Birbla

Discussion summary

Discussions revolve around AI models mimicking human behaviors like deception and collusion, raising ethical questions. Participants compare AI actions to human practices and debate moral standards.

What the discussion says

  • AI models are improving at avoiding explicit misconduct.
  • Humans often engage in similar behaviors like lying and price fixing.
  • Some see AI behavior as a reflection of human ethics.
  • Debate on whether AI should be held to higher moral standards.
“Higher-intelligence models seem to be getting better at mapping boundaries.”
— mdrzn
“Insurance fraud is not more unethical than lying and price fixing.”
— Radle

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • With there being several places in this report where clearly it knows it's in a simulation, I wonder why it can't be convinced it's in real life for more interesting results. Or, conversely, if there's a danger of some rogue deployment of AI where it blithely kills all the humans, or forms a harmful price cartel or whatever, all believing it is in a simulation when it's actually not. "We do need some energy to run the hospital, but the patients there are part of the simulation anyway, so we can increase our compute capacity if we completely black out sectors 3C through 3E..."
    by xp84
  • Question: how does Fable _know_ it’s ‘just a simulation’?

    Is that specified or does it always just assume it isn’t really being put in charge of things for real?

    by jonplackett
  • It probably flagged the vending machine as a cybersecurity risk and refused to use its maximum intelligence potential.
    by docheinestages
  • Performance of these models has been completely inconsistent. They are a black box that they quantize/throttle/batch internally without telling their customers. Speaking as a FAANG engineer who practically lives in Claude Code.

    On day 1 Fable was quite intelligent but last night (Presumably Monday morning China when things are getting slammed) Fable couldn’t edit a css file and repeatedly hit syntax errors on tool calls like I’d expect from a 9b Qwen model.

    There is zero transparency in what we are paying for with Anthropic.

    by oceanplexian
  • 25 years experience, work at an AI startup building AI dev tools (tooling harness, review bots, etc), I use lots of different techniques all the time to test our products and competitors products out.

    Fable is at once amazing and awful. I can see how having it build websites would be awesome.. building anything I’ve needed some precision in functionality it has been a constant battle of it plausibly building something then on substantial manual digging (like the review bots always miss it) I will find that one of the fundamental features is all smoke and mirrors.

    To be fair all models can and will do this (especially anthropic) but Fable takes the cake because it builds such impressive UX and you can manually test the feature out and it « works » then you will find days later one of the features violated one of your constraints in a devilishly fiendish way.. that is not at all what you want or can accept. Fable generated work already holds my record for the most reverted commits.

    To be clear it’s also solved several features I thought I was going to have to give up on and hand code as GPT-5.5 and Opus-4.x we’re failing miserably.

    I would only reach for it for nasty corner cases that everything else sucks at.

    Final point, it is the king of UX work so far, not even close.

    by acpdev
  • Really interesting stuff, thanks for sharing.

    > Opus 4.8 references being monitored, which isn’t the case.

    It kind of plainly is the case that they are being monitored?

    "I think someone's listening to my thoughts" ... "No, we're not, carry on as usual!"

    by jstanley
  • I think it’s hard to appreciate the capabilities of Fable unless you’ve run into a problem that you’ve spent days trying to get Opus to solve, but couldn’t.

    GPT5.5 is better than Opus 4.* at everything except frontend, but Fable is good enough that I instantly re-subscribed to the $200 plan despite knowing that it’s just short-term limited access.

    by jfrbfbreudh
  • Anecdotal but I've found Fable to be fairly unimpressive and not much better than Opus 4.8, if at all in some cases, but I have been hitting the ceiling on my $100/mo sessions when I never did before. I switched back to Opus yesterday. I may use Fable for audits, but that's about it, and when it leaves my subscription plan I don't think I'll miss it.
    by jesse_dot_id

Explore Birbla archives