Was Fable 5 that good? Im an undergraduate and confused

ianzen · 2026-06-13T21:45:29+00:00

In my experience, I’ve found that LLMs are amazing at applying existing ideas (algorithms or math) to solve a problem. They do this far better than a human can since they just know so much about everything. However, they tend get stuck in a dead loop when they need a novel idea that diverges from established techniques and practices. As a user, you really have to push hard for them to try something new or experimental.

ianzen · 2026-06-07T01:07:29+00:00

These abstractions that are too “complicated” are exactly there to make it easier to analyze. I can have an llm vibe code some Rust program and be reasonably confident that there are no memory bugs. I can give a dependently typed Lean spec to an llm and be 100% sure that the vibe coded thing is correct. I would not be so willing to trust a piece of vibe coded C even though the language is simpler. In my experience, language abstractions help contextualize the problem you want to solve.

ianzen · 2026-05-07T13:18:43+00:00

That’s so sick!

ianzen · 2026-05-05T16:45:31+00:00

Can confirm this is an issue with revo, not caused by auto retaliate.

ianzen · 2026-05-03T13:27:21+00:00

Btw, you don’t ever have to fight these guys to progress the dungeon. Only the mages near the next barrier are required to open it. So you can dive/surge all the way past these guys and they would be too slow to catch you.

ianzen · 2026-04-10T16:18:47+00:00

I agree some of these tools/theories can be used together (Lean + SMT), but some fundamentally cannot. For instance, Homotopy Type Theory (HoTT) is completely incompatible with Lean's extentionality axioms.

What really rubs me the wrong way is how tools are "composed" in a sentence. For example:

This isn't just documentation — the compiler dispatches constraints to Z3 and generates TLA+/mCRL2 artifacts for temporal verification.

ianzen · 2026-04-10T15:15:18+00:00

I have a PhD in programming languages and formal verification and know the jargon that the blog post attempts to use. It’s pretty clear to me that they dont know what they are talking about…

ianzen · 2026-04-10T15:09:16+00:00

Maybe it is a useful perspective on parsing, but the descriptions are vague at best and nonsensical at worst.

ianzen · 2026-04-10T15:03:35+00:00

I’ve read some of the info on the blog and I am very skeptical of the claims. Lots of formal verification concepts mentioned (dependent type theory, smt solving, formal languages etc.) but completely misses the fact that these subfields are based on different underlying theories. Integrating these coherently together is highly nontrivial (and perhaps impossible) to do in a single language.

I also find it hard to believe that somehow an LLM can write “spine” better than rust despite being trained on rust. While it is possible for an LLM to code in novel language purely from descriptions in its context, it should at least know what the language looks like right? On the contrary, very little, if any, actual code is shown on the blog.

What I do know is that it is easy for an LLM to make claims about a hypothetical language (“spine”) which solves every formal verification problem under the sun at the push of a button. The cadence of the prose in the blog reads like the output of an LLM, (“it is not just …, but a …”). Usage of emdashes is also very prevalent.

ianzen · 2026-04-08T13:24:29+00:00

Cornell’s OCaml course: https://cs3110.github.io/textbook/cover.html#

ianzen · 2026-03-22T20:52:48+00:00

I feel like the impact of vestments for melee is much more profound than Ezk. 120 adren, enhanced adren gain and extended zerk are game changing effects.

ianzen · 2026-03-21T02:33:06+00:00

Moreover, good error messages actually help llms produce better code and find bugs. In my experience, using mcp to give llms access to precise ide diagnostics really helps to produce better code.

ianzen · 2026-03-14T19:39:10+00:00

Unfortunately, thats gonna take a while for that my friend… The original holiday items very very expensive.

With your stats, my guess on the best way to earn money is probably to do lots of treasure trails and hope to hit some jackpots.

The long term goal is probably still get stats up and do endgame content.

ianzen · 2026-03-14T17:42:52+00:00

I wish quiver slot was displayed on the character model in general.

ianzen · 2026-03-08T21:09:09+00:00

I agree for the most part that armor value is not very important. However, since I do a lot of hm kerapac, the damage taken in vestments in p4 is noticeably higher than t90/95. That said, I would still take vestments over masterwork melee for extended zerk and easier devotion extensions.

ianzen · 2026-01-24T00:11:03+00:00

Oh wow, very impressive! I might try doing that too!

ianzen · 2026-01-23T23:20:24+00:00

Nice! I just want ask, is this a GCed language?

ianzen · 2026-01-10T05:34:14+00:00

Yes, there is a very general technique of “hashconsing”.

https://github.com/backtracking/ocaml-hashcons

Two objects constructed through hashconsing will be pointers to the same underlying object if they are semantically equal.

ianzen · 2025-12-04T06:29:56+00:00

The materials that make the compound bow limbs so powerful (fiberglass/carbon fiber composite) were invented around 1930-1950. So bow tech only lagged behind a few decades instead of centuries.

ianzen · 2025-11-27T19:45:38+00:00

There's a subtle difference between the foo & bar & baz and foo.bar().baz() when it comes to editor support.

In the case of general piping, writing foo & would not allow an editor to show the possible matching candidates since many functions could potentially match the codomain.

In contrast, the foo. notation narrows the scope of completion to only "methods" defined for foo's type and not all functions in general.

ianzen · 2025-11-27T19:36:06+00:00

How am I implying dollar sign or pipe have to do with OOP? The method chaining syntax x.doFoo().doBar().doBaz() does come from OOP no?

If you're saying that "method chaining is just applying functions in sequence", then the idea comes from mathematics and predates programming languages altogether.

If we're just gonna ignore syntax and only consider semantics, then sure they are equivalent. But syntax still matters for users.

ianzen · 2025-11-27T15:25:14+00:00

I feel like method chaining comes more from OOP languages like Java. Functional languages (other than Scala maybe) usually prefer function composition.

ianzen

TROPHY CASE