6 ms·
sqlite-utils 4.0rc2, mostly written by Claude Fable (for about $149.25)
- Tiberium 3mo agoThe title cost is only if this was raw API usage, but it was included in a subscription, so it's a small subset of the $200 plan: > I upgraded to the Claude Max $200/month plan (I was previously on $100/month) to increase my Fable allowance for the remaining time until the July 7th Fablepocalypse, when even Claude Max subscribers will have to pay full API cost for the model. I really wonder if Anthropic will stick with their decision to keep Fable on extra usage credits until they "get more compute", especially in the light of GPT 5.6 very likely coming out next week (it's confirmed to have the exact same pricing as GPT 5.5)
- andy_ppp 3mo agoThis is to prevent Chinese labs distilling Claude again right? And free advertising again?
- embedding-shape 3mo ago> especially in the light of GPT 5.6 very likely coming out next week Finally have an explanation why GPT 5.5 xhigh felt dumber and dumber these last few weeks, always the same thing when a new model release is about to come out...
- toxik 3mo agoOpus has been extremely stupid recently, reckon that's because Fable needs to look appealing?
- user43928 3mo agoI have never noticed a degradation in either Claude or OpenAI models, and the benchmarks people set up have never shown a statistically significant deviation either: https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code https://marginlab.ai/trackers/claude-code Yet the same claim is being posted every single day, including new claims that the Fable 5 model has degraded compared to the initial release, guardrails aside.
- embedding-shape 3mo agoAlmost slipping into conspiracy territory, but without insights into what the labs actually do internally, hard not to: Anyways, heard about A/B testing before? ML people tend to like it a lot, hard to imagine neither OpenAI or Anthropic are already deep into categorizing people into buckets and running an wild amount of A/B testing all over the place, especially in the weeks leading up to new model releases, in various ways.
- user43928 3mo agoYes, and we can see A/B testing on the ChatGPT website all the time. They are also testing the new models in their coding tools with select customers first. People working at OpenAI have publicly denied that they are performing any kind of hidden routing or quantization of models after release for Codex. I tend to believe them.
- dan_i 3mo ago[dead]
- dreadnip 3mo agoThe problem I have with this workflow is that the models are still too eager to please. If I ask it to scan a release and note possible issues, it absolutely will find issues. If I keep running the same prompt, it will keep finding issues. I’ve spammed GitHub PR reviews and it just keep finding (or inventing?) new issues. There is never a “Nothing found, good to go!”. I have to keep reminding myself that the model will always give me what I ask for, regardless of the reality/truth.
- dan_i 3mo ago[dead]
- threatripper 3mo agoYou get the same result if you pay humans a good sum of money to find issues.
- nvme0n1p1 3mo agoDefinitely not. I've never seen a human trapped in that kind of infinite loop. Humans know that if they don't stop at the end of the day, they don't get to go home to their wife, and if they don't finalize their list of issues, they never get their contract paid out.
- embedding-shape 3mo agoPay people per hour of work and even if there is no actual work, people will definitively find a way of spending hours doing things. If you've worked with contractors/outsourced roles before this will happen from time to time.
- Tiberium 3mo agoI think this was true with older models, but at least with GPT 5.5 it can genuinely tell you "no issues found" after a few passes of finding real issues.
- 9dev 3mo ago
- hnbad 3mo agoFun fact: because AI written works don't have copyright (in the EU at least) and the level of prompting many people engage in doesn't suffice to create a copyrightable "work" and software licenses require you to actually be able to grant a license using rights you hold on a work, not only are many AI generated "works" not actually protected by copyright but by selling licenses you're actually in breach of contract law and may end up owing the licensee software you don't have.
- vasco 3mo agoAnd nothing happened and zero people got in trouble over it. - Narrator
- Muromec 3mo ago...So far
- Slothrop99 3mo agoIMO the real "fun fact" is that supposed "IP monopolists" like Microsoft and Oracle's lawyers are apparently totally fine with this stuff. So obviously people are going to take their lead and not get legal advice from some greasy dweeb at the bottom of HN.
