[stingraycharles]

“Understands intent well and hammers until it gets there. “

If there’s anything I learned over the past 12-18 months is that this is a recipe for disaster, except for throwaway stuff.

I thought most senior engineers settled on the fact that steering a model yields much better results?

[hodgehog11]

For some tasks, there is no amount of "steering" that will produce sensible code. The model needs to be sufficiently capable as a baseline; this is the "intent" that people are referring to with Fable.

[stingraycharles]

That doesn’t sound like the “it hammers until it’s done”-type of intent.

Just last night Fable decided to get into a rabbit hole of debugging a database driver issue by packet sniffing the network traffic instead of just adding debug statements to the code. Definitely needed steering, and I don’t know many people whose first intuition would be to use pcap when they have a segfault.

[hodgehog11]

Overengineering is the name of the game with Fable. Sometimes you don't want that, sometimes you really do, especially as a researcher. It's a very nice tool to have around for those special tasks.

[oefrha]

I wouldn’t call it a recipe for disaster, but oh boy if you leave an agent that “hammers until it gets there” on its own with an underlying bug in a dependency…

[icepush]

It's very possible that would be the best strategy over the last 12-18 months and now that this is released it is no longer the best strategy.

[stingraycharles]

That would be an extremely massive leap if agents could suddenly make nuanced architectural decisions and prevent technical debt.

In my experience even Fable still requires guidance (although the options it provides are generally better).