Like, afaict, for many on HN going from ELIZA->Fable 5 just didn't cause any update to priors regarding this whole philosophical question. The argument against has remained unchanged. I don't see any point in arguing about it, I just find it very strange.

Say what you will about Matz or José Valim, I don't think they'd ever write a "and don't let the door hit you on the way out" screed full of personal attacks ("stinky manager", "writing slop", "a total shit show") against a person who led a very prominent project and financially supported the language.

To support that, we’re updating our Customer Terms of Service, Product Specific Terms, Privacy Policy, Sub-Processors Page and Data Processing Agreement, effective July 1, 2026. This post explains what’s changing and why.

The contacts you find through Contact Discovery are reliable because they’ve been checked for deliverability, accuracy, and whether that person is still at that company. You’re not buying a raw list and hoping for the best. Every contact that surfaces has been validated, and decision-makers are ranked first.

That quality is only possible because of a shared dataset. When you opt into enrichment, some of your business contact data helps keep that dataset current. Everyone who participates gets more accurate data back in return. You never pay for a contact already in your CRM, and there’s no separate contract.

These are the new leads. These are the HubSpot leads, data mined from your own HubSpot account. And to you they're gold, and you don't get them. Why? Because to give them to you is just throwing them away. They're for closers. I'd wish you all good luck, but you wouldn't know what to do with it if you got it.

> Meanwhile, O, a hyper-intelligent deep-sea octopus who is unable to visit or observe the two islands, discovers a way to tap into the underwater cable and listen in on A and B’s conversations. O knows nothing about English initially, but is very good at detecting statistical patterns. Over time, O learns to predict with great accuracy how B will respond to each of A’s utterances. O also observes that certain words tend to occur in similar contexts, and perhaps learns to generalize across lexical patterns by hypothesizing that they can be used somewhat interchangeably. Nonetheless, Ohas never observed these objects, and thus would not be able to pick out the referent of a word when presented with a set of (physical) alternatives.

This seems kind of obviously wrong at least in the context of coding agents. These models get trained on actual output of the previous version of the model doing its job, often "IRL" on a real computer/project. It's like O is in the conversation for years now and learning from his own interactions between A <-> O <-> B, where A is the human and B is the computer.

The idea O ontologically has never "observed" "these objects" or referents is philosophically strained. Have I observed the moon, or a finger pointing at the moon? Have I observed `sed` more than Fable?

   • 150-500B: Sonnet
   • 0.9-2T: Opus
   • 3-5T/10T: Fable / Mythos

If it turns out a $10m/10x shared node can host even smarter models, then what?

"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"

It may seem hopeless as a programmer, but imo you'd be much better off reframing your situation re: the above sentence.

But the reasoning traces became increasingly hilarious, with it getting confused and going in loops, doubting itself. I began to feel almost sad, it was like listening to the internal monologue of someone with anxiety disorder.

It made pretty good progress but wound up going in a lot of goofy loops and doing things a bit "off" from standards I'd hoped it would infer, and finally started going a bit nuts, "This is very confusing.", "OH WAIT", seemingly hallucinating a whole side-quest that didn't make sense and looking at making internal system changes to try to achieve its (now very confused) goal when I pulled the plug.

Without seeing the reasoning traces from Claude/GPT it's hard to really know, but it definitely didn't feel like the same quality of reasoning, even if dogged persistence does wind up actually working eventually.

Don't let yourself get attached to any tech stack you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you feel the heat around the corner. That's the discipline.

Right, what happened is everyone went to Fable and asked it to make the very best bicycle pelican SVG, no mistakes. And Fable's bicycle pelican SVGs were such timeless masterpieces, we all instantly got AI psychosis. Happily, you were immune to this.

I mean, I remember listening to the Biden people back in 2022 talking how they were going to cripple China's semis and therefore AI industry and keep them 5+ years behind the curve as Team America accelerates ahead. That was the pitch.

You've now got Huawei Ascend 950, GLM-5.2 at Opus 4.8 levels, China dominating OSS models, and Z.ai saying they'll have a Fable-level model by EOY. I would say the export controls have utterly, utterly failed.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/understanding-biden-administra...

Well known in a multiverse branch where Fable was a dud?

  | implementation = reality | magic  |
  |-----------------------------------|
  | 999,999,999,971 (+1)     | 0      |

From a horse's perspective, the internal combustion engine is just another tool for making scary noises and powering horse trailers to take me on fun horse adventures. So ... perhaps.

Terrible news for computing.