Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Fable 5 vs Sonnet 5 vs Opus 4.8 on the same product ad. All three ran an agentic pipeline through eComrads MCP on Claude: read the product, write the creative direction, render the finished ad. Same brief, but each model directed it completely differently.

eComrads's profile picture

eComrads

1,074 subscribers

296,527 просмотров • 1 месяц назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Claude Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 are cooked already… Sonnet 5 vs Opus 4.8 on another agentic video pipeline. Both generated a storyboard with GPT Images 2.0, then fed it into Seedance 2.0, all through Higgsfield MCP on Claude. Same quality, but each directed Seedance 2.0 completely differently.
0:15

Claude Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 are cooked already… Sonnet 5 vs Opus 4.8 on another agentic video pipeline. Both generated a storyboard with GPT Images 2.0, then fed it into Seedance 2.0, all through Higgsfield MCP on Claude. Same quality, but each directed Seedance 2.0 completely differently.

FHILY👑

34,635 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Sonnet 5 vs Opus 4.8 on another agentic video pipeline. Both generated a storyboard with GPT Images 2.0, then fed it into Seedance 2.0, all through Higgsfield MCP on Claude. Same quality, but each directed Seedance 2.0 completely differently.
0:15

Sonnet 5 vs Opus 4.8 on another agentic video pipeline. Both generated a storyboard with GPT Images 2.0, then fed it into Seedance 2.0, all through Higgsfield MCP on Claude. Same quality, but each directed Seedance 2.0 completely differently.

Higgsfield AI 🧩

602,641 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

We also tested Sonnet 5 against Opus 4.8 on agentic prompting, specifically on dynamic scenes through Seedance 2.0 via Higgsfield MCP. Here is the result:
0:15

We also tested Sonnet 5 against Opus 4.8 on agentic prompting, specifically on dynamic scenes through Seedance 2.0 via Higgsfield MCP. Here is the result:

Higgsfield AI 🧩

125,354 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Fable 5 + Goose Ads is insane – literally a full ad-creative team right in Claude Code. 1. Install the skill: npx gooseworks install --all npx gooseworks login 2. Ask Claude Fable to make ads for your brand. /goose-ads create ads for my brand . Fable 5 pulls the ads already winning in your space and rebuilds them on-brand – your product, your palette, your copy – a whole batch, ready to test. It can ship a month of creative testing in a single prompt. This is also possible with Opus and Sonnet, but Fable's brand research is next level. Link below.
0:11

Fable 5 + Goose Ads is insane – literally a full ad-creative team right in Claude Code. 1. Install the skill: npx gooseworks install --all npx gooseworks login 2. Ask Claude Fable to make ads for your brand. /goose-ads create ads for my brand . Fable 5 pulls the ads already winning in your space and rebuilds them on-brand – your product, your palette, your copy – a whole batch, ready to test. It can ship a month of creative testing in a single prompt. This is also possible with Opus and Sonnet, but Fable's brand research is next level. Link below.

Shiv

222,273 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Everyone is dunking on Sonnet 5 for losing to Opus 4.8 on benchmarks. They're all making the same mistake, judging a teammate by a solo test. Sonnet 5 was never built to win alone. Set the model to Sonnet 5, effort to Ultracode, and any complex task auto-kicks a dynamic workflow where it plans, spawns agents, executes and checks its own work, fast and cheap. When Fable 5 comes back, the setup gets stupid good. Fable 5 decides what to build, Sonnet 5 actually builds it. You stop paying flagship prices to do grunt work.
0:15

Everyone is dunking on Sonnet 5 for losing to Opus 4.8 on benchmarks. They're all making the same mistake, judging a teammate by a solo test. Sonnet 5 was never built to win alone. Set the model to Sonnet 5, effort to Ultracode, and any complex task auto-kicks a dynamic workflow where it plans, spawns agents, executes and checks its own work, fast and cheap. When Fable 5 comes back, the setup gets stupid good. Fable 5 decides what to build, Sonnet 5 actually builds it. You stop paying flagship prices to do grunt work.

