With the $200 subscription, I can have Fable on ultracode working for hours and not dent the usage limits.

Maybe they consider that hiring a person to do it would have cost at least as much and taken much more time, so paying them is a bargain.

https://artificialanalysis.ai/methodology/intelligence-bench...

Opus-5 is practically unusable in this sense - its updates are voluminous, and dense with cryptic language (there are numerous reddit threads complaining about this, so it's not just me). I often have to ask it to re-state concisely in plain terms.

For a fairly gnarly task, after fighting with with Claude-Code + Opus-5, I ported my session to Codex + GPT-5.6-sol, and it was like a breath of fresh air.

Arguably a key aspect of intelligence is concise, clear communication, and current benchmarks miss that, at least as far as I'm aware. I would think some arena-type benchmarks where humans rate responses would measure this, though I'm not sure which those are.

But: I've been very impressed by the larger Qwen Models, and a brief try of Kimi also impressed me.

A lingering sense of quality degradation when going deep remains.

But that's not an accusation: they seem to be hitting the compute/quality tradeoff extremely well.

And on-prem capability is simply irreplaceable.

Apart from all the innovations that were driven by the strive for this optimization: quantization, "distilling" (without obvious mad-cows-disease)... I think China was an invaluable player in this progress. Intuitively, I'd even go so far to speculate that LLaMa wouldn't exist without the competition.

> Artificial Analysis Agentic Index: Represents the weighted average of agentic capabilities benchmarks in the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (GDPval-AA v2, Tau³-Banking)

> Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index v1.3 incorporates 3 benchmarks: DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench v2, and SWE-Atlas-QnA

Qwen3.8 Max is 55.4 on the Agentic Index but hasn't been tested for the Coding Agent Index.

https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/qwen3-8-max

Doesn't have the claim either. Clickbait?

After I started reading complaints about Opus 5, I gave Fable the task of evaluating a bunch of code Opus 4.8 had written and compare it to Opus 5's code. Fable ran a dynamic workflow and the scores came back 15-20% higher for Opus 5's code in terms of quality, correctness and readability/conciseness. I did not tell Fable which Opus wrote which code, and I turned off memory as well to ensure there was no pollution from that angle.

My only complaint is that Opus 5's prose is annoying as hell. I wrote a custom skill for it for concise debriefs and it has been working pretty well for me.

Opus 4.6 is the last model that's actually useful and can "adjust" its perspective to use the newer & better solution.

Where Opus 4.8-5 has over fit training on worse/older but "dominant" solutions it refuses to adjust.

Not only does this create an existential threat to adopting progress but it also means that if you have a code base that has rare but real world tradeoff the newest versions of Opus 4.7, 4.8 and 5 are worse than useless and become a major dev timesink.

People produce such models by over-RL-ing smaller models on math and coding tasks. I've found the results capable of neither innovative work nor thinking outside the box. They're straight-A students raised by tiger moments who never let them play freely for hours in the dirt.

Perhaps you could say such models are skilled --- but intelligent? Not by my measure.

People and AIs alike need diversity of experience and a broad liberal arts education to see hidden connections between fields and make real advances.

What cost the most in API. Input, Cached Input, or Output. There you have your answer.

Unfortunately, we have moved so much of the actual intelligence of models towards reasoning, what results in some models getting good scores, but this is because they are dumping a insane amount of reasoning tokens at the problem.

So a mid priced model, with heavy reasoning output, cost the same as a expensive model, with medium reasoning output.

Before the GPT Luna price drop of 80%, you actually had the same price if you used Luna High and Sol Low. With the difference that Sol Low was insane fast, and often way better code.

https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/

Do not look at the top score but more what is on the horizontal axis as you go down. Sol Medium is frankly, was the best performance for dollar, until that Luna price drop. I will even argue that despite the higher price, Sol Medium is still way better despite Luna Max being cheaper. Or Opus Low, one of the better values also.

What do you notice? Is that those models all have a high intelligence start point for their low setting. So that means they do not rely as much on output tokens aka thinking.

Many providers will host it and will compete on price. It also can't easily be taken away because one company (or one government) decides they don't want it around any more. People can fine-tune it for particular workloads.

There are a couple of frontiers (ok bad word, maybe categories) in open weight models.

These Qwen 3.8 and Kimi K3 style models aren't trying to win on price, they're trying to compete on intelligence and capability.

Models like Deepseek V4 Flash (updated this week) are $0.03 a task, or 50X cheaper than Qwen3.8/Kimi K3, and 100X cheaper than Fable, while offering stunning intelligence. That's a different frontier for competition, and perhaps one more interesting for someone who wants to see them compete on cost.

At their best, I think they're closing in on Opus and GPT, but they're incredibly inconsistent and the variance in output quality is much higher than the best from any of the Anthropic or OpenAI models from the last few generations. The only way I can describe it is that it feels like a lack of intuition with the models which means I find my self needing to write longer prompts or have more back and forth to get them to do what I want from them.

To give an example, I have a saved prompt that I use as a sanity check on some data I'm storing. It reads about 50 rows from a DB and matches them to the UI and makes sure the data is displaying correctly. I've been using this with GPT 5.5 and now 5.6 for a few months and running it a few times a week with no issue. Sometimes I'll run it multiple times in a single chat if I notice bad data (run it, fix thing, run again, fix another thing).

I recently tried to switch to using Deepseek v4 (first flash and then pro) and while both did the task just fine, both would do things like change the response format from one message to another in the same chat or randomly decide to omit things it didn't think were relevant. At one point I ran the prompt, fixed some bad data, and then said "Okay, I fixed row 7, run {prompt} again" and so it decided to leave row 7 out of the response. A few times the first message would contain a table and then the next run in the same chat would contain the data in a bulleted list.

None of those are major issues and all could be solved with a bit more rigor in my prompting, but for me it makes them harder to work with. Those examples are a bit trivial, I think they're the easiest way for me to illustrate the gaps I see with them.

I was with you until there. Qwen and the OpenAI models are great, aggressive agents, but they’re not as good as the anthropic models for human interaction. They just don’t have the subtlety, understanding, or attention to detail.

[0]https://humanparadox.org/local-vs-frontier-benchmarks-for-my... - note here I tested Q8 but have found no difference at lower quant.