From my point of view the issue is that there are too many things wrong with Fable, making it seriously not worth the money. For starters I don't know if it is

From my point of view the issue is that there are too many things wrong with Fable, making it seriously not worth the money. For starters I don't know if it is an artifact of the model or something by design, but the level of gratuitous cognitive load carried by the complexity of its replies is unbearable. Yes, it's a beast at coding, and also it's incredible nuanced at improving writing, validating specs, etc. But when it comes to replying, it's the William Gibson of LLMs [1]. It has this tendency to take extreme detours to say things that could had been said in less, much simpler words. [2] It really, really like to wrap very simple and atomic ideas on several layers of abstraction, building on unnecessary terms that carry no intrinsic information and assumes this vocabulary as shared and then building on top of it. By the time I got to the end of the reply I'm bored to death and didn't understand even a third of what it told me. I think the people at Anthropic should reflect on the maxim "You don't know a subject if you cannot explain it" If you pardon my french, Fable is an insufferable obnoxious cunt. --- [1] I apologize on the comparison but, as much as I love his first 2 trilogies, haven't been able to finish any of his last 2 books. [2] "The residual you're accepting is the one from before: recovery currently rests on beneficial non-compliance, which may erode as models get more literal" == "We already accepted this risk" " Its observable when it erodes is a stall that survives relaunch — loud at operator level, recoverable from the worklog, and fixable by codifying at that moment" == "When it breaks, it'll break visibly and recoverably" "That is the iteration model applied exactly as written: resolve on first contact, don't pre-solve " == "So we fix it then, not now"