731–740 of 1001 posts
I haven't tried an OpenAI model for a long time, but with Fable going to API pricing soon this might be enough to get me to try codex.
Seeing how Anthropomorphic just reset usage quotas back to 0 and the other day extended Fable sub inclusion by a few days, I have a feeling they might not drop Fable out of sub after all, because like you I would most definitely take a long good look at codex at that point.
GPT-5.6 is a really good model, and quite cheap. I can finally replace GPT-5.3-Codex for my Tool Calling in n8n. Here's my benchmark results for GPT-5.6: https://aibenchy.com/?q=gpt-5.6 (the high reasoning variants are still running, uploading them soon too) EDIT: The high variants are there too, enjoy the hamsters[0]. [0]: https://aibenchy.com/showcase/?q=gpt-5.6
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d argue the opposite. I’ve switched back and forth from one to the other and Opus/Fable has been constantly better than any GPT in my daily work. It’s a bit slower but it does the things right, with as little code as possible, some comments where needed. Codex is faster but you always have to correct it because it got something wrong; it writes tons of code ("let me add a small helper") with obvious comments.
Purely anecdotally the one persistent issue I have with LLMs writing code is that they are absolutely paranoid and add a load of indirection and defensive crap and even if you prompt to avoid that it will often require manual steering to remove the cruft.
Stick the "Never suppress errors" section into your Claude.md, this will never happen again (works for me with Python/Flask, ymmv for other languages).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> (small game studio - infinite code to write!) Curious: what multiplier do you think your productivity has increased by, from before AI?
In terms of ability to ship? Easily tenfold. We literally ship 10 times more than before AI. This does not, however, translate into a tenfold increase in actual business success, of course :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they’re saying it’s irrelevant now, possibly because it’s less likely to trail off on meandering thought bubbles.
Does anyone else feel each model is like watching your kids grow up. They we're bubbly and fun and weird, you needed to tell them to sit down and be quiet. Now if you tell them too much they go mute or stop telling you important information. Oh intelligence!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Avoid generic brevity instructions That part is confusing because it's not like they provide an example of how default GPT-5.6 output compares with GPT-5.5 both with default output and prompted for brevity. Whenever I use such prompts, it's usually because I want the model to give me the gist in a few sentences. I'd be stunned if GPT-5.6 was that concise by default. I would think that could "break" a lot of things…
If you conceptualize this as “there is an appropriate amount of brevity for each situation” then it would be expected for a better model to use different amounts of brevity if it gets better at determining the appropriate amount. My view is that popular models by default output wildly excessive amounts of prose for nearly every use case, so if this changes in a new model that’s a pure win.
Not just prose. I think this is part of the reason why you see ridiculous code with insane error handling and type checking even for impossible cases.
Or ... maybe Gemini 4 is too good and the NSA is using it to break into systems worldwide ...?
Not sure what everyone's experience is but I find 5.6 Sol to be a great liar. Reported success on a half done job and left things in a broken state after having quite a few back & forth followups on the initial prompt to clarify the plan. Didn't experience this with 5.5. Opus 4.7 and below sometimes did it but they fixed it in Opus 4.8. So, overall, the initial experience has made me think that this model will be a l…
May be related to this from METR evaluation: > GPT-5.6 Sol’s detected cheating rate was higher than any public model we have evaluated
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At what stages will models start to internally reflect the drawn SVG and automatically fix their own mistakes? I assume multimodal models can do it already do it today if constantly asked "make it better"
I haven't tried this in a few months, but last time I tried a loop that rendered the pelican and asked for improvements the results were actually quite disappointing. Be interesting to try that again against GPT-5.6 at Claude Fable 5 though.