0xMarioNawfal

98,313 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

HERMES AGENT NOW RUNS CLAUDE OPUS 5. NEAR FABLE 5 INTELLIGENCE. HALF THE PRICE. SELF-VERIFIES ITS OWN WORK. AVAILABLE TODAY VIA NOUS PORTAL (20% OFF ALL MODELS). Anthropic shipped Opus 5 on July 24, 2026. same $5/$25 per million tokens as Opus 4.8. but the benchmarks tell a different story. WHAT CHANGED FROM OPUS 4.8: FrontierBench v0.1: Opus 5: 43.3%. Opus 4.8: 18.7%. 2.3x jump on the same test. ARC-AGI-3: Opus 5: 30.2%. 3x better than the next closest model. beat Fable 5 on 8 out of 13 benchmarks. at half the cost ($5/$25 vs $10/$50). same price as Opus 4.8. twice the intelligence. no reason to stay on 4.8. THE SPECS: model ID: claude-opus-5 context: 1M tokens (default and maximum) max output: 128K tokens thinking: on by default effort toggle: low / medium / high per request fast mode: $10/$50, 2.5x faster knowledge cutoff: May 2026 minimum cacheable prompt: 512 tokens (was 1,024) SELF-VERIFICATION (the biggest change): Opus 5 checks its own work automatically. Anthropic says: delete your verification prompts. "include a final verification step" now causes OVER-verification because the model already does it. for Hermes /goal tasks this is a direct upgrade. the judge checks evidence. the model also checks evidence. double layer of verification without extra tokens. EFFORT TOGGLE: low: fast, cheap, routine work. medium: balanced, daily tasks. high: full reasoning, complex problems. set per request. not a global switch. matches Hermes /reasoning command: /reasoning low (routine) /reasoning high (complex) Opus 5 effort toggle + Hermes reasoning control = precise cost management per turn. WHERE OPUS 5 FITS IN HERMES: DAILY DRIVER (replaces Opus 4.8): same price. 2.3x better benchmarks. set as your main model: Desktop app / Dashboard: Models → claude-opus-5 CHIEF OF STAFF: synthesis across multiple agents. reads Kanban, prioritizes, routes tasks. self-verification catches routing errors before they cascade. COMPLEX CODING: SOTA on agentic coding benchmarks. FrontierBench 43.3% = best public model for coding. set as coder profile model. /GOAL TASKS: self-verification + completion contracts = the model proves its work AND double-checks the proof. long-horizon goals finish correctly more often. MoA AGGREGATOR: strongest synthesis model at $5/$25. pair with GPT-5.6 and Grok 4.5 as references. Opus 5 aggregates. best quality at mid-range price. presets: max-quality: reference_models: - provider: openai-codex model: gpt-5.6-sol - provider: xai model: grok-4.5 aggregator: provider: anthropic model: claude-opus-5 COMPUTER USE: near-Fable 5 quality for browser automation. at half the token cost per session. computer_use tasks burn lots of vision tokens. Opus 5 halves that bill vs Fable 5. WHAT TO KEEP OPUS 5 AWAY FROM: cron monitoring: too expensive. use DeepSeek or no_agent mode. sub-agent grunt work: use GPT-5.6 Luna ($1/$6) or DeepSeek. auxiliary tasks: use Gemini Flash. routine web extraction: use a cheap model. Opus 5 is for the turns where quality compounds. planning, synthesis, verification, complex reasoning. budget models handle everything else. NOUS PORTAL: 20% OFF ALL MODELS Nous Portal currently runs a 20% discount on all models including Opus 5. $5/$25 official → $4/$20 through Nous Portal. the cheapest way to run Opus 5 right now. hermes setup --portal select claude-opus-5 as your model. discount applies automatically. Opus 5 replaces Opus 4.8 everywhere. same price. better at everything. no tradeoff. straight upgrade. hermes update /model claude-opus-5
0:10

