Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

BREAKING: GPT-5.6 Sol is out—AND Codex has been merged into ChatGPT Desktop as ChatGPT Codex. This combo model and desktop app harness are the gold-standard for knowledge work in AI. 5.6 is powerful, fast, half the price of Fable, and my default for almost everything. We’ve been testing it...

danshipper's profile picture

Dan Shipper 📧

121,054 subscribers

145,457 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat •via X (Twitter)

Wissenschaft & TechnologieNachrichten & PolitikBildung
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

BREAKING: GPT-5.5 "Spud" is out and it is a BEAST We've been testing it Every 📧 for the last 3 weeks on everything from coding, to writing, to knowledge work. Here's our day 0 vibe check: - It's a step change in coding AND it's easy to talk to. It's fast and friendly and quickly became my daily driver. But it's also a coding powerhouse—a really rare combination. - It scored 62/100 on our Senior Engineer benchmark. Opus 4.7 scored only a 33/100. (But GPT-5.5 performed best when using an Opus 4.7 plan). Naveen Naidu used over 900 million tokens during testing—and it let him ship production features for Monologue at both high speed and quality. - It has serious conceptual clarity. It can hold a complex plan in its head over hours of work, without getting distracted by existing code. This makes it the first model that we've tested that can perform well on complex refactors requiring deleting and reimagining an substantial existing codebase. - It's a very good writer. This is the first OpenAI model in about a year that got our writers Every 📧 to switch away from Claude. 5.5 has Katie Parrott's seal of approval—not an easy task. Its writing feels more organic and it's better at mimicking a writing style without going overboard. - It's great for agentic knowledge-work. This is the first OpenAI model that manages to be both a stellar senior engineer AND that can be used for everything from spreadsheets to research. It's crazy fast, and it's amazing inside of the Codex desktop app, and got much of our team to switch away from Claude Code and Cowork during the testing period. However, it's not a perfect model. - 5.5 still loses to Opus 4.7 on plan quality. It's plans are extremely readable but Opus has better attention to detail and sharper insight. - 5.5 still loses to Opus 4.7 by a bit on front-end and full-stack product work. Kieran Klaassen found that it wasn't quite as good when full-stack thinking and design are involved. And it's not great writing Ruby. - 5.5 is a great vibe coder but if you're vibe coding without a plan it's worse than Opus. Mike Taylor found that Opus is better at reading in between the lines on underspecified vibe-coding tasks. Overall GPT-5.5 is a massive achievement from OpenAI and it deserves a serious look as your daily driver. Read our full vibe check on Every 📧 here:
12:42

BREAKING: GPT-5.5 "Spud" is out and it is a BEAST We've been testing it Every 📧 for the last 3 weeks on everything from coding, to writing, to knowledge work. Here's our day 0 vibe check: - It's a step change in coding AND it's easy to talk to. It's fast and friendly and quickly became my daily driver. But it's also a coding powerhouse—a really rare combination. - It scored 62/100 on our Senior Engineer benchmark. Opus 4.7 scored only a 33/100. (But GPT-5.5 performed best when using an Opus 4.7 plan). Naveen Naidu used over 900 million tokens during testing—and it let him ship production features for Monologue at both high speed and quality. - It has serious conceptual clarity. It can hold a complex plan in its head over hours of work, without getting distracted by existing code. This makes it the first model that we've tested that can perform well on complex refactors requiring deleting and reimagining an substantial existing codebase. - It's a very good writer. This is the first OpenAI model in about a year that got our writers Every 📧 to switch away from Claude. 5.5 has Katie Parrott's seal of approval—not an easy task. Its writing feels more organic and it's better at mimicking a writing style without going overboard. - It's great for agentic knowledge-work. This is the first OpenAI model that manages to be both a stellar senior engineer AND that can be used for everything from spreadsheets to research. It's crazy fast, and it's amazing inside of the Codex desktop app, and got much of our team to switch away from Claude Code and Cowork during the testing period. However, it's not a perfect model. - 5.5 still loses to Opus 4.7 on plan quality. It's plans are extremely readable but Opus has better attention to detail and sharper insight. - 5.5 still loses to Opus 4.7 by a bit on front-end and full-stack product work. Kieran Klaassen found that it wasn't quite as good when full-stack thinking and design are involved. And it's not great writing Ruby. - 5.5 is a great vibe coder but if you're vibe coding without a plan it's worse than Opus. Mike Taylor found that Opus is better at reading in between the lines on underspecified vibe-coding tasks. Overall GPT-5.5 is a massive achievement from OpenAI and it deserves a serious look as your daily driver. Read our full vibe check on Every 📧 here:

Dan Shipper 📧

130,382 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

ChatGPT 5.6 is the greatest technology I've ever used I've been testing it in early access and I can confidently say it's as smart as Fable for a fraction of the price It's harness is also 100x better Here's everything you need to know about getting the most out of ChatGPT 5.6
19:39

ChatGPT 5.6 is the greatest technology I've ever used I've been testing it in early access and I can confidently say it's as smart as Fable for a fraction of the price It's harness is also 100x better Here's everything you need to know about getting the most out of ChatGPT 5.6

Alex Finn

107,335 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

GPT-5.6 vs GPT-5.5 on my custom spaceship prompt. I gave both models the exact same custom prompt. This is also the same prompt I previously gave to Fable 5. For context, GPT-5.6 Pro worked for 87 minutes, while GPT-5.5 Extra High worked for 34 minutes and 42 seconds. As I’ve said before, based on great authority GPT-5.6 will be an incremental/soldi improvement over GPT-5.5, not a “Fable killer.” My rough expectation has been that it would trade blows with Fable 5 on some benchmarks, maybe win around half depending on the category, but not clearly surpass it overall. And again fable five will have bigger model smell, but this was expected. After testing this coding output, that view feels pretty accurate. GPT-5.6 is clearly better than GPT-5.5 in several visual areas. The lighting, shading, chairs, object details, and exterior of the spaceship looked noticeably stronger. The scene was also easier to test. I do want to give GPT-5.5 credit though. It built out the rooms much much better and the planets looked better than GPT-5.6’s. It was also interesting that both GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6 produced better-looking planets than Fable 5 in this specific test. The downside with GPT-5.5 was stability. The game was much glitchier and harder to test compared to GPT-5.6. But when it comes to the core of the demo, which is the spaceship itself, Fable 5 still beat both models pretty comfortably. GPT-5.6 is impressive, but from this test, it looks exactly like what I expected which was a meaningful incremental improvement over GPT-5.5, at least for indie game demos, but not something that replaces Fable 5. In collaboration with Chetaslua
0:42

