I love Wharton professor Ethan Mollick‘s One Useful Thing Substack. He wrote a brilliant post reviewing Fable 5.2. The marketing video that Fable made for itself with a 1 shot prompt is clever and not AI sloppy.
Ethan’s conclusion is almost poetic and drawing attention to his inherently human role: “But there are still gaps, and it is the reason my answer is that this is “almost” AGI. Most critically, the AI did not notice these problems itself. It did not see that the course was a slog or that it had tied itself in knots with its own rulebooks. This was not for lack of checking. Fable put critics, fact-checkers or judges on nearly every project, but those checks found errors and added fixes. None of them asked whether the work was too long, too repetitive, or no fun. That all fell on me, and if I hadn’t watched and taken action, the results would have often been less impressive (though not exactly a failure, either). Knowing when your own work is not good enough is a large part of what makes someone an expert, and it is the part Fable does least reliably. I would still not trust it to run a business on its own, even though its plan would have impressed me coming from a team of my MBA students.”
Every time someone sends me a long doc full of Claudespeak my heart sinks. But then, this is why we still need humans to be creative and poetic.
Watch the video and read Ethan’s full post here:
https://www.oneusefulthing.org/p/fable-52-and-jagged-agi
And put what you build with Fable on Spacefast.com 🙂 (sorry I could not resist the promo)