HERMES AGENT NOW RUNS CLAUDE OPUS 5. NEAR FABLE 5 INTELLIGENCE. HALF THE PRICE. SELF-VERIFIES ITS OWN WORK. AVAILABLE TODAY VIA NOUS PORTAL (20% OFF ALL MODELS). Anthropic shipped Opus 5 on July 24, 2026. same $5/$25 per million tokens as Opus 4.8. but the benchmarks tell a different story. WHAT CHANGED FROM OPUS 4.8: FrontierBench v0.1: Opus 5: 43.3%. Opus 4.8: 18.7%. 2.3x jump on the same test. ARC-AGI-3: Opus 5: 30.2%. 3x better than the next closest model. beat Fable 5 on 8 out of 13 benchmarks. at half the cost ($5/$25 vs $10/$50). same price as Opus 4.8. twice the intelligence. no reason to stay on 4.8. THE SPECS: model ID: claude-opus-5 context: 1M tokens (default and maximum) max output: 128K tokens thinking: on by default effort toggle: low / medium / high per request fast mode: $10/$50, 2.5x faster knowledge cutoff: May 2026 minimum cacheable prompt: 512 tokens (was 1,024) SELF-VERIFICATION (the biggest change): Opus 5 checks its own work automatically. Anthropic says: delete your verification prompts. "include a final verification step" now causes OVER-verification because the model already does it. for Hermes /goal tasks this is a direct upgrade. the judge checks evidence. the model also checks evidence. double layer of verification without extra tokens. EFFORT TOGGLE: low: fast, cheap, routine work. medium: balanced, daily tasks. high: full reasoning, complex problems. set per request. not a global switch. matches Hermes /reasoning command: /reasoning low (routine) /reasoning high (complex) Opus 5 effort toggle + Hermes reasoning control = precise cost management per turn. WHERE OPUS 5 FITS IN HERMES: DAILY DRIVER (replaces Opus 4.8): same price. 2.3x better benchmarks. set as your main model: Desktop app / Dashboard: Models → claude-opus-5 CHIEF OF STAFF: synthesis across multiple agents. reads Kanban, prioritizes, routes tasks. self-verification catches routing errors before they cascade. COMPLEX CODING: SOTA on agentic coding benchmarks. FrontierBench 43.3% = best public model for coding. set as coder profile model. /GOAL TASKS: self-verification + completion contracts = the model proves its work AND double-checks the proof. long-horizon goals finish correctly more often. MoA AGGREGATOR: strongest synthesis model at $5/$25. pair with GPT-5.6 and Grok 4.5 as references. Opus 5 aggregates. best quality at mid-range price. presets: max-quality: reference_models: - provider: openai-codex model: gpt-5.6-sol - provider: xai model: grok-4.5 aggregator: provider: anthropic model: claude-opus-5 COMPUTER USE: near-Fable 5 quality for browser automation. at half the token cost per session. computer_use tasks burn lots of vision tokens. Opus 5 halves that bill vs Fable 5. WHAT TO KEEP OPUS 5 AWAY FROM: cron monitoring: too expensive. use DeepSeek or no_agent mode. sub-agent grunt work: use GPT-5.6 Luna ($1/$6) or DeepSeek. auxiliary tasks: use Gemini Flash. routine web extraction: use a cheap model. Opus 5 is for the turns where quality compounds. planning, synthesis, verification, complex reasoning. budget models handle everything else. NOUS PORTAL: 20% OFF ALL MODELS Nous Portal currently runs a 20% discount on all models including Opus 5. $5/$25 official → $4/$20 through Nous Portal. the cheapest way to run Opus 5 right now. hermes setup --portal select claude-opus-5 as your model. discount applies automatically. Opus 5 replaces Opus 4.8 everywhere. same price. better at everything. no tradeoff. straight upgrade. hermes update /model claude-opus-5

YanXbt

16,744 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Fable 5 vs Sonnet 5. These evals showcase how each model prompts Seedance 2.0, the best text-to-video and image-to-video model. In agentic pipelines, that is what sets your success rate per generation.
0:15

Fable 5 vs Sonnet 5. These evals showcase how each model prompts Seedance 2.0, the best text-to-video and image-to-video model. In agentic pipelines, that is what sets your success rate per generation.

Higgsfield AI 🧩

162,865 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

$35 OF FREE CLAUDE OPUS 5 CREDITS FOR A WEEK, NO CARD ANYWHERE • the credit > Sign up with Google and the trial activates on its own, nothing to claim manually: > Opus 5 sits alongside Opus 4.8, Sonnet 4.6 and Haiku on the same key. > The window runs a week from activation. • wiring it up > base url: > model id: claude-opus-5 > In OpenCode Desktop hit Ctrl+, and add a custom provider with the id aerolink. > The same key drops into Codex, Cursor and Claude Code with nothing else changed. One key, not locked to one client -> every tool that takes a custom OpenAI-compatible endpoint reads it the same way. It routes through a third-party proxy rather than an official Anthropic channel, so keep client work off it ↓
0:16