GPT-5.6 vs GPT-5.5 on my custom spaceship prompt. I gave both models the exact same custom prompt. This is also the same prompt I previously gave to Fable 5. For context, GPT-5.6 Pro worked for 87 minutes, while GPT-5.5 Extra High worked for 34 minutes and 42 seconds. As I’ve said before, based on great authority GPT-5.6 will be an incremental/soldi improvement over GPT-5.5, not a “Fable killer.” My rough expectation has been that it would trade blows with Fable 5 on some benchmarks, maybe win around half depending on the category, but not clearly surpass it overall. And again fable five will have bigger model smell, but this was expected. After testing this coding output, that view feels pretty accurate. GPT-5.6 is clearly better than GPT-5.5 in several visual areas. The lighting, shading, chairs, object details, and exterior of the spaceship looked noticeably stronger. The scene was also easier to test. I do want to give GPT-5.5 credit though. It built out the rooms much much better and the planets looked better than GPT-5.6’s. It was also interesting that both GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6 produced better-looking planets than Fable 5 in this specific test. The downside with GPT-5.5 was stability. The game was much glitchier and harder to test compared to GPT-5.6. But when it comes to the core of the demo, which is the spaceship itself, Fable 5 still beat both models pretty comfortably. GPT-5.6 is impressive, but from this test, it looks exactly like what I expected which was a meaningful incremental improvement over GPT-5.5, at least for indie game demos, but not something that replaces Fable 5. In collaboration with Chetaslua

Chris

250,405 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

I’ve been using GPT-5.6 Sol internally for the past two months, I've spent probably 25+ billion tokens. Here’s my review and comparison to Fable 5: > Let's start with the analogy because everyone seems to be giving theirs - GPT-5.6 is likely the last version of the GPT-5 training run series. It's kind of like an athlete at their peak. Through years of experience in the game, they've become the most reliable player and has the highest game IQ. But, there's no more room to grow. Fable on the other hand, being essentially the first version of a new training run, is the first round draft pick rookie. Raw talent mixed with the energy only a young person would have results in some incredible plays we didn't think possible, but also mistakes due to lack of experience. But that rookie will only improve and likely will be better than the veteran ever was because it's a new game and a new era. > GPT-5.6 is genuinely better at long, sustained work. With /goal, I've had it running complex projects for days with almost no intervention. It built a Minecraft-style game, kept adding features and mobs after the core game worked, and only stopped because I stopped the run. I never felt as though I had to jump in and guide it back to the right path. > It keeps finding useful work when you give it a concrete finish line. I had it recreate Excel with a loop. It inspected the real desktop excel app with Computer Use, comparing that against its own build, and closing the gaps. I stopped it after six days after it had built an incredible amount of functionality. > It's faster than other models in two different ways. The raw generation speed is higher, something OpenAI has been putting effort into. But it also takes a shorter path to solutions. It wanders less, changes less code, and generally knows how to get things done directly. In daily use, it feels about 2-3x times faster than Fable. That's my impression, not a controlled benchmark. The difference is large enough that I notice it constantly. > It works well across a wide range of tasks. I use it for one-line edits, quick questions, browser chores, and multi-day builds without changing my prompting style. Speaking of browser control, its the best ever I've used. To the point where I actually use it often. If a task lives on a website, GPT-5.6 usually opens the browser and does it there instead of asking for an API key or forcing everything through the terminal. When I switched back to GPT-5.5, it went straight to the command line even when the browser was clearly the better tool. > And it can handle real browser work, not just toy demos. During a data import, I had it monitor Supabase and resize instances as the load changed. It stayed on the dashboard, adjusted capacity, and checked the result without an API or a custom script. > I also gave it a full Google Workspace migration. It moved Forward Future from to preserved the old aliases, and configured MX, SPF, and DKIM. Before a consequential save, it stopped, explained exactly what would change, and waited for confirmation. > The reasoning setting matters a lot. Light is good for questions and small edits. High and Extra High are the sweet spots for serious work. Ultra usually takes longer than the extra thinking is worth and burns tokens. > I love that 5.6 is split into 3 sizes. Not only can you control speed and cost that way, but you still also have the thinking effort setting for each of them. Very precise controls. I just wish Codex automatically routed my prompts for me. > Its personality is blunt and a little bland. Claude feels warmer and more natural to talk to. GPT-5.6 is more clinical, but I like that for work. It gives me enough explanation and rarely pads the answer. I usually have to ask Fable to explain things more simply and/or more concise. > Its front-end taste has improved, but the default is predictable. Left alone, it turns websites into PowerPoint decks with huge statements and hard section breaks. The good news is that it takes design direction well and can revise without destroying the parts that already work. > It still makes confident mistakes. I asked it to rebuild parts of a system, and it told me the job was finished. Later, I found out it wasn't. Bits of its internal process also leak into the answer occasionally. > Claude Fable is more naturally autonomous on large, open-ended projects. GPT-5.6 is easier to reach for. I don't need to invent a huge project to justify using it. It works just as well for a small edit or browser chore. > GPT-5.6 is also cheaper. Sol costs $5 per million input tokens and $30 per million output tokens. Fable costs $10 and $50. Cached input is cheaper too. Still, cost per finished task matters more than cost per token. > GPT-5.6 isn't the best at everything, and it still needs supervision. But it generates faster, wanders less, works at almost any scale, and wastes less of my time. It's the model I have the most confidence in to get the job done right the first time. I put together a full breakdown with all the tests, prompts, and examples on a site. You can read it here:
7:46

