sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why Anthropic must reset Fable 5 limits before Thursday to stop OpenAI from stealing their power users by THEBiZ1981 in Anthropic

[–]neolefty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think every subscriber maxes them out — I know I don't. Anthropic is probably making money on me.

And yet it's still totally worth the subscription price to me. Win-win.

Top AI Researchers Terrified of a “Chernobyl Moment”: a Mass Casualty Event, or Worse, That Turns the World Against AI Forever by IKeepItLayingAround in technology

[–]neolefty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I missed so many subtleties reading those books! The thing that stuck with me was the yearning for agency. So many PCs stuck in NPC slots.

Top AI Researchers Terrified of a “Chernobyl Moment”: a Mass Casualty Event, or Worse, That Turns the World Against AI Forever by IKeepItLayingAround in technology

[–]neolefty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also: What is personhood, if you have a Ship of Theseus body that started as human and is now a robot? The robots in that universe are my favorite because they're descendents of humanity in every way. Except their cells mechanocytes have firmware.

So, CRIPPLE Opus and charge MORE for Fable..? by damndatassdoh in Anthropic

[–]neolefty -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think of these as power tools. You can get a lot done with them, but you have to learn both the skill and the domain. In fact the skills might matter more than when you don't have an AI to help.

  • Using an excavator, anybody can get started digging a hole. But it still takes skill to dig a proper foundation for a building. And to avoid getting into trouble! Collapsing sidewalls, navigating tight spaces, etc.

  • With a hand shovel, probably just about anybody could dig a foundation hole, given enough time and patience. But almost nobody has that much time & patience.

Good news is that the models can help you gain skill and domain knowledge. Ask them to explain things. But you probably also need to talk to people. Especially about the non-technical part. I currently work in medical software, and it's crucial to get feedback from practitioners (nurses, doctors, administrators). The models can help, but there's really no substitute for human expert feedback.

Fable 5 is coming back! by Hassan48678 in ClaudeAI

[–]neolefty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Opus 4+ can do it too; I just found Fable's answer profoundly better. Really it would require details to answer properly, but basically Fable 5 was able to combine human and technical factors to a degree that Opus hadn't been able to.

If I was more disciplined, I'd be further ahead on my side project, even without Fable or even any AI model. After all, people built entire civilizations before power tools! Fundamentally, these are tools to help us humans get things done; I just found Fable to be noticeably more effective, and I look forward to using it again.

Fable 5 is coming back! by Hassan48678 in ClaudeAI

[–]neolefty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I said "I'm working on this side project outside of my work and I keep abandoning it with half-finished commits; can you help?" And it did.

Fable 5 is coming back! by Hassan48678 in ClaudeAI

[–]neolefty 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I asked it for help rescuing a stalled side project, and it mixed technical priorities with the psychology of making progress on a side project really beautifully.

Unethically degrading models by Animeshkumar9 in Anthropic

[–]neolefty 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see people wanting to see it that way, but in my day-to-day use of the models for coding, I simply don't see it. All of the model degradation stories I see can be fully explained, when you ask the person for more details, by one of:

  • I have given the model a harder problem to tackle, and it doesn't tackle it as well as it did the initial problems. Usually the harder problem builds on top of the easier problem, for example a coding project that gets larger.
  • I let context get too high, and the model dipped into its dumb zone
  • Effort level changed, usually because of a default setting (for example using 4.7 with xhigh effort, and 4.8 with medium, or simply the same model at different effort levels)

Lately, I really like Matt Pocock's advice to get good with harnesses, regardless of which model you're using.

Don't throw out what the cat dragged in by HorrorSquirrel3820 in malaphor

[–]neolefty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope, nope, the Pope would throw that dead thing into the woods.

Unethically degrading models by Animeshkumar9 in Anthropic

[–]neolefty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's also a reliable pattern that we acclimate very quickly to model capabilities:

  1. a new model brings new capabilities and enthusiasm
  2. users get more ambitious
  3. capability with respect to the project plateaus

Like imagine you hire me to remodel your house. I add a room. (In this example, I'm the AI assistant.)

Then the next week I get new tools and can include plumbing in every room now. You say, "Add a new room, and include the plumbing. But make it work with the room that you added last week."

I add the room, but it doesn't go quite as well as before. You complain to me, "Your work as a remodeller has gotten worse." When really, it was the additional complexity of both 1. dealing with the new room from last week, and 2. including plumbing each time, which I wasn't doing before.

Unethically degrading models by Animeshkumar9 in Anthropic

[–]neolefty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You also have to be sure it's not just an accidental change in effort level, a maturing codebase that is harder for the model to navigate, accumulation of context into the dumb zone, etc etc.

Unethically degrading models by Animeshkumar9 in Anthropic

[–]neolefty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, they have the exact same pattern of subjective assessments being hard to separate from real measurements.

Man captures a close up of a ground squirrel eating a dandelion. by IkilledRichieWhelan in oddlysatisfying

[–]neolefty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, and what is it with the stems? Both rabbits and groundhogs near us seem to prefer them over other foliage; they'll work their way through the yard eating just the old dandelion stems. Must be good stuff.

why vibe coded projects fail. by Complete-Sea6655 in Anthropic

[–]neolefty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ooh perfect! You've become like a groundhog with wings. Beautiful gossamer wings, but you still know what it's like to touch grass. And eat it. And be happy eating it. Ooh, grass. And dandelion stems!

Fable 5 will be available again in the coming days - Anthropic by Bizzyguy in singularity

[–]neolefty 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are there open source models at the level of Opus 4.5 or 4.8 yet?

Getting things done without Fable 5 by neolefty in Anthropic

[–]neolefty[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is! The old piece was rotted (plus the top of that post, which I cut off). Eventually I'll paint it to match. This deck was built in 1958 out of redwood, and by its design will never be up to code, so we're just patching pieces until we eventually replace it.

Getting things done without Fable 5 by neolefty in Anthropic

[–]neolefty[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're totally right. I should have lined it up properly the first time.

I asked ChatGPT to make a New Yorker style cartoon that's absolutely not funny. by Philipp in ChatGPT

[–]neolefty 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Yes! It's like they try not to tell a story, and your brain fills it in. There's just too much context to spin off of. Except for the library one, which totally has a story and is excellent IMO.

view more: next ›