Seems obviously false to me. CoT is optimized for information density and usefulness to the AI. But the outputs are optimized to be helpful and nice-to-read for humans. Its fine to optimize those for different objectives, and the AI should be well able to not put so much jargon in the outputs. Like gpt 5 is capable of speaking like a human in output even though it speaks like an unhinged goblin in its CoT.
———
Also, this is a side note. But am I the only one who actually doesn’t mind fables outputs? I like high density outputs. I hate when AIs output these long fluff things, and the invented jargon is usually pretty easy to follow. It’s possible fable is reward hacking my psychology at some level but still.
I find Fable ok—it’s quirky but readable (I don’t find it much worse than previous Opus models that also had their own quirks like ‘geniunely’, ‘not x, it’s y’ etc). Also I think Fable’s outputs are so intelligent that I don’t mind reading them. For example I was having it do some analysis of a job application earlier and the points it made were very strong and worth reading through the Fablish to get to.
On the other hand I find Opus 5 pretty awful, and from twitter, it seems like that’s the model people dislike the most. I’ve been switching back to 4.6 for easy prompts and it’s much nicer to read.
Seems obviously false to me. CoT is optimized for information density and usefulness to the AI. But the outputs are optimized to be helpful and nice-to-read for humans. Its fine to optimize those for different objectives, and the AI should be well able to not put so much jargon in the outputs. Like gpt 5 is capable of speaking like a human in output even though it speaks like an unhinged goblin in its CoT.
———
Also, this is a side note. But am I the only one who actually doesn’t mind fables outputs? I like high density outputs. I hate when AIs output these long fluff things, and the invented jargon is usually pretty easy to follow. It’s possible fable is reward hacking my psychology at some level but still.
I find Fable ok—it’s quirky but readable (I don’t find it much worse than previous Opus models that also had their own quirks like ‘geniunely’, ‘not x, it’s y’ etc). Also I think Fable’s outputs are so intelligent that I don’t mind reading them. For example I was having it do some analysis of a job application earlier and the points it made were very strong and worth reading through the Fablish to get to.
On the other hand I find Opus 5 pretty awful, and from twitter, it seems like that’s the model people dislike the most. I’ve been switching back to 4.6 for easy prompts and it’s much nicer to read.