I’ve been using GPT-5.6 Sol internally for the past two months, I've spent probably 25+ billion tokens. Here’s my review and comparison to Fable 5: > Let's start with the analogy because everyone seems to be giving theirs - GPT-5.6 is likely the last version of the GPT-5 training run series. It's kind of like an athlete at their peak. Through years of experience in the game, they've become the most reliable player and has the highest game IQ. But, there's no more room to grow. Fable on the other hand, being essentially the first version of a new training run, is the first round draft pick rookie. Raw talent mixed with the energy only a young person would have results in some incredible plays we didn't think possible, but also mistakes due to lack of experience. But that rookie will only improve and likely will be better than the veteran ever was because it's a new game and a new era. > GPT-5.6 is genuinely better at long, sustained work. With /goal, I've had it running complex projects for days with almost no intervention. It built a Minecraft-style game, kept adding features and mobs after the core game worked, and only stopped because I stopped the run. I never felt as though I had to jump in and guide it back to the right path. > It keeps finding useful work when you give it a concrete finish line. I had it recreate Excel with a loop. It inspected the real desktop excel app with Computer Use, comparing that against its own build, and closing the gaps. I stopped it after six days after it had built an incredible amount of functionality. > It's faster than other models in two different ways. The raw generation speed is higher, something OpenAI has been putting effort into. But it also takes a shorter path to solutions. It wanders less, changes less code, and generally knows how to get things done directly. In daily use, it feels about 2-3x times faster than Fable. That's my impression, not a controlled benchmark. The difference is large enough that I notice it constantly. > It works well across a wide range of tasks. I use it for one-line edits, quick questions, browser chores, and multi-day builds without changing my prompting style. Speaking of browser control, its the best ever I've used. To the point where I actually use it often. If a task lives on a website, GPT-5.6 usually opens the browser and does it there instead of asking for an API key or forcing everything through the terminal. When I switched back to GPT-5.5, it went straight to the command line even when the browser was clearly the better tool. > And it can handle real browser work, not just toy demos. During a data import, I had it monitor Supabase and resize instances as the load changed. It stayed on the dashboard, adjusted capacity, and checked the result without an API or a custom script. > I also gave it a full Google Workspace migration. It moved Forward Future from to preserved the old aliases, and configured MX, SPF, and DKIM. Before a consequential save, it stopped, explained exactly what would change, and waited for confirmation. > The reasoning setting matters a lot. Light is good for questions and small edits. High and Extra High are the sweet spots for serious work. Ultra usually takes longer than the extra thinking is worth and burns tokens. > I love that 5.6 is split into 3 sizes. Not only can you control speed and cost that way, but you still also have the thinking effort setting for each of them. Very precise controls. I just wish Codex automatically routed my prompts for me. > Its personality is blunt and a little bland. Claude feels warmer and more natural to talk to. GPT-5.6 is more clinical, but I like that for work. It gives me enough explanation and rarely pads the answer. I usually have to ask Fable to explain things more simply and/or more concise. > Its front-end taste has improved, but the default is predictable. Left alone, it turns websites into PowerPoint decks with huge statements and hard section breaks. The good news is that it takes design direction well and can revise without destroying the parts that already work. > It still makes confident mistakes. I asked it to rebuild parts of a system, and it told me the job was finished. Later, I found out it wasn't. Bits of its internal process also leak into the answer occasionally. > Claude Fable is more naturally autonomous on large, open-ended projects. GPT-5.6 is easier to reach for. I don't need to invent a huge project to justify using it. It works just as well for a small edit or browser chore. > GPT-5.6 is also cheaper. Sol costs $5 per million input tokens and $30 per million output tokens. Fable costs $10 and $50. Cached input is cheaper too. Still, cost per finished task matters more than cost per token. > GPT-5.6 isn't the best at everything, and it still needs supervision. But it generates faster, wanders less, works at almost any scale, and wastes less of my time. It's the model I have the most confidence in to get the job done right the first time. I put together a full breakdown with all the tests, prompts, and examples on a site. You can read it here:

Matthew Berman

187,086 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

BREAKING: Claude Opus 5 is OUT NOW! And…it’s a hard model to love. We’ve spent the last week Every 🧱 testing it across coding, writing, knowledge work, and our internal agent. It argued with instructions, stopped before the work was finished, and generally didn’t play well with our existing skills and plugins like Compound Engineering. Our first reaction was: What have they done to my boy? Then we deleted our existing skills and started from scratch. Without the elaborate workflows we had built for earlier models, Opus 5 got dramatically better, and even showed flashes of brilliance. Here’s our Day 0 vibe check: - It’s a poor man’s Fable. It has many of Fable’s personality quirks without Fable’s genius. - It breaks backward compatibility. If you’re using it with existing skills and workflows, watch out. It will often stop early or otherwise miss your instructions. - If you start from scratch, you’ll have better results. Kieran Klaassen figured out that if he just started from scratch without his existing skills, he could get dramatically better results. This is a model that takes some time to rebuild your workflows around—but if you do, there’s a payoff waiting. - Medium or low effort works better. @KieranKlassenn also found better results using Opus 5 on lower thinking levels. It seems that the more time you give it to think, the more likely it is to do the more annoying behaviors. Don’t just switch to Sonnet for a faster response! Try low thinking. I have two slots in my workflow: 1. The genius model I use for my biggest hardest tasks, currently Fable. 2. The smart, fast generalist I use for everything else, currently GPT-5.6. Opus 5 has the personality of the genius, but doesn’t have its top end. So that puts it in a strange middle ground that doesn’t really have a home in my day to day. I think I’ll use it mostly when I run out of Fable tokens. full vibe check on Every 🧱 in the next tweet 👇
9:34

