[asp_hornet]

The author just wrote an anecdote about how a prompt to fix an issue played out. Their conclusion wasn’t about cost or gushing at its ability but that it’s dangerous:

> Fable is arguably smarter and hence more suspicious of potentially malicious instructions. But that smartness is very much a two-edged sword: if it does get subverted by instructions, the amount of damage it can do given its relentless proactivity is terrifying.

[jrflowers]

It’s a pretty glowing review about a product that costs money with a two-sentence “Watch out!” at the end of it. Seems pretty reasonable to mention how much money it burned through given that “it’ll circumnavigate the globe instead of walking next door” has a direct concrete measurable effect (cost) unlike theoretical damage.

[simonw]

In case it's not clear, "relentlessly proactive" is meant to act as both a glowing review and a warning at the same time, even before you get to the bit about safety at the end.

[asp_hornet]

Agreed. But I think it’s also important to realise if you sent this article back to 2020 people would say it was pure fantasy that a tool could do this. Hype aside, there’s a bit of cool magic here.

[solenoid0937]

This is why I never understand the AI cynics: we are playing with literal magic. This was the science fiction of our childhoods. I don't understand how anyone with a passion for technology is not in awe (and perhaps some fear) of these things.

[nozzlegear]

The science fiction AI of my childhood was Cortana, who was a lot more cool than a relentlessly proactive token torcher which burned 12 bucks to fix some CSS.

[solenoid0937]

You can literally make Cortana with modern LLMs. Or something close to it, at least, soon to be indistinguishable from it. Especially as models like this are trained: https://thinkingmachines.ai/blog/interaction-models/