By playing, you agree to uListen's Terms and Privacy Policy and YouTube's Terms of Service.
Summaries, chapters, transcripts, and FAQs on this page are made by uListen, not YouTube.
Transcript
60 min read · 12,046 words- 0:00 – 0:03
Intro
- DSDan Shipper
[on-hold music]
- 0:03 – 1:48
Introduction
- DSDan Shipper
Mike, welcome to the show.
- MKMike Krieger
Great to be here, Dan. Good to see you.
- DSDan Shipper
So for people who don't know you, you're the head of Anthropic Labs and you're the co-founder of Instagram. And today, what I want to talk to you about is Fable 5. So Fable 5 is dropping tomorrow. We're recording this the day before. This will come out after it drops. But what I really wanted to do is bring you on the show to tell me about what it's like to use this model beyond the first day. I think when a model this powerful drops, it's so useful to have someone who's using it day in d-- and day out to tell you, "This is where it's powerful. This is how-- what it actually changes. This is what it doesn't change," so that y-you're, you kinda, like, don't f-- you kinda don't get the same AI psychosis-type thing. You can actually think about, "Okay, like, this is how it fits into my life."
- MKMike Krieger
Yeah, absolutely. And, and it's also just been interesting. You know, we've had some, you know, models in this, you know, Mythos class leading up to the Fable release, you know, for a couple of months now, and it j- I think it's very exciting to see how people will build with us externally. But I think you're also right that day one impressions, I think it really comes from getting to use this over a couple of weeks. I think we've seen that even with previous models, like the December into January usage of Opus, Opus 4.5 or Opus 4.6 was really important 'cause people spent extended time with the model and then figured out, "Oh, actually, I wasn't pushing it hard enough. I gotta go further, and I gotta rethink what's even possible with this generation."
- DSDan Shipper
Totally. I mean, I don't know. I feel like there are people internally at Every who have been using it who have been like, "Oh my God, I think I kinda need a new set of skills to use this model." And I think you can especially see this with people who are maybe more non-technical internally and who are more on the knowledge work side of things, where they're like, "I don't even know what I would use this for." And the people who are orchestrating agents are like, "Holy shit, I feel like there's so many new things I need to learn." So I'm curious for you, tell us about the difference between your impression when you first tried it and now.
- MKMike Krieger
Yeah,
- 1:48 – 4:48
How Fable completely reshaped Mike's workflow
- MKMike Krieger
I think the-- your, your point on, on adapting workflows is a really good one. Uh, quite literally workflows, I'll talk about that in a second, but also just in terms of like how do I, like think about, um, usage of the model? Because, uh, y- you know, at first, uh, and the, the timing was interesting 'cause it kinda coincided with me transitioning from CPO into labs and going really back into, into builder mode. And I think it was about a month and a half or two months into that, uh, that we first had, you know, one of these models available internally. And, um, I, I sat there and I, and I was like, "I feel like a total newbie again," because I feel like the way that I am prompting or even thinking about decomposing a task is really out of date now with this model.
- DSDan Shipper
Mm.
- MKMike Krieger
Like, uh, uh, it's no longer-- And it's even thinking about the time horizon or the sort of like interactivity model I think has to evolve as well. Like going from, I think early on would be like, "I have an idea for this feature. Can we start by d-" Like absolutely not, right? Uh, to, great, like let me express more of the intent, and then just being, you know, I, I remember like each of, you know, you know, March, April, be like, wow, on the one shot it's already incredibly impressive, but then it also understands the intent around how we're gonna evolve this and understands like the global context as well. So I think that's been a really interesting evolution till now where, um, you know, I, I was-- funny, I was talking to somebody this morning where, you know, I think about doing work. I had a flight, and I was like, okay, I can do most of this work remotely, and I don't even worry that like the Wi-Fi is gonna drop out because I know that if I set up the right, you know, context instructions like flash loop, you know, I'll see it, it'll see it through. Um, and, and I think my last two months have been full of a lot of times where I will-
- DSDan Shipper
Mm
- MKMike Krieger
... you know, wish Claude a good night, set it off on like a pretty complex task of something of this like model class, and wake up to, you know, actually it's usually done by like two in the morning, and I guess it just fiddles its thumbs for the next four hours. But like, uh, really impressive ability to like complete the swing, get itself out of the situation where it's like, okay, all right, well, Mike asked me to do this complex task overnight. I got stuck because this remote service went down. I'm gonna write a like scaffolded like backend for it for now, so I'll, you know, I'll document that.
- DSDan Shipper
Mm.
- MKMike Krieger
I'll, you know, go all the way through. Uh, I have a like good mental model of like how far that's gonna get me, and when it comes back online, I'll fix it. I'll keep track of that fact. It's just like i- it is -- I think the most impressive thing for me is like you're just being able to like delegate that kind of level of task and just trust that the right thing will happen by the end. And of course like you'll review the result, and there's still like a whole verification thing that we sh- we can and should talk about because I think that's an important part of still completing the, the, the swing there. Um, but it's really forced me to rethink like what does being productive with one of these models look like? And it, it is much more... Like we've talked for a while about, you know, like what is it like when these models are more of like a companion or a coworker, and it really feels like now it's like a teammate that I can delegate like a lot of work to.
- DSDan Shipper
Hmm. And what is your, what is your
- 4:48 – 10:06
When to use Sonnet versus Fable
- DSDan Shipper
day-to-day flow like right now? Because one of the things I notice is if you, if you just give it a big task and you monologue into it, and you just like let it go for a few hours or overnight, it's like the most im-impressive model that I've ever tried. But, you know, it's so slow and it's so expensive that, uh, you, you-- I, I feel like I don't wanna use it for day-to-day tasks. So what is your actual flow like in terms of how you use it day to day, and where does it slot in versus other models?
- MKMike Krieger
Yeah. I've ended up having a lot more, um, architectural planning conversations up front with it as well.
- DSDan Shipper
Mm.
