Live data from Hacker News

GPT-5.6 vs. Claude Fable 5 for Physical AI, which performs best?

21–23 of 23 posts

Re: GPT-5.6 vs. Claude Fable 5 for Physical AI, which performs best?

#21

Post by cft » Thu, Jul 30, 2026, 7:24 AM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #20

draginol wrote: post #14

So Fable "won" but it cost $124.76 for marginal performance benefits over the $22.56 5.6 Sol run.

I'm finding a happy middle ground using Fable to proof work other models have done. Anthropic's guardrails still make it garbage. But eventualy it will leak.

I just spent 50% of my weekly Sol Ultra on a $100 plan to purge Claude worktrees on something that may have tripped Fable guardrails.

Re: GPT-5.6 vs. Claude Fable 5 for Physical AI, which performs best?

#22

Post by esperent » Thu, Jul 30, 2026, 10:19 AM UTC

I'm curious how good the terra/luna results are but there's not enough context here for me to judge 0.786 (terra) vs 0.814 (sol) vs 0.889 (fable).

How do the two lower models compare to e.g. gpt 5.5 or 5.4 or various opus models?

Re: GPT-5.6 vs. Claude Fable 5 for Physical AI, which performs best?

#23

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 30, 2026, 10:19 AM UTC

DwarvenEngineer wrote: post #15

Honestly, I just hate the term "physical AI". They're robots. It's unfortunate that we had to adopt a term with the words AI in it, just to get investor's attention.

[deleted]

Post reply on HN