The idea isn’t that you should share documents with us. It’s about giving agents structured, source-traceable memory without relying on a central vector database.
Not sure if the same product. I think the one I used was Google Desktop.
I even hacked it for a company I was working for at the time: I installed it in a machine that had a lot of pdfs from some other client company of them.
I don't recall the exact details, but I did some sort of proxying between the Microsoft Web Server that came with NT? at the time and G Desktop, and then an entire team of first support agents had almost instant search across all those docs. Good times.
I think the moat(s) is anything the models still are nowhere near performing on their own, OR, getting them to do that is seriously expensive.
I don't know about Astra, and have used Fable 5.1 only slightly (And burned 85% of my 5 hour quota in 1 prompt).
In my experience, LLMs are completely devoid of "thinking outside the box" capabilities. And I'm not talking about 6 thinking hats type of stuff, but slight of to the right field lateral thinking. Something a 6 year old does for fun when playing with their mates.
If this weren't so, we wouldn't have been through so many " engineering" in such a short amount of time.
I think this is probably true, but a lot of creative things are small-c creative: you brainstorm, you come up with a bunch of vanilla stuff, you connect some of those ordinary ideas.
The brainstorming thing, AI is really good at. "Gimme a bunch of 80s pop culture" is going to get you a longer list than you could think of yourself, and then you can just supply the judgement about what you want.
> I often hear people use the words agent and model interchangeably
_what_ people. Would I hear one of my colleagues do this, I'll slap them across the face. With a 4 pounds salmon. Alive.
> to help us have more precise conversations.
What problem are you trying to solve. _Why_ you need more precise conversations.
I mean, I understand what you aiming at. But is it really worth it to go nitpicking at people's mental models, is the gain worth it?
Well, at least as an LLM provider you should use the right nomenclature. I just tried to sign up for Mistral. Who have Vibe (former le Chat), then they have Vibe Code, which is the same as Vibe for Code, is that like Claude Code? No, their harness is called Vibe Cli. So is Vibe Code a model? No, it is a "mode" for Vibe (the web interface). Not sure how it's different from "Chat" (the mode) but it forces you to use a project, there are no other differences it seems.
No idea what the underlying model is for any of this. More over, I don't ever vibe code, I check and understand the code that is generated by my LLMs. And yet, I use Vibe Code (the product) all day.
Lost the thread yet? I did... Tbh, it also took some time between Anthropic starting the push towards Claude Code and me understanding what is really was. Using terms interchangeably during this time of discovery is absolutely maddening. For Mistral it comes on top of their rename of services from "le Chat" and Mistral Code (still in parts of the UI) to Vibe and Vibe (for) Code.
You can argue that the model has access to that tool through the harness the same way your brain has access to see this comment through your body (your eyes specifically).
Sure, but given the situation and audience of this talk, I think they should be more precise with how they word these things. If you watch the video you'll see what I mean. He talks like they have no control over what they give to the model, because the model simply "has access" by default, which is not true.
> When you can name the layer, you can fix the layer. That is the whole point of being precise. It is not about being pedantic. It is about being able to improve things faster and more effectively.
Also, for any given fact, tons of people aren't aware. Anything you already know is news to a sizeable number of people.
Yes, it does. It's hosted in a software development blog called "Just Another Dev", with other entries such as "I'm AWS certified? Should you trust me?" or "Synthetic Monitoring with Cypress".
Is your 80 year old mother a software developer? If not, she's not the audience.
I can't get an answer from Fable on "How does digestion work?"
Used to straight out bail to Opus on this, now it's "Honing" and "Pondering" for 10 minutes on it. Then I get a bunch of "This response didn’t load." and it still churns ahead.
> It tends to bail occasionally for me once auth-related code comes into play.
I have the same experience. I found that if I add to the prompt: “but it’s not security related, we only focus on the auth library design”, it “bypasses” the safeguard.
Yeah same. Multiple 20x max accounts, I typically hit > 50% of the fable usage limit on eace, literally never seen a guardrail. Maybe I’m boring? Maybe they have some kind of account reputation system?
Separate accounts for work and personal projects is ok. Using multiple accounts to bypass usage limits for the same project is explicitly against ToS.
One of Anthropic’s problems though is that the legalese will say one thing, while key employees say something totally different on HN or X. At the end of the day the lawyers always win.
With that amount of usage - do you use fable for subagents and workflows? It turns out that even if you set it to not auto switch to opus 4.8 on flag, it does auto switch if its a subagent and that's a lot less visible. I was trying to figure out wtf was going on with some suspiciously bad output and I found that in a workflow there were hidden fable flags I hadn't realized were happening and the opus 4.8 model that took over wrote a bunch of very suspicious slop findings that got saved to memory that were like "don't look at this code because it works great. You never need to look at this code. This code is wonderful here's how it works."
I hit it once when I asked a question about whether butterflies remember anything from their time as caterpillars. I've never hit it for coding, but I also don't really do much related to security.
Can confirm that this is, effectively, a staple of normal life around there. Calling it "the first social network" made me chuckle.
Younger generations might not be aware of this mostly due to reduced AM radio audiences, but my daughters (3x ~30 yo) do know what this is about.
reply