$35 OF FREE CLAUDE OPUS 5 CREDITS FOR A WEEK, NO CARD ANYWHERE • the credit > Sign up with Google and the trial activates on its own, nothing to claim manually: > Opus 5 sits alongside Opus 4.8, Sonnet 4.6 and Haiku on the same key. > The window runs a week from activation. • wiring it up > base url: > model id: claude-opus-5 > In OpenCode Desktop hit Ctrl+, and add a custom provider with the id aerolink. > The same key drops into Codex, Cursor and Claude Code with nothing else changed. One key, not locked to one client -> every tool that takes a custom OpenAI-compatible endpoint reads it the same way. It routes through a third-party proxy rather than an official Anthropic channel, so keep client work off it ↓

slash1s

20,727 просмотров • 14 дней назад

Fable 5, first Mythos-class model is live on AI/ML API! We ran a fun test: Opus 4.8 vs Fable 5 are generating a 3D Pokemon. Verdict? Fable 5 is brilliant, fast, and rare as Mew… but Opus is still that nice little guy who does great stuff. 💛 Fable 5 Important bits: SOTA on nearly every benchmark, and the lead only grows on longer, complex tasks. • 1M Context • $10 / 1M input • $50 / 1M output Built for: long-horizon agentic coding, big migrations, vision-to-code, deep research.
0:15

Fable 5, first Mythos-class model is live on AI/ML API! We ran a fun test: Opus 4.8 vs Fable 5 are generating a 3D Pokemon. Verdict? Fable 5 is brilliant, fast, and rare as Mew… but Opus is still that nice little guy who does great stuff. 💛 Fable 5 Important bits: SOTA on nearly every benchmark, and the lead only grows on longer, complex tasks. • 1M Context • $10 / 1M input • $50 / 1M output Built for: long-horizon agentic coding, big migrations, vision-to-code, deep research.

AI/ML API

560,710 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

I tested Kimi K3 vs Claude Opus 4.8 Same prompt, an armory bay with lighting, props, and detail. Top is Kimi K3, bottom is Opus 4.8. It's not even close. Kimi K3 built a full scene with textures, proper lighting, ammo crates, weapon racks, working detail everywhere. Opus 4.8 gave me a near empty room with a couple of floating tables. No doubt it beats Opus 4.8. Kimi K3 is Fable 5 level, and it's clearly better than GPT-5.6 Sol at 3D and games. An open weight model just matched the best closed models on the market. Let that sink in.
0:13

I tested Kimi K3 vs Claude Opus 4.8 Same prompt, an armory bay with lighting, props, and detail. Top is Kimi K3, bottom is Opus 4.8. It's not even close. Kimi K3 built a full scene with textures, proper lighting, ammo crates, weapon racks, working detail everywhere. Opus 4.8 gave me a near empty room with a couple of floating tables. No doubt it beats Opus 4.8. Kimi K3 is Fable 5 level, and it's clearly better than GPT-5.6 Sol at 3D and games. An open weight model just matched the best closed models on the market. Let that sink in.

Bhavy☄️

475,642 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Sonnet 5 is here. It's worse than Opus 4.8 on nearly every benchmark... Does that mean it's useless? Absolutely not. Use it with Claude Code Dynamic Workflows! 1. /model set to Sonnet 5 2. /effort set to Ultracode 3. Any complex task will kick off a dynamic workflow This will only become more powerful when Fable is back. You'll use Fable 5 as the superintelligent advisor and Sonnet 5 as the fast and efficient implementer.
0:15

Sonnet 5 is here. It's worse than Opus 4.8 on nearly every benchmark... Does that mean it's useless? Absolutely not. Use it with Claude Code Dynamic Workflows! 1. /model set to Sonnet 5 2. /effort set to Ultracode 3. Any complex task will kick off a dynamic workflow This will only become more powerful when Fable is back. You'll use Fable 5 as the superintelligent advisor and Sonnet 5 as the fast and efficient implementer.

Dan McAteer

663,679 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Kimi K3 VS Claude Fable 5. Prompt in the 🧵, now try it on Flowith.
0:14

Kimi K3 VS Claude Fable 5. Prompt in the 🧵, now try it on Flowith.