- hnbad 3mo agoI would strongly recommend against taking legal advice from anyone who is not your lawyer, whether they're a greasy dweeb or working for Microsoft's or Oracle's legal department. Your business goals likely don't align with theirs so I'm not sure what relevance their practices have to you - plus they're very much not in the "selling software" business anymore (contrary to what many people still seem to believe). I think a better way to make the point you were trying to make is that if you're working in a startup, your code is probably ultimately worthless to begin with because your company's success hinges on its ability to increase its valuation by orders of magnitude between investment rounds, not by delivering value. SpaceX has demonstrated the ridiculous extremes to which this can be done even when you're burning money by having its IPO valued based on tech it doesn't have solving problems that don't exist (yet) with money it doesn't have so there's no law in basketball saying you can't vibecode your way to a successful exit. But if your job is tied to your ability to grant usage rights on intellectual property you create, you should probably talk to an actual IP and contract lawyer before deciding to vibecode your way through it, rather than just assuming it's fine because Microsoft sells AI services.
- keizo 3mo agoGlad to see others dual wielding: “I used to think that the idea of having one model review the work of another was somewhat absurd—it felt weirdly superstitious. The problem is it really does work”
- 5701652400 3mo agojust a note. in most parts of the world 149.25 USD can cover utilities, water, and food for a month for 1 adult person or even a family.
- xyzzy123 3mo agoIn Sydney Australia its < 2 days of median rent.
- 5701652400 3mo agoseverely overpriced.
- mirekrusin 3mo agoIn others it's pizza night for family or half a bill for sushi dinner, so what?
- 5701652400 3mo agoseverely overpriced. that's what.
- mirekrusin 3mo agoit's not overpriced but high-priced looking from other countries and mostly not a markup, normal considering median wages.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- Muromec 3mo agoThat's my electricity bill for a year, okay
- TiredOfLife 3mo ago
- shevy-java 3mo agoSkynet wants to make us poorer.
- jph00 3mo agoI'm a big fan of sqlite-utils, but I really don't like how Python (particularly 3.12+) changes how sqlite's transactions work -- the native behavior explained in the sqlite docs is much better IMO. I understand why Python had to change it (to be compatible with other databases) but I don't think it's a good model for sqlite. Therefore, I created apsw-utils, a port of sqlite-utils to the amazingly-awesome apsw lib -- which is a really idiomatic sqlite lib for python. It's here: https://answerdotai.github.io/apswutils/ https://answerdotai.github.io/apswutils/ I've used it in lots of projects including in significant production stuff, and it's always worked great for me. IMO if you're serious about doing sqlite in python, at some point you'll probably want to check out apsw.
- jmalicki 3mo ago> changes how sqlite's transactions work What specifically are you referring to? The apswutils website also does not explain.
- dxdm 3mo agoThey're probably talking about the addition of the autocommit flag, which hides more fine-grained transaction control in favor of more uniform behavior across multiple databases: https://docs.python.org/3/library/sqlite3.html#sqlite3.Connection.autocommit https://docs.python.org/3/library/sqlite3.html#sqlite3.Conne... You can still use previous behavior with "legacy" mode that lets you control when transactions are opened in which isolation level.
- jmalicki 3mo ago> hides more fine-grained transaction control In what way does having autocommit=False hide more fine-grained transaction control? autocommit=False gives full control to the programmer to do whatever they want.
- dxdm 3mo agoFrom the link in my previous post[0]: > False: Select PEP 249-compliant transaction behaviour, implying that sqlite3 ensures a transaction is always open. This means you don't get to control the isolation level of the transaction, because [1]: > sqlite3 uses BEGIN DEFERRED statements when opening transactions. If you want to use `IMMEDIATE` or `EXCLUSIVE` isolation level[2] for your sqlite transaction using the new flag, you have to set `autocommit=True` to be able to open the transaction yourself with `.execute("BEGIN IMMEDIATE")`. However, with `autocommit=True`, the connection's `.commit()` and `.rollback()` methods will *silently do nothing* and you have to execute the respective raw SQL yourself to commit or abort your manually-opened transaction. This also concerns the context-manager behavior of the connection object, which will not commit or abort manual transactions on context exit in this case. So, the autocommit flag becomes a little complicated and foot-gunny if you want more precise control over when exactly other readers or writers should get blocked by sqlite. [0] https://docs.python.org/3/library/sqlite3.html#sqlite3.Connection.autocommit https://docs.python.org/3/library/sqlite3.html#sqlite3.Conne... [1] https://docs.python.org/3/library/sqlite3.html#sqlite3-transaction-control-autocommit https://docs.python.org/3/library/sqlite3.html#sqlite3-trans... [2] https://sqlite.org/lang_transaction.html#deferred_immediate_and_exclusive_transactions https://sqlite.org/lang_transaction.html#deferred_immediate_...
