The issue I have with loops is that for truly complex work, where I care about building a generalized solution for a complex problem, the agents frequently reward hack and end up burning indefinitely without finishing until I step in.
Even with Claude Code and Opus I genuinely don't understand how people are actually doing productive things with these loops. Unmanaged by humans, these things go deep, deep into their own pits of internal domain language, depth-first development, and tail-chasing. The stuff that I've seen at work produced by people exploring these kinds of "meta loop" approaches typically have a high ratio of slop and fluff to useful code and documentation.
(I haven't tried Fable yet, but people have been writing about this stuff long before Fable came out so that shouldn't count.)
It makes sense for something like autoresearch because you're trying to exhaustively explore a space that would be impossible for a human to explore by hand. But for something like building the software to run a business, there's absolutely no way I would trust anything like this. It's ultimately just superpowered vibecoding, giving you the ability to churn out more slop faster, not build useful things faster.
Show me one example of a successful application developed using this kind of meta-meta-loop architecture. Supposedly Claude Code itself is entirely AI generated code, but it's not a `while` loop, it still has a team of designers and developers.
(Also this meta-loop stuff is different from the tactical-level Ralph Wiggum loop stuff. That's a strategy to make smaller/weaker LLMs perform like better LLMs, using say 5x more tokens but at 1/10 the cost per token so that the cost-benefit math works out.)
There's also at least the galactic orbit. There might be a very large scale orbit as well around the Great Attractor, but the jury's still bery much out on that one.
Curious how you're addressing this