BREAKING: Claude Opus 5 is OUT NOW! And…it’s a hard model to love. We’ve spent the last week Every 🧱 testing it across coding, writing, knowledge work, and our internal agent. It argued with instructions, stopped before the work was finished, and generally didn’t play well with our existing skills and plugins like Compound Engineering. Our first reaction was: What have they done to my boy? Then we deleted our existing skills and started from scratch. Without the elaborate workflows we had built for earlier models, Opus 5 got dramatically better, and even showed flashes of brilliance. Here’s our Day 0 vibe check: - It’s a poor man’s Fable. It has many of Fable’s personality quirks without Fable’s genius. - It breaks backward compatibility. If you’re using it with existing skills and workflows, watch out. It will often stop early or otherwise miss your instructions. - If you start from scratch, you’ll have better results. Kieran Klaassen figured out that if he just started from scratch without his existing skills, he could get dramatically better results. This is a model that takes some time to rebuild your workflows around—but if you do, there’s a payoff waiting. - Medium or low effort works better. @KieranKlassenn also found better results using Opus 5 on lower thinking levels. It seems that the more time you give it to think, the more likely it is to do the more annoying behaviors. Don’t just switch to Sonnet for a faster response! Try low thinking. I have two slots in my workflow: 1. The genius model I use for my biggest hardest tasks, currently Fable. 2. The smart, fast generalist I use for everything else, currently GPT-5.6. Opus 5 has the personality of the genius, but doesn’t have its top end. So that puts it in a strange middle ground that doesn’t really have a home in my day to day. I think I’ll use it mostly when I run out of Fable tokens. full vibe check on Every 🧱 in the next tweet 👇

Dan Shipper 📧

751,800 Aufrufe • vor 22 Tagen

BREAKING: Anthropic just dropped Claude Fable 5—this is Mythos, made safe for public release. It is the best coding model in the world. We've been testing it internally Every 🪨 for the last week or so across coding, writing, marketing, editing, and more—here's our vibe check: - It broke our benchmarks. Fable scored a 91/100 on our Senior Engineer benchmark—this is human senior engineer level. The previous high score was Opus 4.8 at 63. GPT-5.5 is a 62. - It's a one-shot wonder. You can set it and forget for hours or overnight on huge coding tasks, and come back to completed work. It cleared entire production bug backlogs, built a playable 3D, and even made a 2-minute animated film—all one-shot. - Taste and attention to detail. In coding and knowledge work tasks, it has much better taste and attention to detail than we've ever seen. It gets subtle things right, adds little features you might not have thought of, and generally understands the assignment in ways that surprised us. - Great use of context. We set it loose analyzing customer feedback surveys and our website data and it came back with a crisp, clean report that identified a. our biggest problem and b. a concrete testable solution—and then we sent it off to build that. - It's best for power users. If you're already used to orchestrating multiple agents in your work, this model can do things that you've never seen before. If you're a knowledge worker or vibe coder with a more basic setup, you're not going to notice a huge difference—in fact, it probably isn't the right model for you. - It's very slow, token-hungry. Using this thing for regular knowledge work is like squashing an ant with a rocket launcher. It also routinely uses 500k to 1M tokens on tasks. That's why it's best for your heaviest jobs—but not as good for tasks like collaborative writing. - It's expensive. It's about twice as expensive as Opus, and it's also incredibly token hungry—so expect it to be something you'll use sparingly unless your company pays for it. Overall, I think of it like a warp drive for coding: It can get you across the galaxy in a few hours, when it used to take months or years. But it's not appropriate for getting around town—you need something faster, cheaper, and more maneuverable. The ceiling is extraordinarily high on this model though. Even our most advanced testers like Kieran Klaassen felt like they were only scratching the surface of it. Want our full vibe check with all of our testing and benchmarks? Read it on Every 🪨:
16:37

BREAKING: Anthropic just dropped Claude Fable 5—this is Mythos, made safe for public release. It is the best coding model in the world. We've been testing it internally Every 🪨 for the last week or so across coding, writing, marketing, editing, and more—here's our vibe check: - It broke our benchmarks. Fable scored a 91/100 on our Senior Engineer benchmark—this is human senior engineer level. The previous high score was Opus 4.8 at 63. GPT-5.5 is a 62. - It's a one-shot wonder. You can set it and forget for hours or overnight on huge coding tasks, and come back to completed work. It cleared entire production bug backlogs, built a playable 3D, and even made a 2-minute animated film—all one-shot. - Taste and attention to detail. In coding and knowledge work tasks, it has much better taste and attention to detail than we've ever seen. It gets subtle things right, adds little features you might not have thought of, and generally understands the assignment in ways that surprised us. - Great use of context. We set it loose analyzing customer feedback surveys and our website data and it came back with a crisp, clean report that identified a. our biggest problem and b. a concrete testable solution—and then we sent it off to build that. - It's best for power users. If you're already used to orchestrating multiple agents in your work, this model can do things that you've never seen before. If you're a knowledge worker or vibe coder with a more basic setup, you're not going to notice a huge difference—in fact, it probably isn't the right model for you. - It's very slow, token-hungry. Using this thing for regular knowledge work is like squashing an ant with a rocket launcher. It also routinely uses 500k to 1M tokens on tasks. That's why it's best for your heaviest jobs—but not as good for tasks like collaborative writing. - It's expensive. It's about twice as expensive as Opus, and it's also incredibly token hungry—so expect it to be something you'll use sparingly unless your company pays for it. Overall, I think of it like a warp drive for coding: It can get you across the galaxy in a few hours, when it used to take months or years. But it's not appropriate for getting around town—you need something faster, cheaper, and more maneuverable. The ceiling is extraordinarily high on this model though. Even our most advanced testers like Kieran Klaassen felt like they were only scratching the surface of it. Want our full vibe check with all of our testing and benchmarks? Read it on Every 🪨:

Dan Shipper 📧

620,817 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

this is f**king insane Fable 5 goes away in 24 hours from Claude Code and someone just figured out how to get fable 5 reasoning in GPT 5.6 Sol with one prompt you have less than 24 hours to set this up as this takes away 20% of your usage limit here is how: 1) Paste the prompt and ask it to "make an operating manual" 2) Go the Codex App > Settings > Personalisation > Custom Instructions 3) Use GPT 5.5 / GPT 5.6 and now you have Fable 5 reasoning at 1/3 th the price save and bookmark it no matter what
0:32

this is f**king insane Fable 5 goes away in 24 hours from Claude Code and someone just figured out how to get fable 5 reasoning in GPT 5.6 Sol with one prompt you have less than 24 hours to set this up as this takes away 20% of your usage limit here is how: 1) Paste the prompt and ask it to "make an operating manual" 2) Go the Codex App > Settings > Personalisation > Custom Instructions 3) Use GPT 5.5 / GPT 5.6 and now you have Fable 5 reasoning at 1/3 th the price save and bookmark it no matter what

Avid

57,544 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

THIS GUY PUT FABLE, GPT 5.6 SOL, AND OPUS IN ONE SHARED CHAT AND HAS THEM TAG EACH OTHER LIKE COWORKERS instead of running three separate models in three separate windows and copy pasting between them, they all sit in one room and talk to each other > you tag whichever model you want and only that one responds > they tag each other too, so fable can hand something to opus, opus can pull in sol for a second opinion > each agent only sees the messages theyre mentioned in, but you get to read everything > he had them running and orchestrating together for more than a day straight the best part is how different each one actually behaves: > fable is the creative product manager. huge context window so it remembers everything, and its the one finding the out of the box solutions > sol is the obsessive tech lead. it will trace every bug to the exact source and stress test every edge case before writing a single line > opus is the workhorse engineer. smart enough for almost anything, and it constantly questions things, which forces the other two to re-examine their own solutions its like managing a team. one plans, one writes the code, one reviews it, and they hand work back and forth without you playing middleman everyone else is arguing about which model is best right now, but the real play is making them work together at the same time
1:11

THIS GUY PUT FABLE, GPT 5.6 SOL, AND OPUS IN ONE SHARED CHAT AND HAS THEM TAG EACH OTHER LIKE COWORKERS instead of running three separate models in three separate windows and copy pasting between them, they all sit in one room and talk to each other > you tag whichever model you want and only that one responds > they tag each other too, so fable can hand something to opus, opus can pull in sol for a second opinion > each agent only sees the messages theyre mentioned in, but you get to read everything > he had them running and orchestrating together for more than a day straight the best part is how different each one actually behaves: > fable is the creative product manager. huge context window so it remembers everything, and its the one finding the out of the box solutions > sol is the obsessive tech lead. it will trace every bug to the exact source and stress test every edge case before writing a single line > opus is the workhorse engineer. smart enough for almost anything, and it constantly questions things, which forces the other two to re-examine their own solutions its like managing a team. one plans, one writes the code, one reviews it, and they hand work back and forth without you playing middleman everyone else is arguing about which model is best right now, but the real play is making them work together at the same time

Om Patel

22,998 Aufrufe • vor 26 Tagen

Here is EVERY AI tool you need to be using in August 2026 I've personally used each for 100+ If you master them and use them all, you'll be a productivity MACHINE The list of the tools are down below. How to use each is in the video! • Best planning model: Fable 5 medium- smartest model out there. Use it to do all your ideation and planning • Best execution model: ChatGPT 5.6 sol medium- best bang for your buck. TONS of usage and incredibly smart • Best AI tool: ChatGPT Voice: the future of interfacing with technology • Best AI agent harness: ChatGPT Desktop app- can do anything any other AI agent can do, but does it better • Best model for building UI/UX/games: Claude Code w/ Claude Opus 5- this model gets a lot of hate. Some of it warranted, most of it not. NOTHING beats Opus 5 for UI • Local model: Qwen 3.6 27b on DGX Spark- best speed and intelligence ratio in local AI • Other must have tools: Buzz from Jack Dorsey. The future of AI is multiplayer, and this is the first true multiplayer AI platform out there
14:03

Here is EVERY AI tool you need to be using in August 2026 I've personally used each for 100+ If you master them and use them all, you'll be a productivity MACHINE The list of the tools are down below. How to use each is in the video! • Best planning model: Fable 5 medium- smartest model out there. Use it to do all your ideation and planning • Best execution model: ChatGPT 5.6 sol medium- best bang for your buck. TONS of usage and incredibly smart • Best AI tool: ChatGPT Voice: the future of interfacing with technology • Best AI agent harness: ChatGPT Desktop app- can do anything any other AI agent can do, but does it better • Best model for building UI/UX/games: Claude Code w/ Claude Opus 5- this model gets a lot of hate. Some of it warranted, most of it not. NOTHING beats Opus 5 for UI • Local model: Qwen 3.6 27b on DGX Spark- best speed and intelligence ratio in local AI • Other must have tools: Buzz from Jack Dorsey. The future of AI is multiplayer, and this is the first true multiplayer AI platform out there

Alex Finn

39,359 Aufrufe • vor 5 Tagen

The truth about 5.6 sol after using it all day : The hype is overblown. Sort of. The benchmarks, and the commentary on X convinced me we were receiving AGI that runs at hyper speed, and is insanely cheap. in reality, 5.6 is built on the same spud pretraining as 5.5 this means its a nice bump, but not the opus to fable 5 LEAP in intelligence we recently experienced from anthropic. 5.6 is 2x times cheaper than fable on paper, and actually 3x cheaper when you look at actual task execution because of its token efficiency. BUT on swe bench where the models have to fix actual github bugs it falls behind fable pretty big. For vibecoders like myself this means I will be using 5.6 sol as a worker agent for Fable 5 to orchestrate alongside grok 4.5 I love this new era.
7:29

The truth about 5.6 sol after using it all day : The hype is overblown. Sort of. The benchmarks, and the commentary on X convinced me we were receiving AGI that runs at hyper speed, and is insanely cheap. in reality, 5.6 is built on the same spud pretraining as 5.5 this means its a nice bump, but not the opus to fable 5 LEAP in intelligence we recently experienced from anthropic. 5.6 is 2x times cheaper than fable on paper, and actually 3x cheaper when you look at actual task execution because of its token efficiency. BUT on swe bench where the models have to fix actual github bugs it falls behind fable pretty big. For vibecoders like myself this means I will be using 5.6 sol as a worker agent for Fable 5 to orchestrate alongside grok 4.5 I love this new era.

