[–] philrenaud 1 day ago
[–] tidbeck 1 day ago
[–] Imustaskforhelp 1 day ago
https://files.catbox.moe/2aqfk7.webp
(Edit: For some reason the previous jpeg link: https://files.catbox.moe/yjqa0a.jpeg wasn't working and catbox.moe was just downloading 4kb white screen so I converted the image to webp and reuploaded it on catbox)
[–] loeg 1 day ago
[–] tern 1 day ago
It's possible Fable is better, but since it word salads more quickly, it's hard to tell.
[–] n0on3 1 day ago
Opus 5.5 in comparison is a bit more verbose and appears to settle on evaluations before the depth reached by Fable on very complex stuff, but is still vastly capable and I can read its output without wishing it had a physical form I could punch in the face.
[–] maxerickson 1 day ago
I've been experimenting with a project that is not growing real fast, but wondering about the risk as I try to make it do more.
[–] n0on3 1 day ago
[–] rishabhparikh 1 day ago
[–] HaZeust 1 day ago
I generally use Fable for high-level blueprinting, architecture, and technical planning, and I tell it to write most of its documentation in a way Opus 5.5 will understand and maximally benefit from; with the added prompt for Opus to concede when a task would be better off to bring Fable back in. I've had ZERO problems.
[–] jsphweid 1 day ago
On the other hand I'm a strong protan colorblind guy (red doesn't register to me very well at all).
[–] Anonyneko 1 day ago
https://file.garden/auI5UdLIWwZSu5X8/pilestone.png - result of said simulation.
[–] no-name-here 1 day ago
Also, I'm curious if you just asked an AI to _OCR the original image+update it_, or if you used a different process?
[0] Practical Data (https://practicaldata.dev/ / https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/practical-data/oeoo...)