441–450 of 479 posts
Luna saw a huge jump after the price cut and is one of the more competitive models at the new price on openrouter. Maybe they want to see how much market they can grab with Sol? This might help but there are already cheaper models with Sol's intelligence more or less, the most notable being Grok 4.6 at $6/m which makes it a tougher sell
After using Claude for a long time, I tested Sol 5.6 for the first time today. Love it, its an incredibly capable model and uses far fewer tokens/time thinking. Its what I imagine Fable would be if I haven't been downgraded on every conversation - even after completing the verification program. I think I may cancel my Claude subscription finally.
Sol is way too eager to hone in on small details and ends up with massive over-engineering. Fable does it too - to be fair - but noticeably less. After extensively using both on Max 20x plans, I've concluded that Fable is better for problem solving and coding, whereas Sol 5.6 Ultra shines in debugging specific issues: tackle a problem with Fable then leverage Sol to clean up, double check, or fix specific issues. Fab…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All non-trivial code terra has generated for me has had at least one serious bug in it. Typically caught by a review from myself or Sol. But I wouldn't trust lower tier models for end to end solutions.
Personally I wouldn't want bots running autonomously on a repo, even if there were other bots cross checking them. But that having been said, I'd also say that my experience was similar with human code: it is rare to not find at least some issue worth at least pointing out. The only real difference is that the LLMs have vastly different holes than people do, making the real challenge trying to make sure you're coveri…
Sol over engineers now and then (hey please don't factor that function out into its own file....) but it doesn't do the same level of stupid terra does.
That said, plan with Sol, implement with terra, have Sol fix all the mistakes, then I go over the code and make recommendations for the architecture to fix Sol's foolishness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A billion tokens per day?? Plausible estimates put the energy use at about 0.001 Wh/token, which means you're using 1000 kWh/day in electricity, just to generate slop. That's about the same as 50-100 houses. 300kg of CO2 per day - roughly the same as flying from London to New York every three days . I think on average AI energy usage is not as big a deal as everyone is panicking about, but your usage is truly absurd…
> just to generate slop Do some people still deny you can do a shit ton of work with AI?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sol is way too eager to hone in on small details and ends up with massive over-engineering. Fable does it too - to be fair - but noticeably less. After extensively using both on Max 20x plans, I've concluded that Fable is better for problem solving and coding, whereas Sol 5.6 Ultra shines in debugging specific issues: tackle a problem with Fable then leverage Sol to clean up, double check, or fix specific issues. Fab…
with what levels of effort? I only see you mention sol-5.6 on ultra, which I don't find is worth it at all. Sol-5.6 on medium is amazing. https://winstonrc.github.io/ai-coding-agents-leaderboard/
Remove the one thing that differentiates these 2 SOTA models (long-horizon task scaling) and you're left with assessing the raw intelligence of both models.
Both models are really fucking smart. We should be intentional when discussing effort levels when it comes so SOTA models because currently, effort levels are the essential lever to evaluate task scaling.
I've never seen that leaderboard link but I think my sentiments reflect exactly the findings: Sol 5.6 is smart, Fable is smart, but Sol is more value for the end user (even more so when you lower effort levels because that doesn't degrade the model's raw intelligence/knowledge). Not to mention Codex resets, that's just the cherry on top!
But smart != capable and this is evident once you start assessing both models on long-horizon tasks with higher effort levels. While Fable is (imo) at least a little bit better, both are still very good. If you want to test the raw intelligence of said models, you should lower the effort level.. if you want to test the model's capabilities fully, you should increase the effort level.
Economics aside, Fable is the better model (imo), but there's no need for a binary stance here. Both models are very good yet there is a clear winner on the value front.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if you ask something too obvious or direct it will stop you other than that, it work flawlessly What on earth are you asking it?
You've replied incredulously to a similar stated experience in this thread already and proceeded to ignore the follow-up. Why are you again asking a question to which you have no intention to field an answer?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd like to see a benchmark on this specific topic: Reverse engineer the hardware protocol from a driver, or just migrate a driver from one OS to another.
I’ve chipped on it with each model since 5.2 but 5.6 sol is something else. When it first came out I’d get some refusals but they’ve since stopped. I wonder what an ideal candidate benchmark task would be for that?
Is this pricing change only for openrouter? I don't see official OpenAI info about this.
I was wondering the same, and it clearly says : 50% off, aka a sale, not normal price cut. I don't get this thread.... Really. Is it full of bots?
However it's ignorant to think that there aren't bots on HN and especially for the very many motives people have for swaying public opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t almost all of anthropic and OpenAI’s compute leased? If compute is the moat, that doesn’t really make their position any less precarious.
No one is in a better position to more efficiently use it - that's what happens when you poach every top 0.01% engineer/researcher in AI. They're guaranteed to get over whatever hump you think they're in unironically. Uber/Tesla have been in far worse situations and despite Elon being an idiot/liar you see how they performed when even the most bullish of investors called for their heads
I just think the whole “moat” discourse is silly. OpenAI and Anthropic’s success depends on the same thing every business’s success depends on: their customer base, and their continued delivery of services their customers want to pay for. Not their tech or their compute or anything else. They have no moat because moats aren’t a thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly not everyone. I find it far more likely that both subscriptions and API pricing are profitable in their own right. The fact that some people get great value out of their subscription (just like some people get great value out of their car insurance) doesn't mean it's subsidized.
That’s a fair distinction. I think they are willing to subsidize individual subscriptions for people who maximize usage, but their overall subscription business may be profitable.