[arizen]

Could these complex/hard to read Fable outputs be sign of some kind of industrial level of intelligence, which us humans may have a hard to comprehend, while it may be also hard for machine to use simpler texts to properly outline all nuances and complexities of concepts it output?

[californical]

Two things tell me this isn’t the case:

(1) it’s not that I can’t understand their output, it’s just written in a way that is very homogenous and same-y, with very boring cliches and phrases that don’t quite match their context

(2) a pretty strong sign of intelligence is being able to explain complex things in simple terms

[rkoten]

It's very much number 2 in my experience with it. Predominantly whenever a really advanced word or phrase is used it can be substituted for a much simpler one without losing useful context. And it seems to really prefer to use them a lot.

[esjeon]

It's more like Claude models entirely suck at extracting key points. No matter how hard I emphasize that it needs to pick the "load-bearing" facts and claims, it cannot stop itself muttering around. It never nails the core logical structure. GPT is better at that.

[solenoid0937]

Fable subagents communicate very effectively with one another, so this would be a reasonable take imo

[teaearlgraycold]

I’m not convinced. In humans intelligence often means someone is better at explaining and needs fewer words to do so.

[dwaltrip]

I've increasingly felt like Fable and I speak different dialects of English...

[Omniusaspirer]

If you feed Fable or Opus primarily handoff documents from a previous context instead of human written prompts and are working on something sophisticated it rapidly reaches a level where it's hard to actually comprehend for a non expert. I've received incredibly obtuse outputs that contain more mathematical formulas than English words with programming workloads.