n0on3

I was browsing through the comments and thinking how insane it is that the answer basically appears to be “there isn’t any”. Most common advice seems to be either “buy an evil product and work against it” or “buy a close-enough something-else not-(yet)-affected”. Another instance of “enough bad choices make better choices no longer an available option”? Smh…

I cannot answer that from direct experience for the latest models. At this point I’ve got pretty good even to eyeball how to chop the work across multiple sessions myself if needed, and depending on how you work on your projects a good harness configuration with proper instructions to delegate portions to dedicated agents plus periodic handoff to a persistent memory mechanism can get you very far. 1M tokens are a lot already, just try to stay way within it for each portion and avoid the need for compaction when possible.

Speaking for a user-facing use, not autonomous coding or agentic workflows: Fable 5.1 choice of words and general “words salad” expression are horrific. It starts not so good, then as the context grows (still way below any reasonable rotting threshold) it gets completely insane. It’s pointless for a model to be extremely capable if it gives you brain damage. I don’t know if it’s because of the watermark thingy, all I know is it gives me pure rage flares and every time I give it a shot I regret it. And there is no way to steer it away from this, anything I tried, both instructions and harness-wise, either failed or got forgotten/ignored after a while. I really hope the next Fable class moves completely away from whatever they did there to cause this.

Opus 5.5 in comparison is a bit more verbose and appears to settle on evaluations before the depth reached by Fable on very complex stuff, but is still vastly capable and I can read its output without wishing it had a physical form I could punch in the face.

I’m not sure what triggered such an out-of-proportion response, but I get the feeling a personal anecdote is leaking out of it. Nobody mentioned one being abhorrent, obnoxious, awkward or a sociopath, I’m sorry if you experienced some people like that (I mean it, been there) but that was not the parent comment picture (or at least it did not look like that to me). I was just contributing from my experience sometimes one gets labeled “difficult to work with” when honestly trying to do good by the org/team/mission/whatever just because that affects some people individual agenda or their cozy work situation.

Being “easy to work with” is unfortunately often confused with supporting other people agendas. Rising what’s necessary even if it makes people uncomfortable doesn’t automatically make you an ass, but odds are it will make you one that doesn’t play ball.

Cool project! For bonus points, you could run this as an honeypot :D

Nope

It’s not. Social media personas is most of what gets seen, hence your understandable conclusion. What most don’t see are those who do not give a damn about that and just do the work.

Then get the cat in and grab your gun

That’s insane. Thank you for the service you provide.

> _An intelligent person can convince themselves of anything_

I think it might be just the opposite: convincing yourself of things relies on exploiting limits for which very intelligent people have much higher threshold they might as well not have them. When it comes to happiness, it’s kind of a superpower which I think very intelligent people just don’t have because it fights against their intelligence by definition. It’s also something that I think happens unconsciously.

It’s ironic, as you yourself provided a perfect example: a logic argument depending on unproven assumptions, if it lands in “convincing” yourself, exploits a limitation in accounting for the validity of the assumptions themselves (meaning: you believe it anyway). Assuming one could pick and choose the arguments (i.e., what to believe in) wouldn’t that trivially unlock happiness?

You mean like… some sort of code?