Thread

1. rdli · 1791060574 · focus · HN ↗

   It’s a really good model. Over the past few days, I give Opus some general directives to basically speed up our CI, and telling it I care both about billing minutes and wall clock time. I told it to create a plan after analyzing everything in our CI, run the plan by a Fable subagent, and then focus on low-risk, high-reward changes.

   9 hours later, I had 12 PRs ready to be merged, and the net result is CI time has dropped from ~10 minutes to ~4 minutes, and billing minutes have dropped around 60%. Less than an hour of my attention.

   1. Waterluvian · 1791064255 · focus · HN ↗

      Every time weird stuff happened this week it was because the model choice in VSCode got set back to “auto” and some other model was trying its best. 5.5 is what I just set it to. Even Fable feels worse for my use cases.

      1. AnotherGoodName · 1791065488 · focus · HN ↗

         Even Anthropic rates Fable lower than 5.5 on pretty much all benchmarks.

         "Why does Fable even exist" is a very very reasonable question right now.

         1. adastra22 · 1791069839 · focus · HN ↗

            You are making the mistake of classifying models on a single linear axis, or even a multi axis basis set of all benchmarks. That just isn’t true. Each model is unique in its skills and capabilities and the way it approaches problems, in a way that is not represented in benchmarks. Fable is better at reviewing things. I don’t know how to explain it well but it is true. I trust Fable to do thorough reviews (sometimes too thorough) and to present its information in a dense but ordered way. Its output is equivalent to what you used to get from security firms doing code reviews. Having Opus do the work, and have fable do reviews (of the plan and implementation) is a good combo.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.