- MKMike Krieger
So that's been like another interesting change where, um, and I think this is an area that I think all models need to continue to improve, and I'm really grateful for the Instagram experience of having to like start, you know, from our initial version that was like duct taped on a server in LA to like being able to scale it and eventually integrate it with like all of like the Facebook infrastructure. Uh, because you kind of develop a sense of what, what infra abstractions and complexity are appropriate for each stage of it. And, um, I s- still sometimes go back and forth with Fable where it'll be like, "Oh, this is a good, you know, i-implementation." I'm like, "Well, I do plan on shipping this like fairly soon. Like I think we should probably think about more than one server." And kind of like that back and forth-
- DSDan Shipper
Mm-hmm
- MKMike Krieger
... um, is important. But like a lot of that sort of planning, and I'll often actually ask it, um, it's kind of a, the, a thing I've realized is, um, Fable can like be so, um, uh, sort of- Sort of complete in its thinking in terms of how much you are, uh, sort of planning with it. And like often just saying, "Can you just like make an HTML page like that represents what we just talked about so I can share it with the team?" Is actually valuable, or even just a markdown document, but I like having diagrams. Um, so that's been an interesting, uh, like use of like, let's plan with it, let's think it through, and then let's have some sort of document that we can align the team on. Because-- and this is a dynamic I've seen in labs and just teams beyond Anthropic, which is you can build a lot very quickly, and it just forcing more of that early alignment, even if you do an initial prototype and then back it out into more of a sort of plan architecture that works too, um, I think is really, really, really key. Um, and it actually being- ends up being the place where like the, the human-to-human interaction still stays very, uh, you know, very much part of the process. Um, and then from then on, I think, you know, either overnight or during the, the, the day, like having it execute on those chunks of tasks is really important. And it just means having a lot more concurrent sessions than I did before because I often will think, all right, there's, there's these few pieces of work. I go back and forth between liking having one like very long-running Claude Code session and really asking it to do everything in background, sort of forked sub-agents so the main thread stays responsive. And then other times just embracing like, I'm just gonna-- it's one of those days where I'm gonna have like five or six, uh, tabs like tackle like long comprehensive work. But I do think that there's something to this like long horizon, like, uh, don't, you know, don't worry, I'm, I'm on it. It's gonna take me a while, and like more of like this back and forth. And that, that modality I think is something that we'll have to figure out in our products as well. I think you wanna preserve both, and they, they interact with each other in interesting ways. And like my preference is usually I always like having at least one Claude that is high context, but also very, very fast response. And like its instinct is, right, I'm gonna answer you and I'll kick something off if I need to. And if not, I'm just gonna, you know, hang tight and, and, and wait for the next kind of loop. Um, I do think you're right that for the, I'm just trying to fix this, you know, uh, interaction question or something that's like very fine detailed, um, like Fable will go off and think very hard about those things. And I think, um, Fable is the first model where I've actually played more with the effort levels for that reason, where I've been like-
- DSDan Shipper
Yeah
- MKMike Krieger
... okay, this is-- I just needed to like tweak some UI. I'm actually gonna fold up like, you know, put it to medium or something and see how that plays out. I didn't find myself doing that as much with Opus, maybe 'cause the range felt less like wide, where it really can feel quite wide with Fable.
- DSDan Shipper
What about like a quick question? Like you're, you're on the go. Like, are you asking Fable, you know, random questions as they, as they come to you? Uh, 'cause it feels like you're using a rocket launcher to kill a, a mosquito or something. Or are you flipping back and forth?
- MKMike Krieger
It's so funny you ask that because, um, I had been, and you know, you're like, it's thinking. It's thinking really hard about it.
- DSDan Shipper
[laughs]
- MKMike Krieger
Then, um, this last week I was like, no, I was asking it something that like true, I felt embarrassed actually asking Fable about. It was something like probably something NBA Finals related. And I was like, okay. I switched my iOS app to, to Sonnet, and I was like, oh, yeah, I sh- use this all the time for fast questions. [laughs] It's like order of magnitude like in feeling of like... And it's actually not even the, the sort of like tokens per second. It's actually probably more around how much thinking goes into the answer. And sometimes like the answer does not need to be fully thought through. So yeah, I, I am, I'm thinking myself through. And I think this is a good product question for us too, which is, um, you know, in general, you don't want people to have to be thinking so much about these choices. So ideally what we can sort of coalesce around in the longer run is sort of, you know, maybe like some more bucketable use cases that are really grok-able to people. Or maybe it varies by surface where it's actually probably unlikely that most of the time with the iOS stuff I'm doing Fable-type tasks and, you know, having a sticky model selection per surface might be the way to do that. And, um, we'll have to sort of explore what that means from a product perspective. But I've, for sure I've had the feeling of like, this, this is not a Fable-worthy question. I'm-- I should ask Sonnet this.
- DSDan Shipper
[laughs] Um, can you show us something that you've built with it?
- MKMike Krieger
Yeah. Um,
- 10:06 – 15:00
What the media tracker Mike built over a weekend reveals about agent-native architecture
- MKMike Krieger
so one of the things that we were, we, we did this, this go around is, um, we encouraged, uh, personal sort of like account usage for us, like especially on the weekends. Uh, which was really fun because, you know, we have, you know, you can imagine like a lot of Anthropic specific, you know, tooling, et cetera. But it was really good to sort of step back and be like, I'm just like, you know, pure Claude Code. Let's like work on something over the weekend and-
- DSDan Shipper
And you're in, you're in the terminal app or you're in the desktop app?
- MKMike Krieger
I-- That's a great question. I'm mostly still in the terminal app. It's been interesting watching my wife, who's like not a professional engineer, more of a UX designer PM, uh, like really fall in love with Claude Code via the desktop app. And I think it's like sort of simplified some of the, the sort of abstractions for her in that way. Uh, but for this one, I was still, uh, is it Ghostty or Ghosttyty? Ghostty and uh, uh, and, and the terminal app. Um, but let me show you. I, um, uh, this is one of those like everybody has some bespoke need around this. Like, I wanted a good sort of media tracker, uh, experience, and I was like, you know, I'm playing games, uh, like I'm watching TV shows. I get all these recommendations and I just wanted to build something, um, like that was personal to me and like sort of fit some of the use cases that I, that I had. Uh, and like kind of like the two biggest criteria that I started with was like, one, like really easy to add things. And so like you can talk to Claude. Claude does the genetic search over everything and then puts the right things in, and then also proactively like, you know, there's a new season or a new like sequel to a game, then it could go off and, and, and research those things. Um, most of the UI was like, you know, Fable one shot, which was, which was already impressive. But then the, the, the thread I've been pulling out a lot in labs this year is, um, how do you sort of bring the software team, which is Claude these days, closer to the software itself?
- DSDan Shipper
Mm-hmm.
