who cares. Just have deepseek v4 pro do 10-20 turns when you want to solve something really complicated. then judge with GPT5.5.

That's actually a good point. I had Fable available almost immediately under my Copilot subscription and never bothered to use it even to say hello.

But from what I hear, Fable looks like an incremental update, with improved behavior imprinted by training.

Something that you could theoretically approximate by using a good set of instructions and model orchestration (tweaking the session life cycle, using a second model to understand user intentions, using a third model to prevent drift, ...).

If the above is true, the only discriminator would be user effort.

If Fable is dangerous, then we are still in danger right now, and have been for the last few months at the very least.

I admire these people but I will not help. Tried in the past and almost got in trouble.

Also, I like free stuff and like to read. But there must be a line, an invisible-moral one if nothing else. Where if you can afford it, pay for it. You've downloaded a book and you liked it. Go buy it, if you can afford it.

Something like ~500 new millionaires is what i've read on x.

So, this could have been implemented even before this Fable, could have been there from long ago. Puts a different perspective on all the reddit threads "opus is dumb today". Who knew that if you said the wrong word, the model would just intentionally feed you BS, without you even knowing it did.

WOW, never liked the virtue signaling Anthropic did with gov contracts but whatever. Got passed that. But this?

this! javascript does add some nice UI&UX but i learned to do without, makes you get creative.

seems like interest is super high, people selling other assets to buy spacex

Asian labs generated synthetic datasets from UBS labs but also innovated with technology. Now it is harder to get the thinking traces AND Anthropic is recorded to poison it as well.

Thus Asian labs will have to generate their own data sets, which with the huuuuge usage boom from deepseek, mimo, kimi, etc, they will be able to.

Why wouldn't it be? How much would you pay a scientist at this point to think about a problem for you and give you a solution?

I'm not sure how it might be with Fable in practice, but we are already not that far away from AI costing as much as a full-time professional, faster in some ways but considerably less independent.

Perhaps not that close to US salaries, but those are inflated to hell. Worldwide senior engineers and scientists have salaries just about an order of magnitude away from AI subscriptions that you can use most of the day every day.

one could also vibe-code vanilla, no dependencies.

You can vibe code safely for sure.

I am not saying vibe coding is the issue. The issue is that a typical developer might be working on a lot more projects that run concurrently then they used to. And because of the various nature of the project the risk is significantly increased.

Scale this across the workforce and you not just doubled the problem.

You can vibecode docs and tests also but I'm truly not seeing more of those.

In the end it can just be a culture thing. A dev who was going to write docs and tests before is going to have a LLM generate docs and tests today. Same with safe practices and defensive coding. The machine does whatever you want from it, for most that's "just get the job done I don't care". So that's the output.

If I vibe code a project, that involves docs and tests as well. Obviously I do not, at any point, do anything blindly and there are some iterations for everything. I always double-check, and I do not use "agents", I do everything manually. I always check what the LLM is thinking, in real-time. I might be old school, but that allows me to write code that is not a pile of shit. :P I am still conscious about quality.

Anecdotal.

13 million swe roles with .01% is 130,000 compromised devices.

Process problem

I think that the numerical example you gave appears to be wrong unless you intended 1% rather than 0.01%.

In any case, fair enough. The concern is that organizations will build processes around AI where many people do not review outputs carefully. I do not disagree with this.

I also agree that my particular workflow is anecdotal and does not work at scale.

Yes my bad I even checked it in the calculator but then typed in .01 again but added % again. I meant to do it to serve as an example of how bad humans are at thing.... right...

Yes 1%

I do agree.

"Practice safe vibecoding, stop the cycle of infections!"