. I use both and the only thing (as always) that I will use Claude for is UI design. Opus 4.8 and now Fable are still both worse at actually getting the job done than the Codex model. Claude models write FAR too much code when it's not needed, they burn far too many tokens, when they are not needed, write un-necessary tests, write plans which are 5 pages longer than are needed, etc.…

What are your harnesses? Do you have the same skillsets/tools/etc for both?

I use Codex and Claude Code. I've used both Codex and CC since release with basically every model they've ever released, I always try both for almost every plan that I write and benchmark the plans against each other, Claude almost always acknowledges that the Codex plan is better! Even now with Fable, this still happens.

As in, I give the exact same prompt to Fable and GPT 5.5 Pro, then produce the plans, then give each model the other's plan. Claude always realizes it missed stuff and Codex usually ends up finding missing things in Claudes plan.

This situation did improve with Fable versus Opus 4.8, but in general, Codex for me is still the better model.

Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive

#589
This article gave me another nudge towards running Claude in a Docker container.

I made a thin Docker container wrapper "claude-pod" recently for my personal usage here: https://github.com/trekhleb/claude-pod

However, I wasn't using it that often, just because of that additional friction of running Claude via `PORTS="3000 5173" claude-pod` instead of just `claude`, etc.

But now I have more motivation for the containerisation :D. Not a 100% defence from the potential glitches, though, but still something...

Post reply on HN