I just turn on assistive access for terminal and JavaScript over AppleEvents, and cut out the middleman. I also give it a screenshot tool.
Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive
681–690 of 748 posts
Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive
#682Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> he would have learned nothing about the AI there is absolutely zero value in spending time to learn about new models as in few months new model will be out and whatever you learned about the current one will be useless. Also with models getting better and better you have to know less and less to achieve same results.
My experience has been the exact opposite. As the models get better you need to know more about their capabilities, because otherwise you risk prompting Claude Fable 5 like it's GPT-4o and complaining loudly about how it's all hype and nothing about these models is improving at all (yes, I do see people say that.) Getting the best results out of these models requires skill, experience, intuition, and domain expertise…
>> Getting the best results out of these models requires skill, experience, intuition, and domain expertise.
domain expertise has nothing to do with llms. On the contrary, to have it you need to avoid llms.
>>you risk prompting Claude Fable 5 like it's GPT-4o
Thats fine because when GPT came out you had to treat it like a baby, GPT2 and around that time "Prompt engineering" was a thing.
Now its all dead.
After opus 4.8 all you have to do is say "fix it" or add /plan. All that time spend on learning previous models is time wasted.
And in a year or two with developed harness you will be out of the loop, errors are incoming - llm fixes them or adds new features based on some transcripts etc.
Even if model development stops now - there is nothing to learn really. Sure you may need to adjust prompt style a bit. You will do it naturally just like when you communicate with a new person. There is no "knowledge" to it, it is very smart.
Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive
#683[dead]
Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive
#684Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Thanks for the prod, I've extracted that script out into a separate static file: https://github.com/datasette/datasette-agent/commit/fa505b82... (It was in Python because there were a couple of URLs that needed to be dynamically constructed by the server, but those are output as a small window.datasetteAgentJumpConfig object instead now.)
[flagged]
Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive
#685> watching Fable go to extreme lengths to get the information that it needed to debug what was, in the end, a two-line CSS fix, was fascinating. This is… ironic?!
Not sure what you mean. I was being serious: it was genuinely fascinating watching it do all manner of weird hacks to help it come up with what ended up as a two line fix. "Fascinating" doesn't mean I think it was justified in going to those lengths. I was a little horrified when I realized how far it was going.
I hire an expensive office manager. Recently, the water dispenser tank ran dry. The employee immediately called a plumber. After laying entirely new pipes all the way to the dispenser, the plumber realized he couldn't actually hook them up because the tank lacks a direct inlet. Undeterred, he spent the next few hours scouring every floor of the building, calling the local water treatment facility, and ringing up the water tank manufacturer. Ultimately, he discovered a fresh tank sitting in the supply room on his own floor and swapped it out. All on company’s dime. I write an article and call this employee relentlessly proactive. Praise them a bunch and in the fine print, mention that I’m “a little horrified”.
Next up, we call an unprotected route to all users’ order list in the backend “relentlessly transparent”. A race condition? “Relentless perseverance”.
Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive
#686Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine telling someone in 2015 that you can just tell your computer to fix a 2-line CSS bug and it only costs $12
'only'? A web developer did not cost 12*30=360$ an hour in 2015, and that's assuming that going "ugh, whatever. I'll just hide the problem with overflow:hidden instead of finding the underlying cause" takes him or her 2 minutes and isn't already the dev's initial reaction Another way of looking at it is using as much electricity as a normal person in a high-income country uses across ~3 days to add overflow:hidden in…
It'd be $8.52 in 2015 dollars, but certainly they are the ones who mentioned the $12 amount not you, so I'll put that aside.
Far more importantly, you would not get billed for 2 minutes of work for this if you paid a developer to fix it. At best, half hour increments for the fix. But more likely, for the full hour. Also, in this comparison, the consultant is on call every day, morning, afternoon, evening, for whatever you wanted and will jump on the job immediately.
Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive
#687[flagged]
Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive
#688Earlier quoted context omitted.
It took two decades for the web to deprecate SSL for TLS and serve over HTTPS by default.
FWIW TLS had a non negligible impact on performances at scale. Hardware improvements made that irrelevant, eventually making the switch to HTTPS by default a no brainer (or at least that's what I vaguely remember from <2010)
We could say the same about virtualization, effective containerization, layered LLM calls, and other techniques currently being explored for effective sandboxing.
Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive
#689Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’ve picked an interesting example, as driving a car, even with all safety precautions, is pretty much the most dangerous activity we do on a daily basis. Yet somehow we decide that the benefits outweigh the risks.
What do you mean “somehow”? You make it sound like people don’t weight benefits and risks. If you do not live in a large city, the benefits are so immense in terms of mobility, they outweigh the risks for most, very clearly. That’s why in large cities, much less people own a driving license for example, the benefits are just not there anymore. Granted, on the downsides, people look at cost more than risks.
In cities the benefits don’t necessarily outweigh the risks yet cities are designed entirely around cars in many places to their detriment.
Re: Claude Fable is relentlessly proactive
#690Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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!
Same, I like to call it rubber duck coding (now the duck talks back!) Edit: Now I want an LLM connected rubber duck with a speaker/microphone that sees your screen
Reminds of me of RubberDuckGPT (rubber-duck-gpt.com):
“I won't give you answers. Instead, I'll reflect your questions back to help you think more deeply about your problems.”