- tangsoupgallery 3mo ago[flagged]
- boesboes 3mo agoDid you check the cost calculation? I wouldn’t trust it to give the correct amount if i put the amount in the prompt
- hbplawinski 3mo agoI'm kind of surprised that there is no test case that would have identified the fact that delete_where() leaves the state corrupted. There would be no need to ask Fable if the problem gets identified by the test. And having a test will also catch all future problems that might arise in the same function. So maybe instead of asking Claude what is wrong it would be wiser to invest in test coverage.
- eska 3mo agoI also stopped reading the article there. This is major version 4 of a library about providing higher level db actions, i.e. transactions are paramount to make them atomic
- simonw 3mo agoThe test coverage of sqlite-utils is solid - pytest-cov reports 95% total. The project has 9,973 lines of implementation code and 14,860 of test code. Here's the delete_where() test: https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/blob/7a52214624ae0e2c3fdf07215c1bcfc1393dbd93/tests/test_delete.py#L20-L26 https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-utils/blob/7a52214624ae0e2c... The problem with the test was that it asserted that the records were deleted inside of the same transaction as the delete, so it missed the changed behavior where the delete didn't commit properly (it had committed properly prior to the new transactions work).
- utopiah 3mo agoGreat to see such write ups in particular with money. At least 2 things the random LinkedIn post will ignore, on purpose or not : - price today remains low (even though they might feel higher than before), Uber is the business model, no secret there, it's a VC classic - $150 spent by an expert, a software engineer with significant practical knowledge in AI, is not equivalent to the exact same amount spent by a novice. Yet now that a number is out, you bet it will be used. Expect alarmist posts tomorrow morning in your feed claiming building software is now as cheap as diner at the restaurant.
- uniqueuid 3mo agoIt's also about variance in the number. Expert software engineers will still accidentally burn $500 or $5000 on tasks that don't work, or are not efficient. Amateurs will accidentally spend $100 to get something great. So part of the change is a change in the risk structure of using frontier models. Before, you'd burn your quota; now, you can burn uncapped (less-capped) money.
- dan_i 3mo ago[dead]
- avidphantasm 3mo ago> I went out to enjoy the Half Moon Bay 4th of July parade, occasionally checking in and prompting the next step for Fable from my phone. This intensification of work will not be good for workers’ health. Like, put your phone down man. You can’t be modeling this behavior to young people. Further, the intensification of work is probably not even good for productivity in the long term. This periodic half-thinking about things without stepping away from the problems you are working to solve will lead to more half-assed solutions. Ideas need room to breathe and dedicated focus.
- Bombthecat 3mo agoTo late You either do it, or you are out
- dan_i 3mo ago[dead]
- scorpioxy 3mo agoI've been reading articles that are telling me how they're prompting from their phone at 2am(and how they know that's not great) and when they're out driving their kids to their activities etc. They say all that as if it's something to be proud of. And what for? Oh they released all these packages that no one is going to use. Burnout is real and these people have lost track of what's important.
- c-hendricks 3mo agoI worked for a startup in Canada, with Dutch founders, and operations in France and California. That meme about how different countries treat out-of-office is very accurate.
- scrollaway 3mo agoIdk about you but this type of intensification of my work has been extremely good for my mental health, on all points: 1. I feel genuinely more productive, spending a lot less time on boilerplate and much more of my genuine time is spent thinking and communicating the thinking process. 2. I can take a ton of breaks, basically whenever I want. "Flow" is now entirely design flow and can be interrupted much more easily without damaging it. 3. If there is anything I actively dislike in my workflow or that makes me not enjoy my time... I can fix my workflow so that either I'm not the one doing it, or the item in question is no longer necessary. AI is crazy. I get it, if you're at a shitty job that doesn't understand how to adapt well, it's tough... but if you're working on your own (like Simon does on this project), it's absolutely amazing and you're in full control of your life.
- dan_i 3mo ago[dead]
- mike_hock 3mo agoBrutal bugs for a release candidate.
- spwa4 3mo agoWhy not ask claude (or a cheaper model) to actually use this and report any unexpected outcomes? I mean, at least a few times, but better would be to do it a lot and have automated result tracking.