Flowith

73,092 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

We just launched Claude Sonnet 4.5 and “Imagine with Claude”, a 5-day preview that creates dynamic experiences for you in real-time (and the first product I’ve worked on at Anthropic!). It pioneers the concept of “model-as-backend”, using a model to not only generate interfaces on the fly but also power all the functionality behind it – all made possible by our newest model, Claude Sonnet 4.5. Here’s a "choose your own adventure" version of my founder journey, as retold by Imagine with Claude:
0:17

We just launched Claude Sonnet 4.5 and “Imagine with Claude”, a 5-day preview that creates dynamic experiences for you in real-time (and the first product I’ve worked on at Anthropic!). It pioneers the concept of “model-as-backend”, using a model to not only generate interfaces on the fly but also power all the functionality behind it – all made possible by our newest model, Claude Sonnet 4.5. Here’s a "choose your own adventure" version of my founder journey, as retold by Imagine with Claude:

Sean Strong

115,693 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Both Claude Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol have been performing exceptionally well on our leaderboards, ranking in the top 3 across almost all of our non-agentic tasks. We put both models through the same 3D design and website challenges to see where each excels the most. Watch the full breakdown on Youtube:
0:16

Both Claude Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol have been performing exceptionally well on our leaderboards, ranking in the top 3 across almost all of our non-agentic tasks. We put both models through the same 3D design and website challenges to see where each excels the most. Watch the full breakdown on Youtube:

Design Arena

30,773 просмотров • 28 дней назад

Another comparison round. GPT-5.6 Sol vs. Fable 5 directing the same animation with Seedance 2.0 on Vidfield.
0:16

Another comparison round. GPT-5.6 Sol vs. Fable 5 directing the same animation with Seedance 2.0 on Vidfield.

Abhishek

146,998 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Another comparison round. GPT-5.6 Sol vs. Fable 5 directing the same dinosaur animation with Seedance 2.0 on Vidfield.
0:16

Another comparison round. GPT-5.6 Sol vs. Fable 5 directing the same dinosaur animation with Seedance 2.0 on Vidfield.

Abhishek

92,265 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Same prompt. Same product. Two Seedance models. Which style would you choose? I tested Seedance 2.0 and 2.5 side by side in 1080p to see how each model would interpret the same creative direction. Seedance 2.5 gets the headlines. Seedance 2.0 gets my work done. Both 2.0 & 2.0 Fast, only on Dreamina: a 30-second clip costs $0.78 — vs $3.21 elsewhere. 76% less. Prompt is in the comments.
0:10

Same prompt. Same product. Two Seedance models. Which style would you choose? I tested Seedance 2.0 and 2.5 side by side in 1080p to see how each model would interpret the same creative direction. Seedance 2.5 gets the headlines. Seedance 2.0 gets my work done. Both 2.0 & 2.0 Fast, only on Dreamina: a 30-second clip costs $0.78 — vs $3.21 elsewhere. 76% less. Prompt is in the comments.

haytam

67,870 просмотров • 3 дней назад

GPT-Image 2.0 vs Seedance 2.0 vs Nano Banana 2. Three flagship model drops. One dashboard ponpon I tested all 3 using the same creative direction to see which one actually delivers the best results Thread with Prompts:👇
0:15

GPT-Image 2.0 vs Seedance 2.0 vs Nano Banana 2. Three flagship model drops. One dashboard ponpon I tested all 3 using the same creative direction to see which one actually delivers the best results Thread with Prompts:👇

WasifAI

11,329 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

Claude Code + Higgsfield MCP is f*cking cracked 🤯 I built an entire DTC ad campaign inside Claude Code using the new Higgsfield MCP. One product URL → hero static, animated hero shot, 2 UGC clips with a creator wearing the product. 5 assets. One Claude conversation. 3 Higgsfield models. All inside Claude Code. Perfect for DTC brands and agencies who need full campaign packages without booking a shoot or briefing a designer. If you're spending hours every week generating statics in one tool, briefing a motion designer for the hero clip, then chasing a UGC creator for the talking-head shots — this MCP eliminates the entire pipeline: → Drop a product URL into Claude Code → Claude pulls the brand brief — voice, hero SKUs, visual style, target customer → Generates the hero static with ChatGPT Images 2.0 → Animates it into a 5-second cinematic opener with Seedance 2.0 → Generates a UGC creator with GPT Image 2 → Drops her in the product and generates 2 native UGC video clips with Seedance 2.0 No tab-switching between tools. No copy-pasting prompts between platforms. No briefing 3 different vendors for one campaign. What you get: → A complete campaign package — static, animation, UGC — from one product URL → Brand-specific outputs that pull from a real brief, not generic AI slop → Claude making creative decisions between every step (which variation wins, which creator fits the persona, which clip needs a re-spin) → A repeatable pipeline you can run for any product in your catalog Built 100% in Claude Code with the Higgsfield MCP. I recorded a full walkthrough showing exactly how this works: the MCP setup, every prompt, every model, the full campaign output. Want the full video walkthrough? > Like this post > Comment "MCP" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)
0:12

