Earlier quoted context omitted.
But can you bring anything measurable in support to your words? I did.
You brought your own benchmark to support your words. I happen to have studied statistics, so I took a look. It is deeply flawed, primarily because it is not a statistical benchmark. It is a single (n=1) autonomous "pi" coding-harness run per model per prompt, scored by an automated battery (A-items, pass/fail), an LLM code review (R-items, 0 to 2 each), and a human manual checklist (M1 to M10) that was never actuall…
You didn't get why the automatic review scores are there - all of the reviewers, including Fable, happily assign highest scores to code which can't even run. In my opinion that is a sort of an empirical evidence that these models are very far from the "AGI" state.
Anyway, while I didn't explain the methodology and the purpose of this experiment, I have something material to discuss. The "awesome Fable" claims are not material at all.
Can you bring something clearly showcasing Fable's superiority?