Terminal-Bench-Science: Evaluating AI agents on scientific research workflows

jerpint wrote: post #7

The fact that opus 5 is outperforming fable is odd to me From personal experience, opus 5 feels net inferior to fable on almost every aspect (for coding tasks)

This is measuring on scientific tasks though. I haven't used Fable lately but when I was playing with it when it was new its "safety" features made it practically impossible to use for biomedical science -- it once refused to work on a pipeline of mine that was analyzing pathogenicity islands in bacteria (presumably because it had guardrails to that effect to stop potential bioterrorists and the like)

Re: Terminal-Bench-Science: Evaluating AI agents on scientific research workflows

#9

Post by johnnyApplePRNG » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 3:05 AM UTC

Not surprised to see Claude significantly higher in scientific intelligence than Sol.

You can tell that Claude really does grasp a wide array of highly specific scientific and mathematical nuances... where's codex is just basically for coding and that's it.

That's the feel I get from the both of them anyways and I've used both on the 20x plan for the past week at length.

Don't get me wrong, codex is great at finding bugs and building games. It's great.

Re: Terminal-Bench-Science: Evaluating AI agents on scientific research workflows

#10

Post by a2ff6eeb0 » Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 3:08 AM UTC

I wonder how long it's going to be before self improvement encompasses hardware and materials science, not just code. It's exciting, soon we'll be able to fully hand off scientific, mathematical, and technical progress over to the machines, and then we can fully lay back.