5 ms·

I do not agree. Fable is the only model I can leave unattended and give me results for part of my work which is just devops related tasking. I can hand hold o

by jml78 24d ago

I do not agree. Fable is the only model I can leave unattended and give me results for part of my work which is just devops related tasking. I can hand hold opus but I would rather just ask fable to do it and give me the result that I review and works. Opus will waste tokens and still require me to help nudge it in the right directions. I think the next gen models from china will put us in a spot that the cost can plummet and I won’t need the Sota from anthropic

gizmodo59 24d ago
I second the parent comment. 5.6 sol xhigh is not only better than fable I can also run it forever without worrying about limits. The frontend has gotten much better too with the plugins that come with codex.
- mapontosevenths 24d ago
  Agreed. I have the highest individual plan for both. I run out of Fable credits midweek, while I usually have some credit with Chatgpt left despite it having to carry Fables load for the second half of the week. Also, Sol doesn't refuse constantly and speaks like an engineer rather than a deranged academic. Opus 5 is legitimately terrible and can't or won't follow instructions. It is of negative utility and does more harm than good to my codebase.
  - gizmodo59 24d ago
    I’m referring to Fable vs 5.6 Sol. Opus 5 being bad is universal at this point.
  - bluegatty 24d ago
    OP5 will do long running work, you just have to make it write a plan. And - trick - give it a little cli so it can run Codex if you have them both. Let it do codex to do the bulk of the work, get a OP5 sub-agent to audit the work of the codex worker. Just let Op5 manage and have 'specific oversight. You can run for 2 days on 1 context window in the manager, the advantage is that it will stick to a broad plan.
    - mapontosevenths 23d ago
      It's kind of funny you describe it that way. I'm literally doing the exact opposite, which is why I have both. I have Sol xhigh drive Claude via tmux and I get amazing results until I run out of Fable. Then Opus comes in and starts acting like some sort of autistic academic with OCD. It tries as hard as Fable, but isn't smart enough to do it well. It starts designing ever more elaborate tests, frameworks, and procedures while making up rules for itself and piling them on top of each other until nothing gets done. It's the ultimate bureaucrat. Worse - More than once it's spent days in a loop because it invented constraints for itself that it couldn't satisfy then lied and told Sol that the user imposed those limitations. I don't know if it's actively avoiding real work, or just isn't capable enough to work the guardrails that were obviously forced into it.
      - bluegatty 23d ago
        'Loops' are the hackiest thing ever invented I don't think they're good for anything. I think a researched plan is much better, the agent will follow the plan. You can allow for an 'iterative' strategy for solving a problem, with guardrails so that it doesn't try to many times. Yes - you can use Codex as the 'manager AI' but I don't see much benefit - it has a much shorter context window. Codex is better 'at the front' where it matters. That said - it's 'auto-compaction' is quite good. I don't believe the hype over OP5 lagging that much, it's fine as a working AI. Other than for truly automated tasks, I don't think there's much that an AI can 'work a few days on'. That form of 'loop for days until it works' produces nightmare code and architecture. Fun for experiments and learning but not for code u want to keep.
        mapontosevenths 22d ago
        Did you see Nvidia's 100% on ARC AGI-3 yesterday? OVA was just Opus 5 in a loop. They can definitely be powerful.

by jml78 24d ago

gizmodo59 24d ago

I second the parent comment. 5.6 sol xhigh is not only better than fable I can also run it forever without worrying about limits. The frontend has gotten much better too with the plugins that come with codex.

mapontosevenths 24d ago
Agreed. I have the highest individual plan for both. I run out of Fable credits midweek, while I usually have some credit with Chatgpt left despite it having to carry Fables load for the second half of the week. Also, Sol doesn't refuse constantly and speaks like an engineer rather than a deranged academic. Opus 5 is legitimately terrible and can't or won't follow instructions. It is of negative utility and does more harm than good to my codebase.
- gizmodo59 24d ago
  I’m referring to Fable vs 5.6 Sol. Opus 5 being bad is universal at this point.
- bluegatty 24d ago
  OP5 will do long running work, you just have to make it write a plan. And - trick - give it a little cli so it can run Codex if you have them both. Let it do codex to do the bulk of the work, get a OP5 sub-agent to audit the work of the codex worker. Just let Op5 manage and have 'specific oversight. You can run for 2 days on 1 context window in the manager, the advantage is that it will stick to a broad plan.
  - mapontosevenths 23d ago
    It's kind of funny you describe it that way. I'm literally doing the exact opposite, which is why I have both. I have Sol xhigh drive Claude via tmux and I get amazing results until I run out of Fable. Then Opus comes in and starts acting like some sort of autistic academic with OCD. It tries as hard as Fable, but isn't smart enough to do it well. It starts designing ever more elaborate tests, frameworks, and procedures while making up rules for itself and piling them on top of each other until nothing gets done. It's the ultimate bureaucrat. Worse - More than once it's spent days in a loop because it invented constraints for itself that it couldn't satisfy then lied and told Sol that the user imposed those limitations. I don't know if it's actively avoiding real work, or just isn't capable enough to work the guardrails that were obviously forced into it.
    - bluegatty 23d ago
      'Loops' are the hackiest thing ever invented I don't think they're good for anything. I think a researched plan is much better, the agent will follow the plan. You can allow for an 'iterative' strategy for solving a problem, with guardrails so that it doesn't try to many times. Yes - you can use Codex as the 'manager AI' but I don't see much benefit - it has a much shorter context window. Codex is better 'at the front' where it matters. That said - it's 'auto-compaction' is quite good. I don't believe the hype over OP5 lagging that much, it's fine as a working AI. Other than for truly automated tasks, I don't think there's much that an AI can 'work a few days on'. That form of 'loop for days until it works' produces nightmare code and architecture. Fun for experiments and learning but not for code u want to keep.
      - mapontosevenths 22d ago
        Did you see Nvidia's 100% on ARC AGI-3 yesterday? OVA was just Opus 5 in a loop. They can definitely be powerful.