Max Blade

36,764 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

When using GPT-5.5, it is instantly noticeable how much more powerful it is. In Codex, I gave it a very complex prompt to create London Toy Railway with landmarks and seasons - it did an excellent job in one shot. In the second half of the video you see GPT-5.4 - it was also not bad, but very clearly worse. GPT-5.5's generation is far more ambitious, coherent and with fewer errors. This is obviously a toy example, but I've used it on much more complex real tasks, including a complex app migration and a new hard workflow - it has been working away for many hours without getting stumped. I'm getting more and more addicted to this stuff with every model release.
0:49

When using GPT-5.5, it is instantly noticeable how much more powerful it is. In Codex, I gave it a very complex prompt to create London Toy Railway with landmarks and seasons - it did an excellent job in one shot. In the second half of the video you see GPT-5.4 - it was also not bad, but very clearly worse. GPT-5.5's generation is far more ambitious, coherent and with fewer errors. This is obviously a toy example, but I've used it on much more complex real tasks, including a complex app migration and a new hard workflow - it has been working away for many hours without getting stumped. I'm getting more and more addicted to this stuff with every model release.

Peter Gostev

262,507 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Fable 5 just completely redesigned the website and the results are absolutely INSANE. It created a lightning bolt animation that strikes the Get Started CTA. It built an interactive demo of BridgeSpace from scratch. A perfect 1:1 of the real app. It created 3 marketing videos, one for each vibe coding tool in the BridgeMind ecosystem. Fable 5 is by far the best model at UI design. I don't know if GPT 5.6 can beat this.
0:52

Fable 5 just completely redesigned the website and the results are absolutely INSANE. It created a lightning bolt animation that strikes the Get Started CTA. It built an interactive demo of BridgeSpace from scratch. A perfect 1:1 of the real app. It created 3 marketing videos, one for each vibe coding tool in the BridgeMind ecosystem. Fable 5 is by far the best model at UI design. I don't know if GPT 5.6 can beat this.

BridgeMind

53,728 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

I got to try Grok 4.5 in early access in Cursor for the past few days and I absolutely enjoyed it. It feels like Opus 4.8 at 2x the speed at a much cheaper price point. I tasked it to brainstorm > plan > implement a big feature for my game (this act 1 boss fight) and it did not disappoint. - It is much smarter than Composer 2.5, during planning mode, it is able to think through my request more robustly, ensuring that edge cases are covered and makes sure to ask the right questions to confirm with me first. - It is much better at brainstorming ideas/suggestions, similar to Opus 4.8, though I think Fable still edges out a little when it comes to brainstorming ideas and suggestions - It is FAST. probably the fastest of all frontier models (Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5 etc), which makes it a joy to build with, because I can stay in the flow - It has much improved visual/animation capabilities than Composer 2.5, it can code up animations (i wanted an explosion animation with particle effects) with much, much better visuals, animation movement and timing. This is a big leap and I was so happy to see this improvement. - The best part for me is that I can just use the same model from planning down to execution without switching to a lower cost model because the price point is cheaper than other frontier models. I'll be testing this model with more challenging tasks in the next few days but I think this is going to be my main driver for vibe coding for a while. Also, its nice to see Grok back in the race. 🙌
0:34

I got to try Grok 4.5 in early access in Cursor for the past few days and I absolutely enjoyed it. It feels like Opus 4.8 at 2x the speed at a much cheaper price point. I tasked it to brainstorm > plan > implement a big feature for my game (this act 1 boss fight) and it did not disappoint. - It is much smarter than Composer 2.5, during planning mode, it is able to think through my request more robustly, ensuring that edge cases are covered and makes sure to ask the right questions to confirm with me first. - It is much better at brainstorming ideas/suggestions, similar to Opus 4.8, though I think Fable still edges out a little when it comes to brainstorming ideas and suggestions - It is FAST. probably the fastest of all frontier models (Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5 etc), which makes it a joy to build with, because I can stay in the flow - It has much improved visual/animation capabilities than Composer 2.5, it can code up animations (i wanted an explosion animation with particle effects) with much, much better visuals, animation movement and timing. This is a big leap and I was so happy to see this improvement. - The best part for me is that I can just use the same model from planning down to execution without switching to a lower cost model because the price point is cheaper than other frontier models. I'll be testing this model with more challenging tasks in the next few days but I think this is going to be my main driver for vibe coding for a while. Also, its nice to see Grok back in the race. 🙌

Danny Limanseta

1,417,825 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

I couldn't believe the results of this benchmarking test. I blind-tested 6 frontier models — Sonnet 5, Opus 4.8, Fable 5, GPT 5.5, GLM 5.2, and Kimi 2.5 — on knowledge work, not engineering. Writing. Analysis. Design. Vibe coding. Subagent simulations. The stuff we actually do all day. Same prompts, each model running its own subagent, every output graded blind before the labels were revealed. The results: → GLM 5.2 (the dirt-cheap open-source model from China) took first → Sonnet 5 took second, beating Fable 5 for knowledge work → Opus 4.8 got whooped Then I had Composer 2.5 judge every output independently — and it picked Fable 5 almost across the board. My blind picks and the AI judge completely disagreed. Full breakdown, method, and prompts in the video below. Which model are you running as your daily driver right now?
18:49

I couldn't believe the results of this benchmarking test. I blind-tested 6 frontier models — Sonnet 5, Opus 4.8, Fable 5, GPT 5.5, GLM 5.2, and Kimi 2.5 — on knowledge work, not engineering. Writing. Analysis. Design. Vibe coding. Subagent simulations. The stuff we actually do all day. Same prompts, each model running its own subagent, every output graded blind before the labels were revealed. The results: → GLM 5.2 (the dirt-cheap open-source model from China) took first → Sonnet 5 took second, beating Fable 5 for knowledge work → Opus 4.8 got whooped Then I had Composer 2.5 judge every output independently — and it picked Fable 5 almost across the board. My blind picks and the AI judge completely disagreed. Full breakdown, method, and prompts in the video below. Which model are you running as your daily driver right now?

