5 ms·

I hear this a lot and I believe it because I've heard it from so many people, but I have never run into this in my work, and neither has anyone I know in real l

by jjice 15d ago

I hear this a lot and I believe it because I've heard it from so many people, but I have never run into this in my work, and neither has anyone I know in real life. I don't use Fable for a ton of implementation work, but I use it a lot for planning, so maybe that's related to it. For planning though, I've had a very good experience with Fable and implementing with Opus.

freedomben 15d ago
Do your apps do anything with security? I can't hardly use Fable on our authentication service because it constantly trips up and refuses to write tests. Even just doing a security review usually triggers opus.
- ronsor 15d ago
  I couldn't even get Fable to build my auth endpoints at all!
- theplumber 15d ago
  I do very security cyber dangerous work like building a signup/login form or setting up a certificate. For obvious and good reasons Fable refuses to work on such sensitive stuff.
  - windexh8er 14d ago
    I asked Fable to build me a set of telemetry scripts for a specific use case so I could get a working posture of an environment. It assumed I was building some reconnaissance tooling for a nefarious reason by default and noped right out. Apparently the powers that be couldn't ever imagine their tooling being used for understanding device state. I can't wait until I need to get an exception from the USG so that I can use sudo to check some processes on a box that's spiking CPU.
rfgplk 15d ago
You can easily trip it up if you're doing reverse engineering work. From memory, the moment Fable 5 saw anything loosely related to "linux seccomp" it threw a fit.
- nrmitchi 15d ago
  From my experience, any time Fable sees anything loosely related to "linux" it throws a fit.
dijit 15d ago
“Hey Fable, write me some win32 unsafe rust code” “sure thing boss” —— “Hey Fable, review this unsafe win32 rust code” “Potentially dangerous request, falling back to Opus” —- Every damn time, ironic because the unsafe win32 code can be generated by fable in the same session. Maddening.
- AlfeG 15d ago
  Yep. Fable implemented 2FA login. Declined to review own code in same session.
nrmitchi 15d ago
I don't mean to sound like I'm dismissing your experience, but are you sure? I've (semi regularly, most of the time I'm even trying to use Fable) started with Fable, proceeded through my planning, and then at some point in the future realized it had kicked me back to Opus without me knowing. It obviously _said_ it had happened, but I didn't realize and just continued. This might primarily be a result of the project I'm working on (anything network related seems to gets kicked back). I'd guesstimate that ~80% of the time I thought I was using Fable, I wasn't actually. It's also led me to just... not even try, and just start with Opus regardless. I've found Fable unusable; not because it's bad, but because it... can't be used.
- jjice 15d ago
  No that's totally fair - I want to say that I haven't, but I guess I really can't be sure. It's very possible. I'll keep an eye out for the next time I use Fable. FWIW, most of my code only encounters security concepts as standard implementation of best practices. I'm not in a security centric position.
  - kouteiheika 15d ago
    [dead]
Jcampuzano2 15d ago
I agree and wonder whether its either people who basically never use the model complaining or people who used it once a long time ago and haven't touched it since. We have access to Fable at our company on our enterprise plans and most of us rarely run into an issue. Obviously this is gonna vary a lot with what technical domain you work in which is why its important when talking about the classifiers that people specify exactly what types of workloads they were seeing failures with.

by jjice 15d ago

freedomben 15d ago

Do your apps do anything with security? I can't hardly use Fable on our authentication service because it constantly trips up and refuses to write tests. Even just doing a security review usually triggers opus.

ronsor 15d ago
I couldn't even get Fable to build my auth endpoints at all!
theplumber 15d ago
I do very security cyber dangerous work like building a signup/login form or setting up a certificate. For obvious and good reasons Fable refuses to work on such sensitive stuff.
- windexh8er 14d ago
  I asked Fable to build me a set of telemetry scripts for a specific use case so I could get a working posture of an environment. It assumed I was building some reconnaissance tooling for a nefarious reason by default and noped right out. Apparently the powers that be couldn't ever imagine their tooling being used for understanding device state. I can't wait until I need to get an exception from the USG so that I can use sudo to check some processes on a box that's spiking CPU.

rfgplk 15d ago

You can easily trip it up if you're doing reverse engineering work. From memory, the moment Fable 5 saw anything loosely related to "linux seccomp" it threw a fit.

nrmitchi 15d ago
From my experience, any time Fable sees anything loosely related to "linux" it throws a fit.

dijit 15d ago

“Hey Fable, write me some win32 unsafe rust code” “sure thing boss” —— “Hey Fable, review this unsafe win32 rust code” “Potentially dangerous request, falling back to Opus” —- Every damn time, ironic because the unsafe win32 code can be generated by fable in the same session. Maddening.

AlfeG 15d ago
Yep. Fable implemented 2FA login. Declined to review own code in same session.

nrmitchi 15d ago

I don't mean to sound like I'm dismissing your experience, but are you sure? I've (semi regularly, most of the time I'm even trying to use Fable) started with Fable, proceeded through my planning, and then at some point in the future realized it had kicked me back to Opus without me knowing. It obviously _said_ it had happened, but I didn't realize and just continued. This might primarily be a result of the project I'm working on (anything network related seems to gets kicked back). I'd guesstimate that ~80% of the time I thought I was using Fable, I wasn't actually. It's also led me to just... not even try, and just start with Opus regardless. I've found Fable unusable; not because it's bad, but because it... can't be used.

jjice 15d ago
No that's totally fair - I want to say that I haven't, but I guess I really can't be sure. It's very possible. I'll keep an eye out for the next time I use Fable. FWIW, most of my code only encounters security concepts as standard implementation of best practices. I'm not in a security centric position.
- kouteiheika 15d ago
  [dead]

Jcampuzano2 15d ago

I agree and wonder whether its either people who basically never use the model complaining or people who used it once a long time ago and haven't touched it since. We have access to Fable at our company on our enterprise plans and most of us rarely run into an issue. Obviously this is gonna vary a lot with what technical domain you work in which is why its important when talking about the classifiers that people specify exactly what types of workloads they were seeing failures with.