Claude Code + Higgsfield MCP is f*cking cracked 🤯 I built an entire DTC ad campaign inside Claude Code using the new Higgsfield MCP. One product URL → hero static, animated hero shot, 2 UGC clips with a creator wearing the product. 5 assets. One Claude conversation. 3 Higgsfield models. All inside Claude Code. Perfect for DTC brands and agencies who need full campaign packages without booking a shoot or briefing a designer. If you're spending hours every week generating statics in one tool, briefing a motion designer for the hero clip, then chasing a UGC creator for the talking-head shots — this MCP eliminates the entire pipeline: → Drop a product URL into Claude Code → Claude pulls the brand brief — voice, hero SKUs, visual style, target customer → Generates the hero static with ChatGPT Images 2.0 → Animates it into a 5-second cinematic opener with Seedance 2.0 → Generates a UGC creator with GPT Image 2 → Drops her in the product and generates 2 native UGC video clips with Seedance 2.0 No tab-switching between tools. No copy-pasting prompts between platforms. No briefing 3 different vendors for one campaign. What you get: → A complete campaign package — static, animation, UGC — from one product URL → Brand-specific outputs that pull from a real brief, not generic AI slop → Claude making creative decisions between every step (which variation wins, which creator fits the persona, which clip needs a re-spin) → A repeatable pipeline you can run for any product in your catalog Built 100% in Claude Code with the Higgsfield MCP. I recorded a full walkthrough showing exactly how this works: the MCP setup, every prompt, every model, the full campaign output. Want the full video walkthrough? > Like this post > Comment "MCP" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

Mike Futia

29,741 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Flappy Bird w/ DeepSeek V4 Pro vs GLM 5.2 vs Fable 5 I ran a small experiment: same game, same prompt, three different models. Test setup was simple: /𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚐𝚗 in Command Code. The thing I cared about was not UI. UI is now relatively easy for models to imitate. I cared more about UX: whether the model understands the interaction, the flow, the hierarchy, the little product decisions that make something feel usable. 𝙲𝚘𝚜𝚝𝚜: 𝙳𝚎𝚎𝚙𝚂𝚎𝚎𝚔 𝚟𝟺 𝙿𝚛𝚘: $𝟶.𝟶𝟶𝟶𝟾 𝙶𝙻𝙼 𝟻.𝟸: $𝟶.𝟶𝟺𝟾 𝙵𝚊𝚋𝚕𝚎 𝟻: $𝟶.𝟺𝟸 The surprising result was that Fable 5 did not produce a meaningfully better UX. It was good, but not good enough to justify the pricing delta for this kind of design task. Open-source models are getting very interesting here. They are much cheaper, competitive on UI, and increasingly good enough on UX. The gap is closing fast.
0:19

Flappy Bird w/ DeepSeek V4 Pro vs GLM 5.2 vs Fable 5 I ran a small experiment: same game, same prompt, three different models. Test setup was simple: /𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚐𝚗 in Command Code. The thing I cared about was not UI. UI is now relatively easy for models to imitate. I cared more about UX: whether the model understands the interaction, the flow, the hierarchy, the little product decisions that make something feel usable. 𝙲𝚘𝚜𝚝𝚜: 𝙳𝚎𝚎𝚙𝚂𝚎𝚎𝚔 𝚟𝟺 𝙿𝚛𝚘: $𝟶.𝟶𝟶𝟶𝟾 𝙶𝙻𝙼 𝟻.𝟸: $𝟶.𝟶𝟺𝟾 𝙵𝚊𝚋𝚕𝚎 𝟻: $𝟶.𝟺𝟸 The surprising result was that Fable 5 did not produce a meaningfully better UX. It was good, but not good enough to justify the pricing delta for this kind of design task. Open-source models are getting very interesting here. They are much cheaper, competitive on UI, and increasingly good enough on UX. The gap is closing fast.

Ahmad Awais

26,918 просмотров • 1 месяц назад