logoalt Hacker News

Tossrocktoday at 5:48 AM6 repliesview on HN

As I posted in another comment, I found Fable to be substantially more powerful than any previous model. However, this isn't just an ungrounded opinion - I uploaded my full session transcript and code created working on a very complex implementation, so people can judge for themselves, if they're interested: https://tossrock.substack.com/p/36-hours-with-fable


Replies

varjagtoday at 7:05 AM

Interesting.

I tried Fable vs Codex 5.5 xhigh on three different cases.

1. A resource leak with unknown cause. Both of them zoomed onto the same potential issue and proposed almost identical patches. Fable missed an edge case that Codex handled correctly.

2. Review of a SPICE model. Models had different comments, none substantial. Both missed important issues that were simulated inadequately. Clearly a valley where they are undertrained.

3. An open research problem in CS, presented as a codebase with documentation and performance metrics over datasets. Both were spinning wheels. Which can certainly mean the whole approach had run its course but older models were not able to identify the previous round of improvement either.

I liked the prose coming out of Fable more: it was almost like if Obama was giving tech speeches. By actual solution metrics however they both appear in the same place, naturally with the caveat that we didn't really have more time with Fable to compare further.

show 1 reply
tasukitoday at 7:51 AM

> code created working on a very complex implementation

I always find it amusing when people claim "a very complex implementation". Sometimes it's a hard problem, other times an easy one. Either way that's not for you to judge.

And the implementation being complex... is that a good thing? Wouldn't a simple implementation be better? It reminded me of the parable of two programmers.

show 1 reply
NetOpWibbytoday at 7:15 AM

Great post. I miss Fable.

shshnsnnsmatoday at 6:56 AM

This is very cool, thank you for the write-up.

What caught my eye is the complexity you assign to a project like this. It’s hairy but I wouldn’t call it super complicated. I find that super interesting to be honest because it probably means that it is really hard and I am just used to this shit now and it all looks doable to me now.

I never think of anything as “complex”, certainly not my own work and I always think what other people do is so much more impressive but I’m starting to realize it might be a me-issue.

I worked on some pretty hairy nonsense like say a DB replication solution but I still think it was just tangly, not complex like say a particle collider. Maybe I also need to call my work super complex and highly abstract. Now that I think of it I have a history of not being taken seriously while others with easy shit get credits.

show 1 reply
teekerttoday at 7:53 AM

You guys are getting Fable?

koobyversetoday at 6:42 AM

Oh wow this is quite interesting, thanks for sharing.