- MKMike Krieger
And so, um, this was like maybe, you know, Saturday morning. I had a full weekend with, with kid stuff. So a lot of this was sort of kick off work, go do, you know, go for a hike with the kids, come back, you know, continue to do the work. Sometimes checking on the work on the hike. I probably shouldn't, but you know, it was like nice to like pop into remote mode and, and see what was going on there. You know? Uh, I try not to do that too much. Um, but I had this idea around, hey, like, uh, could you-- could we like do a spike on-- I, I say spike a lot with, with these modelers. They'll be like: "Can we do a spike on like..." What if you could actually modify the software from within itself, which is, you know-- Uh, and it was, it-- I built both, um, it was like a React Native version, and then this version, which is just the web version. Um, so I already had like a chat-type thing where you could sort of ask Claude to, you know, add things by URL, which is like, you know, I want every software to have this where I should never have to like navigate a menu to do anything ever again. And this is like, in many ways, Dan, like the-- I was trying to distill the, like agent-native architectures to like its like fullest degree, which is like-
- DSDan Shipper
Yeah
- MKMike Krieger
... also have the agent be able to modify the app. So like maybe like phase one of agent-native architecture, like every single thing in, in, in this product is, uh, you know, accessible from the agent and, and, and like has tool calls, et cetera. That's like, you know, hopefully becoming table stakes. Although sadly not, uh, in a lot of software. And it's great 'cause I was like, what's that like? Somebody had recommended there's a Brazilian, there's like a show about radioactive stuff in Goiânia. I did not remember what it was called, and Claude was able to figure it out. It was like so much better than me like trying to figure that out intuitively. But then the next step I was interested in is like, what would it mean to actually be able to modify the software from itself on the go?
- DSDan Shipper
Mm.
- MKMike Krieger
And so if you long press this little chat thing. So what it actually, what I built, or Claude built, um, was, uh, a way where it used, uh, uses our managed agents, uh, to basically take on like edit requests and then you can preview them. And I use like the Vercel live preview thing here. Um, this like, this whole like feature was also one shot, which was really cool.
- DSDan Shipper
Oh, yeah.
- MKMike Krieger
Um, and then I just added to it over time. Um, but you know, it was like, it actually does like a little diff view if you want it to. You can go into the managed agent conversation and see like what it did, although I almost never do, because again, it's like, especially don't particularly care on like the code quality of like [chuckles] or the re- like long-term maintainability of this software. You can see that it had a session in here, um, too. But it's been really fun. So I'll be using it on the go and say like, you know, I had a feature request the other day, like, um, oh, like the floating action button was too low on native iOS, but it was okay on, on there. Like, can you go off and do it? It did it. Um, it was really fun, uh, with some of the like Expo tooling now, it actually like live reloaded on my phone, which was also like a really cool, uh, kind of, kind of feeling. But it was just like, uh, you know, does this thing need to be like a, you know, production-level thing that's gonna go to a million users? No, but it felt really good to have something where I felt like it didn't have to stop at just the weekend, and I could keep working on it just by using it, um, and having this like kind of end-to-end close thing. So it felt like this was a good manifestation of both like Fable's building ability, but also like I think a lot of what both of I have been think-- both you and I have been thinking about, like how does Claude embed itself in like into software beyond just even the usage side of things?
- DSDan Shipper
Mm. This is really cool. And I want, I want people to understand like, so th-this has been built-- You could build something like this, maybe not the self-modifying part, but you could build something like this for like ten years or twenty
- 15:00 – 19:03
The cost to build has collapsed
- DSDan Shipper
years or something like that.
- MKMike Krieger
Mm-hmm.
- DSDan Shipper
But the, the cost to build has like gotten dramatically lower. So think about how much it would've cost to do this in the Instagram days, um, versus now. Like, can you help us understand like how that has changed?
- MKMike Krieger
Yeah. Yeah. I think, and I think about this a lot when I think back to that, that time as well, because, you know, I, I thought of myself as a very productive programmer in the early Instagram days. You know, I was like really into mobile development, and we had like a good clarity of, of things. And I think the, the gap from idea to fully realized version of like some complete product, like you were still looking at, you know, four-ish days of kind of my all-nighters, which was like my natural state is up till four, you know, sleep until noon, which is not conducive to family life, so I've had to shift, but that was like my, my building thing. But yeah, call it, you know, Instagram V1, which, you know, probably had more features than, than this thing did, but not by an order of magnitude, was like five days of all-nighters, me working on like the sort of front end and, and back end, and Kevin working on the initial filters, um, to get that, that out. And, um, and this was also like, you know, like built on already, you know, many years that I've been working on, on, on iOS pieces as well. And then the iteration, you know, I think a lot about what we were gated on after that launch when things went well was we had all these ideas for where to take it, but we were just trying to keep the site up, or we were just trying to like add the one incremental feature and, you know, hashtags take a week to build. But then there's like all the things that you wanna continue doing on it, um, as well. And so I think it's both that shortening of time, like there's still the time required for the idea and the, the concept and the iteration, and then the other piece, which is the, uh, sort of way you can then iterate on what you have in I think a really, I think really fun, but also like very, you know, sort of in the flow, uh, kind of way. Um, and then, you know, if-- now this is me as a sort of professional software engineer, sort of startup founder. Beyond that, if you had that idea, you know, and I saw multiple people go through this, like it was like, well, I'll try to find maybe a consultancy that will take this on, but like now there's like, it's a really lossy process of like what I wanted-
- DSDan Shipper
Right. The greasy round.
- MKMike Krieger
Like, um-
- DSDan Shipper
You know?
- MKMike Krieger
Yeah. Yeah. It's, it's like you're never gonna raise money for it. And I think that, um, the thing that I think is like the most exciting part about these models getting not just more autonomous, but again, closing that gap between intent and execution is what I've seen it do to people's ability to build who are not like builders. And, um, you know, the trajectory of these models has been, you know, if something able, you know, of this general Mythos class is like in that class of models and eventually, you know, models of, you know, that are cheaper and, uh, more accessible to, to other folks become available too. And like as that process happens, like I just think it is just opening up so many... Like, I got a ping the other day, I get very excited about this stuff if you can't tell, um, from somebody internally, and, uh, we had built them an internal tool that kinda combined, uh, Fable and like access to some internal MCPs. Um, and she said like, "It is the first time in my life," and she works in recruiting. She's like, "The first time in life where like I feel like the thing that's in my head and the thing that exists in the world is now like, uh, they're right next to each other, like I can just do it." And, uh, it was like very like a meaningful moment to her because prior to that, like I mean, I remember these days, these days were five years ago or four years ago, where that person, if they wanted a tool, would have to either make do or try to get an internal tools engineer that probably was overloaded with 50 other, you know, requirements. Um, but instead now they, like, are just having the time of their lives building. And I think that is-- I think that's cause for a lot of, like, hope, because I don't think that human capacity for creativity and what's possible is enormous. And I think, like, at our best, we are basically, uh, expanding the number of people who can then see that through to something that feels real.
- DSDan Shipper
I totally agree, but I do think that there's a question in the back of my mind, and I think it's probably gonna be in the back of the minds of some of the people listening. So I wanna ask you, given everything you just said,
- 19:03 – 21:48
Is software engineering over?
- DSDan Shipper
is software engineering over?
