alt Hacker NewsI wear a few hats, but as a chemist and I'm not happy with fable. As a statistician I'm not happy with fable. As a data scientist I am not happy with fable. As an academic and a researcher I am not happy with fable. It's useless. I'd be surprised if anyone can get any output from it that couldn't easily be replaced with a search from wikipedia. Given how verbose claude models have become, wiki articles are probably less verbose too, and the tok/s is unmatched for a wiki article pull.
Replies
I work on software that talks to mass spectrometers and it consistently refuses to refactor even an input file parser, presumably because it can infer it’s related to biology? Useless indeed.
> Given how verbose claude models have become, wiki articles are probably less verbose too
Telling models to respond in the style of Wikipedia is one of the best ways to make their output bearable in my experience (for chat models, not agents)
>I'd be surprised if anyone can get any output from it that couldn't easily be replaced with a search from wikipedia.
I dont understand. This is just hyperbole right? The outputs are basically infinite and wikipedia most certainly isnt infinite.
I’ve been working on a rather complex mapping project and have been getting MUCH better results with Fable than Opus.
To make the discussion constructive, can you give specific reasons (ideally with examples) about why it is so useless for you? How exactly are you using it that you think any output from it can easily be replaced with a Wikipedia search?
"the tok/s is unmatched for a wiki article pull." This is absolutely wonderful, thank you for making my day!