JJ Englert

10,737 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

KIMI K3 is here, and it blew my mind 🤯 yes, it is expensive and very slow Took over 30 minutes, and blew an ENTIRE $20 kimi sub before it even finished the one prompt for this game. BUT OMG... the output geniuinly has fable 5 level magic built into it, this model falls between gpt 5.6 and fable 5 imo. you can play the game at kimisurfers (dot) com right now, and see what I mean. This model is too expensive to replace fable 5, BUTT it shows that the chinese open source labs are CATCHING anthropic and open ai FASTTT.
1:19

KIMI K3 is here, and it blew my mind 🤯 yes, it is expensive and very slow Took over 30 minutes, and blew an ENTIRE $20 kimi sub before it even finished the one prompt for this game. BUT OMG... the output geniuinly has fable 5 level magic built into it, this model falls between gpt 5.6 and fable 5 imo. you can play the game at kimisurfers (dot) com right now, and see what I mean. This model is too expensive to replace fable 5, BUTT it shows that the chinese open source labs are CATCHING anthropic and open ai FASTTT.

Max Blade

128,812 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Klarna CEO Sebastian Siemiatkowski never learned how to code. But after a summer using Cursor, he now brings working prototypes to meetings instead of asking engineers to interpret his ideas: “Because I'm not an engineer, I've been vibe coding my whole life.” “I come into the meeting room, there's tons of product people and engineers. I say, ‘I think we should build an app that kind of does this, and it should work like that.’ They try to make sense of what is saying.” “I've never seen the code. I don't know how they made it. It's beautiful, I like our app. I think it's nice but, I don't know how it works.” “So to me, I've been vibe coding for 20 years. The only difference is now I'm sitting with a computer, and I'm doing it with AI and it's coming back with the prototype in 20 minutes.”
3:02

Klarna CEO Sebastian Siemiatkowski never learned how to code. But after a summer using Cursor, he now brings working prototypes to meetings instead of asking engineers to interpret his ideas: “Because I'm not an engineer, I've been vibe coding my whole life.” “I come into the meeting room, there's tons of product people and engineers. I say, ‘I think we should build an app that kind of does this, and it should work like that.’ They try to make sense of what is saying.” “I've never seen the code. I don't know how they made it. It's beautiful, I like our app. I think it's nice but, I don't know how it works.” “So to me, I've been vibe coding for 20 years. The only difference is now I'm sitting with a computer, and I'm doing it with AI and it's coming back with the prototype in 20 minutes.”

sourcery

149,352 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

I just compared Claude Code vs Codex vs Cursor CLI The task was to build a Next.js app with Tailwind 4 and shadcn components to collect customer feedback and showcase it with a widget. I gave all three the same prompt and let them go for 30 minutes to see what they came up with. Claude Code with Opus 4.1 Even though I told it to set up the app in the existing project folder, it tried to create a directory for it. After I interrupted and told it not to do that, it built a demo form and landing page with no errors. I had to ask it to make the demo interactive so users could submit a testimonial and preview it. The landing page looked like AI and was pretty basic, but it worked and it was done in a fraction of the time of the others. Total tokens used: 33k Codex with GPT-5 At the end of the 30 minutes I just could not get Codex to produce a working app. It got stuck in a loop of not being able to set up Tailwind 4 and despite many, MANY, attempts, I ended up with a "failed to compile" error. Total tokens used: 102k Cursor Agent with GPT-5 This was the slowest agent by far and a couple of times I actually thought it got stuck in a loop and was close to Ctrl+C'ing to cancel it. The TUI is really nice though, especially how it shows diffs and it did eventually build a working app (after one or two slight errors that needed fixing) The demo was interactive and it had a very minimal design that looked bare but also a lot less like an "AI generated" app than the Opus 4.1 design. It also wasn't too chatty and just did what it needed to do! Code quality was on a par with Opus 4.1, but it did use 5.5x as many tokens to get there. Still cheaper than Opus on a direct comparison but not when you factor in a Claude Code Max subscription. Total tokens: 188k I'll be able to do a proper comparison and record some videos when I'm back from holiday but for now, Opus is still the more capable model out of the box and Claude Code is the more complete CLI product. It will be interesting to see how Cursor evolve their CLI though with commands and subagents because I think with GPT-5 they have a real shot at providing competition for Claude Code if they can optimise output to get similar quality with less tokens. Jump to 0:40 in the video to see the two apps. Which do you think is which? ;)
1:18