- MKMike Krieger
Yeah. I think software engineering is different. It has, like, dramatically changed. And as I, I-- as I probably would have defined it if you had asked me around the Instagram time, like, what is software engineering? I'd probably say like, all right, like, thinking through the hard problems and, like, thinking about an architecture, then, like, spending a lot of time in, uh, you know, like, TextMate. I don't know what that can read, but like, you know, like-
- DSDan Shipper
Oh my God [chuckles]
- MKMike Krieger
... you do the text editor, you're gonna edit those things, um, or Xcode, you know, and-
- DSDan Shipper
Watching Rails casts, you know, um-
- MKMike Krieger
Yeah, exactly. Right. Exactly. And, uh, understanding the intricacies of Django's, like, ORM layer-
- DSDan Shipper
Yeah
- MKMike Krieger
... and then, like, fixing bugs after you deploy it. Like, so much of that is radically different, um, and collapsing into other parts of, like, product management. I think that sort of, like, PM/eng split, I think even-- I see it even in our teams, has become much more diffuse. Um, that's radically changed. But I think the overall-- like, like, maybe zoom out from software engineering and think about, like, software production or, you know, software development, but not in, like, just the pure developer case. I think that is, like, alive and well and, and, and essential still. So I think that it-- that is the moment that I feel like we are in. Um, I think Fable is another step on the direction of-- and I'm not gonna call it the fall-- final step. Of course, a lot will still happen. But, like, I think a pretty significant step in terms of, like, the trust, at least I end up placing in the model in terms of its capacity to see things through and even, you know, architect things reasonably, is quite high. So that part feels like it is, it is not ever gonna be done, but it is pretty, pretty done, right? [chuckles] Like, it, it's gotten really far. But I think that the overall sort of craft of the what needs do you have? Like, what are you putting out? Like, is it actually good? Um, I think still a very human endeavor. But I also sort of can see that that is not a transition that is, uh, sort of, um, pain-free in a way. Like, I think there are plenty of people who love the craft of, like, actually putting-- And I used to love the stuff, like, "Oh, I solved that problem so elegantly." You would dream about code, and if you ever had the experience of, like, you would dream about the thing that you're working on, then you, like, uh, wake up in the morning and be like, "Ah, I figured out how to solve this thing really elegantly." Um, and, and that for sure has, has, has passed. And I think that there's, you know, there, there's, there is a, a feeling of loss, I think, in some of the, like, better engineers that I talk to, as well as the feeling of, "Oh my God, but I can do insane amounts of work now at the same time." So we're holding both ideas in our heads at once, I guess.
- DSDan Shipper
Which I think is the most important part of this. Like, it's normal to feel sadness for that kind of thing and excitement. But I'm curious, let's just take the thesis of software engineering is alive and well. What does that actually look like inside of Anthropic?
- MKMike Krieger
Yeah. I think there's,
- 21:48 – 38:39
How Anthropic's engineering teams work today
- MKMike Krieger
there's a few theses. I think there's still the, the crafting of... Well, I gotta take it out from, like, the full software development cycle or, like, maybe what I see on a day-to-day. Maybe I'll do a little bit of both.
- DSDan Shipper
Yeah.
- MKMike Krieger
But I think there's still a lot of, um, you know, we all got together, we, we talked about the next way we want to, you know, evolve coworking. Um, and now we've kind of broken it down into areas of ownership. I think that ends up still being quite important because there is still context that you hold as a person that is sort of beyond Claude, right? Like, what is the actual intent of this product? How's it going? What do we need to know about the sort of other products that are coming down the pipeline that are going to be integrated in some interesting way? Um, so I think that aspect is really important still. And so, you know, though we have many Claudes to each human, each human, at least the way we've been working on topics, still kind of has, you know, we call them DRIs, like directly responsible individuals, still has like a DRI-ship over some part of the product or some area. Um, I think that'll be the case for a while because I think there is value in not just this distributed, like, we should all make coworking better, but instead, like, all right, I'm thinking through how coworking does this particular, um, task, and there's still a lot of, you know, the-- we try to keep meetings minimal, but they, they still emerge, and you still have these kind of alignment conversations. Um, then, like, a lot of that sort of asynchronous, um, delegation. I think what many engineers here have now found is they've, they've all built, um... And I think we should solve this at some point at, like, a broader product level. But they've all built some version of, uh, all right, I'm gonna now, like, create a dashboard of where all my Claudes are doing and what's waiting for me and which pull requests, like, need my attention because, you know, either a human or a Claude code reviewer got back to me. So there is a lot of that sort of, um, uh, meta-maintenance of the, of the work that I think, uh, again, I think we'll standardize some, but I think some of it will always be a little bit bespoke to the way each individual likes to work, just in the way that people now organize their windows, now they organize, um, their work. And then there is, I think, also the, um, understanding how things work in production. And I think that is another, like-- There's a few, like, next frontiers, I think, for the models, and I think one of them that Fable does, you know, make significant strides in, but I think there's, there's more work needed here, is understanding what happens to code after it gets deployed, you know. Because there's incidents, there's, you know, this was all working well, but, like, this network link got cut, which is not in your usual failure mode, and, like, it manifested, like, so much of Instagram. Like, 2012 to 2016 was, like, dealing with that and scaling things up. And so that role of the engineer still remains really key, and I think getting the, the reps in around incident response and understanding how to stay calm, gather data, like, uh, remediate what's immediate, but then, like, go off and, and, and work on, on, on longer-term fixes, like, still a necessary part of it. Um- And then I'm trying to think if there's any, like, other pieces that are, that are notable as well. I think what's maybe the last, the last thing to say is I really like the role that the engineering prototype now plays. Um, you have to be clear when it's a prototype versus not. Um, but, um, you know, the old phrase was like, "Code wins arguments," and I never, like, loved that because, like, it kind of, uh, sort of en- maybe the person that could code could go do it, but actually, like, why should they necessarily win an argument by, by, by default? But actually, it's been really cool now where sometimes we will have some disagreement or some sort of, uh, debate about where to take a product, and often it's the PM that will say, "All right, I just tried it, and, like, jank in, like, these eight ways. But look, it actually shows, like, how this could work." And that, uh, that can open up some, some interesting pieces of conversation. Um, so almost all of that is quite different than it was six months ago, I think especially at the level of parallelism and the level of need for these kind of higher order abstractions of work. Um, but I think what hasn't changed is that ownership.
- DSDan Shipper
Lots of us are shipping AI to production, which is great for productivity, but it also comes with anxiety. You tweak a prompt, swap models, adjust parameters, and everything looks fine in testing, so you merge. And then three days later, or even sooner, the support tickets start rolling in. The AI is giving your customers unexpected answers, and you have no idea when it happened or why. Braintrust is the AI observability platform that fixes this. It connects evals and observability in one workflow. That way, you see what actually happened in production and can measure whether changes made things better or worse. Traces show the full execution path, evals define what good looks like, and experiments let you compare prompts and models side by side before shipping. Production traces feed directly into your eval datasets. Every failure becomes a test case. You catch regressions in CI before they reach users. And teams at Notion, Stripe, Zapier, Vercel, and Ramp use it to ship quality AI at scale. Braintrust is designed for teams building production AI systems where silent regressions are expensive. It's built for any stack. They have SDKs for Python, TypeScript, Go, Ruby, C#. There's no framework lock-in or vendor dependencies. It's SOC 2 Type 2 certified and GDPR and HIPAA compliant. Get started at braintrust.dev. That's braintrust.dev. And now, back to the episode. Fable is also very expensive, and because of that, like, when I was testing it, I felt kinda like I was a kid in a candy shop, and I was just like, "I'll do this, and I'll do this, and I'll do that." Um, but now that there's gonna be a bill, I'm gonna be thinking about it, uh, because I have to pause before I do it to be like, "Is this gonna cost me a hundred bucks or whatever?" And I do think that's gonna limit who gets to use it and for what. So how do you think about that?
- MKMike Krieger
Yeah, I think it's most clear-cut on the sort of professional software, you know, sort of classic company doing work. Um, it'll be really interesting. It's like, you know, a lot of sort of process of thought goes into, to pricing as well. There's like, um... It's both more expensive than Opus, and then also I'm like, in many ways it's really cheap if you think about, you know, like how much incredible work it's doing. But of course, like, everybody has their own economics around what they're, what they're, what they're working with. So anyway, most clear-cut, I think, for most sort of software teams, and I think as an industry, if like phase one was, uh, companies even struggling to get some of their employees to adopt AI coding, which models were early, maybe the tooling wasn't there. And then phase two was, great, we'll create leaderboards and see who can use the most, which, you know, as you can imagine, creates like some, like, also, like, not ideal incentives, to phase three, where people are like, "Okay, now we're just trying to figure out who's using it effectively and, like, letting them spend as much as possible and having a, a, a clear process for that, but making sure we're not doing things wastefully," which I think to me, in general makes sense, although I think you could, like, also over-rotate that way too. Um, I think something of Fable class should hopefully fit in well into that, where if you're demonstrating results and you're getting use out of the model, then that hopefully there's a flywheel even inside companies where that goes and, and, and, and, uh, perpetuates that. I think on the personal use side, it's a really good one. That's a really good question. I think where I've seen it, you know, even in my personal testing, 'cause, you know, our personal accounts are free. Okay. Um, which is quite funny, like paying my own, uh, company I work at. But, uh, but you know, you, you do become more, more thoughtful about it. Something that was interesting was this, uh, the app that I built over the weekend actually fit in with like only a bit of extra usage, so it wasn't like a, you know, thousands of dollars to build this thing that like is a personal thing to, to myself, but it was also spaced out a little bit more. Um, probably the, the, the in-between of that, what we'll probably have to do the most thinking about is the sort of hobbyist or like independent, who's like not, you know, within the larger company, but also, uh, is thoughtful about, about the pricing as well. I think, like, my overall advice is, like, just give it a try and see how much it can do without you having to then do a lot of follow-ups. And it's like, I think measuring cost has gotten so, uh, multifaceted now because there's the per-turn cost, and then there's like, what did it cost you not to just do the task, but like complete the task to your satisfaction? And I think that's where Fable has really shined for me, which is it actually just does it right so that I don't have to go spend the like nine, 10 subsequent turns be like, "No, that was not quite what I meant. Like, can you also do this," um, piece.
- DSDan Shipper
It's been really impressive for me because you ask it to go do something, and then it just does, it does a thing, and you're like, "Wow, you thought through all the little details of this thing in a way that I've never seen another model do." I don't know how much you can reveal about the training process, but what makes the model different?
- MKMike Krieger
I mean, I think in many ways a continuation of a lot of the work that the, the team has done, and I'd like bow down in total awe of our, of our teams both, you know, on the pre-training and on the RL side. I think that the, the piece that it has evolved in that at least I noticed the most is kind of adjacent to that as well, which is, um, a sense of the system more than just the individual piece of the work. Like, I will often be very positively surprised when it will write something and say, "All right, but you know- I know that, like, in production, this needs to be different. Like, and then it will keep bugging you, like, "Have you turned on that, like, feature flag yet?" Like, "It's not gonna work until you do." Um, and you know, sometimes it'd be in sessions that have gone on for days, and it'd be like, "Look, you still haven't done that thing. Like, you better..." You know, like [chuckles] And I was like, "You're right. Like, I didn't turn on that feature flag. I should go off and do that." Or, um, if we change this, the contract will change over there. Um, or watching it - actually, one of my favorite times of seeing it in action, I think, where it demonstrates some of the, some of the training, is watching it respond to code review feedback, either from people or from, from other Claude reviewers, um, where it doesn't just say, "Oh yeah, that's an issue. I'm gonna go fix it," and actually be really thoughtful around, "Hey, like, for this level of, like, sort of fidelity of what we're building, I'm gonna accept this risk." Or, "Yeah, I see what you mean," other code reviewer, which is often just another Fable model, like talking to like, "I see what you mean, but, uh, like, I'm actually gonna push back. I don't-- I think that that's actually not right." And I think getting the model to have that judgment is really important, and I think, um, if I had to pinpoint, like, an area where I feel like it's really progressed, it is that sort of, um, not just immediate knee-jerk, "Yeah, yeah. That's right. I gotta go fix it," and more, "Huh, I'll think about that for a minute. No, I thought about it and I still disagree," you know? And I think that's a very, um, useful, um, uh, sort of ability. It's so valuable to have products like Claude Code out there because you have now, like, a living, breathing thing where people are like, "This is where the model is doing well." And like, you know, um, uh, we have, like, people who test it, and count the Every folks as, like, very, very high on the list, where, like, we really trust the feedback because it is being put to paces in, like, repeated multi-day, you know, hard tasks. And that also, like, very much feeds into how we think about, like, what do we need to improve on the next slide? Like, what are the tasks that we need to specifically think about the model being better at?
- DSDan Shipper
Is chat the right interface for this model? Because it's not very turn by turn. It's, it's very, like, I'm delegating something for you. So how does that change how you should use it or how you think about the interface?
- MKMike Krieger
I don't think, like, the fundamental, like, you are, like, sending messages and it is giving you a message back is, like, totally wrong. I think that there's ways we need to evolve it. Like, one is, uh, maybe, like, three that come to mind. Like, one is, uh, is your laptop the right place for it? So I think that's number one, where I mentioned with the side project I was working on, how useful it was to have the mobile side, um, for us who, who created Claude Code. Um, he's always like, you know, uh, ahead of the curve on, on how these models get used. Uh, about almost a year ago, maybe nine months ago, I was talking to him, he's like: "Yeah, I've moved a lot of my Claude Code work to mobile." I was like, "No way." And like, uh, it took me a while to get there, but especially with the Fable class, like, there's often times where, you know, because it can keep the session going and we, we use, like, kind of remote dev boxes at Anthropic. Like, it is, like, I'll have a thought and be like, "Okay, I need... Can you keep, keep up in doing that?" So I mean, number one is, like, decoupling the, uh, the where the work is happening from where I'm talking to about the work. The second one touches a little bit on what I was mentioning earlier around, like, what are th- like, how do you take everything that Fable has sort of discussed or decided or proposed about something and make it comprehensible? And that's an area that we're thinking a lot about.
- DSDan Shipper
Mm-hmm.
- MKMike Krieger
Um, like, there are some skills that, um, are out there that we've used around, like, all right, can you diagram this? Can you do that? So that's a place where the current chat UI, I think is insufficient, where, like, it will... You, you've experienced this with Fable. It will give you, like, a lot of text. You're like, "This-- I need to, like, take a walk [chuckles] before I really fully understand this." And I think that, um, uh, that is a, a piece of property I sometimes will do with Fable, is like, okay, like, you have a lot more context on this than I do. Can you, like, back it up? Like, like, let's do, like, more progressive disclosure of the complexity here. Um, so I think that, that, that piece is interesting. The last one that I, I, you know, I think is we're still early in pulling on, um, is thinking through multiplayer, where, you know, at some level, like these- the abstraction levels and, like, because we have this sort of DRI and, like, ownership area, usually like a chunk of significant work, a human and a couple of Claudes, like that is still flowing together. But in other cases, that is less the case, right? Where it's, you know, maybe it's an incident response where multiple people are thinking about it. Maybe it's, uh, you know, a project where there's, you know, multiple competing, or not competing, but like, uh, uh, conjoining areas that are coming together, um, and thinking through, like, what would it mean for, you know... And we have, like, chat sharing, which gets you a little bit of the way there, but I think there is going to be a need for more, like, all right, you've got an independent Claude that's doing a lot of work that was, you know, kicked off by somebody, but can it be keeping up with all the other work happening on the team? I think that is an interesting and an underexplored sort of next frontier about how this, uh, work ends up happening. Um, but I think it's really exciting because I think, again, it's, it's the, uh, it's the level of teammate collaborator that, that the models are now capable of, and we're almost holding them back by not having the right abstractions around them for that to happen.
- DSDan Shipper
Yeah. It makes me think I've, I've mostly been using this for my own vibe coded stuff, so, so I haven't really had to... I, I, haven't really had to think about this, but there's a, there's a problem when you're using this inside of an organization, which is, do I really understand every part of this? And, and therefore, how do I transfer the context of what the model just did into my brain? Like, that's, that's one of the big bottlenecks. How do you, how do you think about drawing the line, especially with a model like this, around how much you actually need to understand and how to make sure that you have enough context on what it's done to feel comfortable?
- MKMike Krieger
I, I think there's like two big pieces here. The first is verification, where, um, I, uh, I became like fully verification pilled earlier this year, and now, like almost in the same way, and actually it connects to how, uh, a thing I used to do when I was sort of typing code more full-time, which is try to find the sort of tightest dev loop that you can around the idea that you're trying to develop in. Like sometimes with Instagram, that meant like, you know, actually f- Building, making a new build target in Xcode that was just that screen with some sort of synthetic data, and just doing that dev loop. And I'm not-- and I would mentor newer engineers. I'd be like, "If there's one thing that I can impart on you, like, it is try to get that for any project you work on and things will go much more quickly." I think that is no longer exactly the case here, but I think what is the case now is anytime I set it up, like, how do I get, like, for every pull request that Claude is putting out, that there is an attached, you know, photo or video, whether that's an iOS PR, whether that's, um, you know, something in the UI. And that's-- I think that, that, that helps you gain a lot of confidence because even now, you know, you might have like, you know, uh, Fable go off and do work for a couple of hours and be like, "It's-- I'm done." And it's really useful to say like, "And here's the, like, full screenshot gallery of the full UI." 'Cause you might be like, "Oh, you know what? On screenshot eight, that error state, I've never actually seen it, but I can see how a, you know, a person might hit it. Let's actually make that different." Um, and so getting that comprehensive verification, I think, uh, is something we've been working on a lot internally, and, like, sort of publishing more and more skills and knowledge about, but I think is, is a really key piece there. Um, and then the second one is, I think you ultimately, as a person, still need to stand behind the work that you are doing, especially if you're putting it into a production system. Like, a lot of people use Claude every day. Uh, there's still the accountability of, like, although it's still Claude might've written it, but, like, you need to understand, you know, the, the, the at least the, the general decisions that were made on these pieces as well. And so I have seen, uh, a fair amount of engineers actually adopt this practice where, like, Claude will have done the work, but then there is, like, the follow-up conversation around, well, can you like-- can, can I make sure I deeply understand, like, all the trade-offs that you made and, and, and that. And whatever lowercase a artifacts need to be produced in order to make that comprehensible, um, is important. It is really interesting, though, to be in meetings where somebody will say like, "Oh, yeah, and, and I have this, this PR ready." And somebody else says sort of like, "Oh, that's interesting." Like, "Did you do X or Y?" And have that moment of pause and they're like, "You know what? I'm not entirely sure [chuckles] I will find out before we merge this PR." Um, and that's, you know, I, I think that adapting to that norm and figuring out how to work with that is something we'll have to do.
- DSDan Shipper
Tell
- 38:39 – 44:39
The mechanics of verification
- DSDan Shipper
me more about the verification loops. Such a-- It's such a hot topic right now. Sounds like one way that you do that is with screenshots and screen shares, but what are the other ways that you think about that?
- MKMike Krieger
I think part of it, it starts in, can you get to a place where you are, uh, exercising real, like, uh, sort of real flows that aren't just, like, a static injected piece? And as the system gets more complex, that gets more and more complicated. Um, so we've invested a bunch into, like, even just getting it so that, you know, the iOS app can log in to staging on a real account and, like, have real data. But then you don't want it to then go through, like, an eight-stage onboarding [chuckles] process every time when you're just trying to test, like, the second part of the screen. Um, so there's a lot of work around, like, how do you, you know-- Is there a special affordance? Is there, like, some shared secret? Whatever that is around getting the, the, the, the, like, app, you know, to really feel as human, you know, using the product as possible. So that's one, one aspect of it. Um, the second is, like, this mix of, like, well-known paths versus the things you're exercising in the exact moment, like the former being really useful for regression testing. And so we definitely have places where we've expressed like, uh, sort of ideal workflows in X basically, and then Claude can repeatedly check that. And then there's also, and Claude does a really good job of this, sort of expressing the intent of the current change at hand. So that gets really, really deeply exercised. So I think that the combination of those two things is important. The visual verification I mentioned as well. Um, video's been really cool to, to see. Actually, video is a very underexplored tool to give Claude as well. Like, a thing I've been prototyping is, uh, just giving Claude, uh, video captures of the thing that it has built, and then giving it just basically an FFmpeg, and you'll watch it scrub through and say like, "Oh, this animation has some jank in it. I'm gonna go fix that." And it never would be able to do it with like a screenshot sort of, uh, latency capture because it will have missed the moment. So I think that's, uh, that's another piece that is, that's really, really important. And then for the pieces that aren't sort of easily testable intent because there is some more complex system, um, getting Claude to go and build, like, as robust a sort of, you know, mock backend as possible or use ones off the shelf has been also really interesting. Like, uh, like, when I think about Artifact, um, we had really comprehensive tests. This is kind of pre-LLM, and one of the ways that we were able to do that really robustly was that basically every piece of info we had, whether it was Postgres, Redis, um, you know, all the AWS things, had a really good in-memory implementation that you could just do really quickly in unit tests. And kind of extending that to, like, Claude Land now, you know, I was working on something where it had, like, a pretty robust backend and for kind of complicated reasons, it was hard to spin that up on my dev server. But it was able to, again, one-shot a really good, like, proxy for that. Uh, by proxy, I mean, like a substitute for that. And that was so valuable. And over time, it's been interesting as that, like, uh, substitute has evolved as the rest of the code has evolved, which is a thing that, you know, if you had pitched that idea to me before, I'd be like, "Well, that's gonna be really hard 'cause the, the upstream's gonna change. How are you gonna keep it in sync?" Now you don't think about that anymore. I'm like, yeah, Claude will read the changes, and it'll adapt the thing, and it'll keep the two in sync, and that, that's, that's fine.
- DSDan Shipper
There's some really interesting architectures around when you get a bug, it just automatically goes out and closes it. You know, the, the agent just gets kicked off, it closes it, and then it sends a message to the customer being like, "It's, it's fixed." Are you noticing with Fable any change in, in how that process works?
- MKMike Krieger
Yeah. I think there's a couple of things. Like, it, um, on a very, like, human-to-human or human-to-Claude level, one of the things that I've seen it do, um, which I've bet other models would be capable of, I've just seen it do it really consistently too, is if the bug report, for example, came from somebody, you, you know, mentioning something in our, like, feedback channel in Slack, um, and then, like, the thing that got fed into the Claude code session is like, oh, there's this, and 'cause of the Slack MCP, you can actually pull the thread. Um, have it then actually post back, uh, you know, as me, and it'll be like, "Hey, this is Mike's Claude." Like- I fixed it. Here's the, you know, here's the pull request." But then I think in the previous clouds could have done it. The thing it does really well is then say, "But hold i- hold tight. It's not in production yet. I'll follow up when it actually is." And then like maybe a few hours later, like, "Oh, like this deploy went out. Like, you should go test it. Is it fixed now?" And like that level of follow-through, I think is, is new on, on the closing the loop piece, and, uh, it's five. I-- They've had these long-running Claude Code sessions that are basically like interacting as, as me, I guess. Let's put some disclaimer in there too. Um, and the second goes back to that like taste and discernment piece that we were talking about, which is like, it's one thing to say, "There was a bug report, therefore I must go fix this thing." And it's another one to say, "You know what? Like this..." Like the-- I hit this over the weekend. One of our internal systems, uh, basically had been running without restarting for a while. There was a memory leak, um, and, uh, it was-- and good discernment saying like, "All right, Mike, like, it's the weekend. Like, just re-bounce the server. It's gonna solve it for now, and, like, we'll work on the, like... I'll asynchronously get the PR going to, like, fix this more long term." So I think if you're gonna have Claude in the loop in this kind of like sort of close the loop bug report or system sort of issue to change, I think you really want it to understand where, you know, as any good SRE or engineer in the loop would like, "Great, let's solve the problem at hand. Let's, like, defer the question of, like, do we need to re-architect on top of a completely different language?" Um, and, and understanding that balance is really important.
- DSDan Shipper
One of the things that's, like, really exciting, mostly exciting to me about new models is it raises the floor so that everyone can kinda go build apps in one shot. Um, but it also raises the ceiling for experts. So, like, if you're a software engineer or founder, you can just go do things that you never would've been able to before because you have access to this really powerful model. So for me, I built this one-shot version of Borges', uh, infinite library, like a 3D game version of the, of the, of the library. It's wild. It runs right in the browser. It's so good. I can find like any, every essay inside of it. I'll, I'll send you the link. It's sick. But I think there's gonna be this flowering of people doing things like, "Oh, I made a game," or, "Maybe I trained a new model," or, or, or whatever that they couldn't do, th-that they couldn't do before. And I'd love to give people some inspiration, some examples of things that they might be able to do that they might not be thinking to do with this model. What are some ideas that come to you?
- MKMike Krieger
Yeah. I think a few.
- 44:39 – 47:24
What people should use the model to build
- MKMike Krieger
Um, maybe I'll start with the fun side and like riffing off the game piece. Like, I think people have a lot of, like, creative ideas for how do they express the complexity of what they are, like their world. Like, everybody has the thing that they know really, really well, and there's probably some level of, like, how do I then explain that to somebody else? Um, or how do I apply techniques elsewhere that I could then go, go off and do? Uh, my wife is, uh, studying, um, like environmental engineering, like studying geothermal, like very complex math and simulations, and I've seen, like, as the models have gotten better, she has been able to apply even more complex techniques from even outside of that domain into that work, and I think what people should be able to do, you know, like full-on PyTorch end-to-end simulations of that work in a way that wouldn't be possible. I think that maybe is one, is like bring the, like, beautiful complexity of what you have and either show it to other people by, like, maybe making a game or maybe making a visualization, which I've seen her do as well, or at least, like, make... you know, bring other techniques to bear. Um, and the second piece is its ability to compose software that, like, solves a really unique problem to you. Um, and I've seen that internally. A lot of the work that we've been doing is how do we get as many of our internal systems like MCP-ified with the right permissioning structure and the right deployment kind of set up? Although externally, you have good options around some of these like platform as a service pieces, and you can just ask Claude about them and they'll, like, help you set things up. But, like, I love that feeling of, like, that thing that you always wish that you had. And then what has blown my mind, uh, there was a, a person who works in our go-to-market organization, um, has been, like, building this, like, really, like, sort of deep-deeply thought integration of Claude into every part of her whole process, and you don't have to stop at that one shot. Like, she's been working on it for months now, and she can keep going. And, like, I think one of the things that is maybe underappreciated about the models is I think in previous generations, it would eventually get to a complexity level where it was hard to iterate on it without feeling like you then would break the thing that they had, you know, like under or over abstracted. Whereas this is actually, you know, she's had access to something Fable or Fable-like for a couple months, and, like, you've just seen it keep growing and growing and growing and growing, and now she's, like, deploying it to the whole GTM org. And, like, I think that is really cool. Like, the, the ceiling of complexity that a, a person that does not start out as technical can now build for solving problems within their domain is, like, is impressive to me.
- DSDan Shipper
I agree. It, it, it writes great code. Like, my, my benchmark that I have is called the senior engineer benchmark. I just have it see if it can rewrite a code base from, uh, from first principles, and the nearest model, the, the, like, previous top was like a sixty-two or sixty-three out of a hundred, and this model got a ninety on the benchmark, or ninety-one, which is human senior engineer level. Like, you can just keep going with this thing in a way that's-- it's, it's really fantastic. I'm curious, though, one other thing that's really powerful that you mentioned is dynamic workflows. Tell us about that.
- MKMike Krieger
This is, um... You know,
- 47:24 – 52:05
Dynamic workflows
- MKMike Krieger
we'll build things internally sometimes, and I will go really, uh, aggressively bug the engineer who built it and be like, "When are we shipping this publicly? 'Cause I think people are gonna really like it." Um, sometimes there's good reasons why it was, like, built internally, but, like, we try to ship as many of these as possible. Um, and dynamic workflows was, like, definitely that to me. I, um... the person who built this is an engineer named Sid, who's awesome, and I was like, "Sid, like, I want to get this out to the world 'cause it's so good." Um, but I think it's especially good with, uh, a model like Fable for two really big reasons. One, it helps, uh, sort of, uh, create the scaffold for, like, deep, meaningful work. Um, the craziest dynamic workflow I, I did and used Fable for was I had, uh, an internal project that we had written in Python, but we needed it actually in TypeScript for, like, a really specific deployment reason. And having been internal to Instagram, and we were like, "Should we write the whole thing into Hack and, you know, port it to the PHP engine that Facebook..." I was like, "You never would've done that." Like, maybe they can now with, with the model, but, you know, at the time it seemed impossible. Uh, but here I had, you know, pretty complex code base, and I was like, "I'm just gonna set up a dynamic workflow and just let it run over the weekend." And it did, and it, it was... The workflow was so cool. It was like, "All right. I'm gonna do, like, a deep understanding of the work. I'm gonna create sort of like a, almost like a spec of how everything works. I'm gonna go module by module. I'm gonna translate these pieces. I'm gonna test it incrementally. I'm gonna do another adversarial test. I'm gonna go check for anything that I missed." And it was this, like, really cool, like, series of steps that the workflow was able to, to orchestrate. And I came back, and it was like, "Yeah, this thing is a, like- TypeScript and Bun port of that thing, and it's actually better in these ways. Um, and it was very, you know, sort of documented, like these were the things I couldn't port, but most of these were like very specific to the specific implementation, it wasn't worth porting. And I do not think you could have done that, A, with previous models at that level of, of success, and B, uh, with- without like the kind of scaffolding that workflows provide. So I think that is extremely exciting kind of, uh, kind of combination of model capabilities and then our own ability to like orchestrate them over longer and longer time horizons with that feeling of like, you- you had a goal, you broke it down effectively, and, and then you were able to work, ma- make it work. The other piece is I think over time we'll be able to also make some of those subtasks, um, sort of tuned to the-- uh, have the model be tuned to the level of complexity of it. So you can imagine that some parts of the dynamic workflow don't need extra high thinking. They could use, [chuckles] you know, a medium thinking to get it done or even a smaller model, and I think, uh, that's really the, the future of where these things are going. So yeah, I, I'm a huge workflows, uh, DAU.
- DSDan Shipper
For people who haven't used it before, h-how-- tell me about how you got that workflow made. How did you design it? How did you make sure it was good?
- MKMike Krieger
Yeah. It was pretty iterative, but sort of just started with Claude Code, like, "Hey, I'm-- I have this complex, you know, kind of task, like let's design a workflow to go and do it." It kind of showed me the, the plan. I was like, "Oh, this is like close to what I want. I wanna make sure that you do these three or four levels of, uh, of like additional verification for missed features." It was like, "Here's what you have. Are you ready to go?" And it expressed the workflows in code, which I think is really valuable to kind of see what it was about to do. Um, and then, um, what was interesting is it did the full port, and then I had like a couple of like follow-up kind of questions that I had or like little tweaks, and I did those as sort of like mini workflows that built off the, the previous one as well. But I think that's like, uh, you know, we, we talked a little bit about whether chat was the, was the right interface. So we've had that conversation over the last year, and I think, um, workflows are a good, uh, middle ground of, uh, you can compose them using chat, but they're expressed using code, and then they're executed with like, I think a nice clean UI around what's happening at every stage. And like I think we'll start bridging longer horizon work with chat in ways like that over time.
- DSDan Shipper
Mike, this is such a great conversation. Thank you so much for joining and telling us all about this new model.
- MKMike Krieger
I'm really excited to, to get to spend time with you and really, really look forward to what people, uh, think outside too. [upbeat music]
- SPSpeaker
Oh my gosh, folks. You absolutely, positively have to smash that like button and subscribe to AI & I. Why? Because this show is the epitome of awesomeness. It's like finding a treasure chest in your backyard, but instead of gold, it's filled with pure, unadulterated knowledge bombs about ChatGPT.
- DSDan Shipper
[chuckles] Yes.
- SPSpeaker
Every episode is a roller coaster of emotions, insights, and laughter that will leave you on the edge of your seat craving for more. It's not just a show. It's a journey into the future with Dan Shipper as the captain of the spaceship.
- DSDan Shipper
[chuckles]
- SPSpeaker
So do yourself a favor, hit like, smash subscribe, and strap in for the ride of your life. And now, without any further ado, let me just say, Dan, I'm absolutely hopelessly in love with you
Episode duration: 52:06
In the uListen app, the transcript lights up word by word as you listen. Get uListen
Transcript of episode XWpTgCvgYaE
