Comment by square_usual
4 days ago
Easy enough to explain: they're benchmaxxing. Fable is intelligent but not benchmaxxed. Opus is less intelligent but benchmaxxed.
4 days ago
Easy enough to explain: they're benchmaxxing. Fable is intelligent but not benchmaxxed. Opus is less intelligent but benchmaxxed.
That's a plausible explanation but I'm not seeing evidence for it.
I have a personal benchmark suite of 14 real, non-public tasks. Opus 5 and Fable tied on 10, Opus won on 3, and Fable won on 1. It's a really strong model.
This is an interesting idea, without giving away your benchmarks specifically what kind of stuff do you test? I might try to assemble something myself, it's so hard to determine model quality from the system card these days.
I have actually been planning to open source the framework. Only benchmarks I care about are the ones that look like real work I do. So it makes it easy to trawl your own repos looking for benchmark task candidates from real bug fixes or features. Then as a bonus I can compare the agent’s solution to my own as a reference.
So most look like that but I did include a few one-shot “build an app that solves this problem” and some qualitative design tasks and a tough algorithmic optimization one.
4 replies →
Yep , same with 5.6. Fable is still the best.
But still nerfed compared to the initial release.
Only when you hit the cyber classifiers.
Honestly that's the simplest explanation and thus likely the correct one.
They don't have a track record of benchmaxxing. The simplest explanation is that the blog post lists the things this model is better than Fable at, but not the things it isn't.