[thrill]

Yes. Fable is much more organized and consistent at taking small bites of the (sorry) apple when solving a problem. Specifically I'm talking about a machine learning problem I'd been working on for awhile with Opus and it was (and is, again) constantly stating that all the signal is exploited, everything is now overfit, etc, etc, etc. The first day I pointed Fable at the situation I got a 10% improvement by paying attention to the little details that Opus instead took slightly negative results and extrapolated to "fully exploited". I've had to drop back, again, to forcing Opus to explain what it's looked at and the detail it has quietly assumed away.

It's like the difference to talking to two smartest kids in a class, but one really belongs a grade higher - and the other hasn't learned yet to ask the questions that encourage it to dig in that little bit more for the additional multi-order effects.

[yfontana]

Had a very similar experience. Opus went "look, t-sne shows your features are neatly clustered" (it didn't) and left it at that. Fable didn't fully explore the problem/data, but it did go much further, implementing models to check for correlations and adjust feature clusters. Opus was able to finish the job after Fable was cut, but required much prodding (doing exactly what you described: pointing it towards things that look off and asking it, are you sure that's all there is to this?).