I just compared Claude Code vs Codex vs Cursor CLI The task was to build a Next.js app with Tailwind 4 and shadcn components to collect customer feedback and showcase it with a widget. I gave all three the same prompt and let them go for 30 minutes to see what they came up with. Claude Code with Opus 4.1 Even though I told it to set up the app in the existing project folder, it tried to create a directory for it. After I interrupted and told it not to do that, it built a demo form and landing page with no errors. I had to ask it to make the demo interactive so users could submit a testimonial and preview it. The landing page looked like AI and was pretty basic, but it worked and it was done in a fraction of the time of the others. Total tokens used: 33k Codex with GPT-5 At the end of the 30 minutes I just could not get Codex to produce a working app. It got stuck in a loop of not being able to set up Tailwind 4 and despite many, MANY, attempts, I ended up with a "failed to compile" error. Total tokens used: 102k Cursor Agent with GPT-5 This was the slowest agent by far and a couple of times I actually thought it got stuck in a loop and was close to Ctrl+C'ing to cancel it. The TUI is really nice though, especially how it shows diffs and it did eventually build a working app (after one or two slight errors that needed fixing) The demo was interactive and it had a very minimal design that looked bare but also a lot less like an "AI generated" app than the Opus 4.1 design. It also wasn't too chatty and just did what it needed to do! Code quality was on a par with Opus 4.1, but it did use 5.5x as many tokens to get there. Still cheaper than Opus on a direct comparison but not when you factor in a Claude Code Max subscription. Total tokens: 188k I'll be able to do a proper comparison and record some videos when I'm back from holiday but for now, Opus is still the more capable model out of the box and Claude Code is the more complete CLI product. It will be interesting to see how Cursor evolve their CLI though with commands and subagents because I think with GPT-5 they have a real shot at providing competition for Claude Code if they can optimise output to get similar quality with less tokens. Jump to 0:40 in the video to see the two apps. Which do you think is which? ;)

Ian Nuttall

194,949 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Three months ago, Codex was trash for knowledge work. Now it's my daily driver. I use it for writing, recruiting, deep engineering work, and everything in between. It even keeps me at inbox 0. I chatted with Every 🧱's head of growth Austin Austin Tedesco on Every 🧱's AI & I about what changed, and why he now spends 80% of his working time in the Codex desktop app too. We get into: - How Codex went from making Austin feel like an idiot to being the place he goes to get stuff done, including complex tasks like writing go-to-market plans using existing material from Slack, Notion, and meeting transcripts. - Why the Codex’s desktop app, which is faster and more reliable than Claude Desktop/Cowork, is the real differentiator. - How I source candidates with Codex by having it identify career arcs, not keywords—my go-to move is identifying organizations likely to teach the skills Every needs for a role, and then find candidates from that pool who have since gone on to work in AI. This is a must-watch for anyone who's wondering whether it’s finally time to give Codex a try. Watch below! Timestamps How Codex went from a tool for senior engineers to a daily driver for knowledge work: 00:00:57 How Claude Code proved that a great coding agent works for any knowledge work: 00:02:42 Austin's switch to Codex: 00:07:24 How Austin set up Codex with folders, keys, and reviewer agents: 00:13:48 Using Codex to brainstorm automations across Gmail, Slack, and Notion: 00:18:24 How Austin manages the human review step when Codex is drafting communications: 00:22:42 Using Codex to build specialized agents inspired by product executive Claire Vo: 00:28:54 Synthesizing meeting transcripts and Slack threads into a go-to-market plan: 00:31:09 Building a live KPI tracker in Notion that agents can read: 00:40:15 Using Codex for recruiting: 00:44:54
58:23

Three months ago, Codex was trash for knowledge work. Now it's my daily driver. I use it for writing, recruiting, deep engineering work, and everything in between. It even keeps me at inbox 0. I chatted with Every 🧱's head of growth Austin Austin Tedesco on Every 🧱's AI & I about what changed, and why he now spends 80% of his working time in the Codex desktop app too. We get into: - How Codex went from making Austin feel like an idiot to being the place he goes to get stuff done, including complex tasks like writing go-to-market plans using existing material from Slack, Notion, and meeting transcripts. - Why the Codex’s desktop app, which is faster and more reliable than Claude Desktop/Cowork, is the real differentiator. - How I source candidates with Codex by having it identify career arcs, not keywords—my go-to move is identifying organizations likely to teach the skills Every needs for a role, and then find candidates from that pool who have since gone on to work in AI. This is a must-watch for anyone who's wondering whether it’s finally time to give Codex a try. Watch below! Timestamps How Codex went from a tool for senior engineers to a daily driver for knowledge work: 00:00:57 How Claude Code proved that a great coding agent works for any knowledge work: 00:02:42 Austin's switch to Codex: 00:07:24 How Austin set up Codex with folders, keys, and reviewer agents: 00:13:48 Using Codex to brainstorm automations across Gmail, Slack, and Notion: 00:18:24 How Austin manages the human review step when Codex is drafting communications: 00:22:42 Using Codex to build specialized agents inspired by product executive Claire Vo: 00:28:54 Synthesizing meeting transcripts and Slack threads into a go-to-market plan: 00:31:09 Building a live KPI tracker in Notion that agents can read: 00:40:15 Using Codex for recruiting: 00:44:54

Dan Shipper 📧

55,561 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI: "GPT 5.6 is 54% more efficient on agentic coding, and it's still the best on the market for half the cost." AI spend has never mattered as much as it does today. As a result the models keep getting better and cheaper at the same time. This is going to widen the gap between the people using AI agents and everyone else, because now it's not just powerful, it's cheap. That's exactly why i wrote a full step by step guide on agents, what they are and how to build your own from scratch. Read it below.
2:15

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI: "GPT 5.6 is 54% more efficient on agentic coding, and it's still the best on the market for half the cost." AI spend has never mattered as much as it does today. As a result the models keep getting better and cheaper at the same time. This is going to widen the gap between the people using AI agents and everyone else, because now it's not just powerful, it's cheap. That's exactly why i wrote a full step by step guide on agents, what they are and how to build your own from scratch. Read it below.

Anatoli Kopadze

91,518 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Hermes Agent now has a desktop app! I made a quick video showing how easy it is to install, set up, and get to work! It perfectly synced with my existing agent, or you can use it to make a new one. Plus, a quick tour of the features! It's never been easier to start with Hermes!
4:52

Hermes Agent now has a desktop app! I made a quick video showing how easy it is to install, set up, and get to work! It perfectly synced with my existing agent, or you can use it to make a new one. Plus, a quick tour of the features! It's never been easier to start with Hermes!

tonbi

17,622 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten