GPT-5.6 Sol, along with Terra and Luna, will launch publicly this Thursday

Post by reassess_blind » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 7:16 AM UTC

behnamoh wrote: post #57

reassess_blind wrote: post #6

I’m bouncing back between Codex and Claude like a ping-pong ball. I much prefer the experience using Codex, less verbose and to-the-point I’ve found. But Fable, being as strong as it is, is a big draw for Claude right now. I’ll likely switch back to Codex if 5.6 Sol is comparable.

How? I'm pretty much locked into Claude Code and even if gpt models are good now, the experience with codex CLI has been so bad I won't go back to it. e.g., it still doesn't have /revise or /undo!

Post by behnamoh » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 7:18 AM UTC

andy12_ wrote: post #72

behnamoh wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI already has a Mythos level model, it's called GPTCyber and before that, it was called gpt-5.5-pro.

No, GPTCyber is specifically trained for cybersecurity, and GPT-5.5-pro is just an ensemble of many subagents, not an actual model. Mythos is simply a much bigger model in terms of parameters and I don't think OpenAI will have anything of its size anytime soon (My theory is that OpenAI had given up on scaling up parameters after GPT4.5 flopped).

Post by bottlepalm » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 7:19 AM UTC

Philip-J-Fry wrote: post #60

bottlepalm wrote: post #52

Coding with AI it feels like if you're not using the best model then you're possibly missing out - creating less capable, maintainable, just plain 'good' code. Why waste time using anything less than the best and cleaning up the mess later on. This is why I feel like local models and Chinese models aren't taking off (and Gemini/Grok) - they work, but they're plain just not as good as OpenAI/Anthropic. If you have the…

That depends entirely on how you're using AI. If you're getting it to do all the hard thinking, then sure using the best model is probably always going to be better. But it's also going to be expensive. Using cheaper models and using your skills and expertise from the pre-AI era can get you working just as fast. You've gotta be more specific about the work you need doing. It's less "vibes" based, but they're still ef…

Post by zarzavat » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 7:26 AM UTC

bottlepalm wrote: post #66

armchairhacker wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Fable write better code or just can solve more problems?

Better code hands down. Actually GPT 5.5 is a good example of a model that's generally better at solving problems than Opus 4.8, but the code it generates is worse - over engineered, shortcuts, etc.. Fable does both, better code and solves problems, but it's also very expensive. Currently I use Opus mostly, Codex for code reviews because it is pedantic, and Fable for tough problems and high level design.

Post by gck1 » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 7:33 AM UTC

threatripper wrote: post #43

jychang wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not quite as "smart" as Fable, but it is incredibly capable. THIS IS BECAUSE GPT-5.6 SOL IS... just a more posttrained version of GPT-5.5, not a brand new bigger model than GPT-5.5. It's not like how Mythos is bigger than Opus. OpenAI switching to Sol/Terra/Luna renaming is just a way to rip off people and charge more usage for the same sized model. GPT-5.6 --------> GPT-5.6 Sol GPT-5.6-mini ---> GPT-5.6 Terra GPT-…

My feeling is that GPT-5.5 doesn't lack the raw intelligence so much as it lacks "methodology". I don't know how exactly to put it... how to approach a problem, how to take care of the details and side effects, how to handle unexpected difficulties and bugs, how to not spin out of control, how to write solid code, how to clean up afterwards, how to document, how to give useful feedback... the things that you learn on…