正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

GPT-5.6 Sol Tests 🔥 - Frontend Design - Simulations - Games and Models OpenAI have made significant improvements across the board, we are truly in a new era of models... Do you think it beats Fable? 🤔

Fix

1,566 subscribers

228,274 次观看 • 2 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Sol, Terra, and Luna, our GPT‑5.6 family of models, are starting to roll out now in ChatGPT, Codex, and the API.

Sol, Terra, and Luna, our GPT‑5.6 family of models, are starting to roll out now in ChatGPT, Codex, and the API.

OpenAI

4,518,761 次观看 • 1 个月前

Kimi K3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable 5 Three top-tier models. Same /design prompt across all. Parameters reviewed: Pace, design sense, gameplay feel Result: Kimi K3 nails the design sense and knows exactly what to add in-game. Pace and gameplay held up well. Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol both play too fast, video isn't sped up. Ranking (DX, Features & Cost): → Kimi K3: 9.5/10 · $0.030 → Fable 5: 7.5/10 · $0.38 → GPT-5.6 Sol: 7/10 · $0.11

Kimi K3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable 5 Three top-tier models. Same /design prompt across all. Parameters reviewed: Pace, design sense, gameplay feel Result: Kimi K3 nails the design sense and knows exactly what to add in-game. Pace and gameplay held up well. Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol both play too fast, video isn't sped up. Ranking (DX, Features & Cost): → Kimi K3: 9.5/10 · $0.030 → Fable 5: 7.5/10 · $0.38 → GPT-5.6 Sol: 7/10 · $0.11

Command Code

376,967 次观看 • 1 个月前

We are officially in the era where one prompt can ship a complete playable game in <50 bucks! Asked Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol to clone Terraria, max effort level Both are playable and offer a smooth experience GPT 5.6 Sol did it at roughly 1/4 the cost and in 2/3 the runtime: - GPT 5.6 Sol: ~$35, ~1h 20m - Claude Fable 5: ~$120, ~2h Tho Fable still produced the strongest results 🥲

We are officially in the era where one prompt can ship a complete playable game in <50 bucks! Asked Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol to clone Terraria, max effort level Both are playable and offer a smooth experience GPT 5.6 Sol did it at roughly 1/4 the cost and in 2/3 the runtime: - GPT 5.6 Sol: ~$35, ~1h 20m - Claude Fable 5: ~$120, ~2h Tho Fable still produced the strongest results 🥲

GMI Cloud

130,438 次观看 • 1 个月前

Kimi K3 beating Fable and Sol on price and quality. Command Code's internal flappy bench results are in. Really impressed with the results. For Kimi K3 we set the gameplay to hard while Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol were set to easier. Cost breakdown: • Kimi K3: $0.024 •Fable 5: $0.42 •GPT-5.6 Sol: $0.15 Ranking based on DX & features: •Kimi K3: 8/10 •Fable 5: 7.5/10 • GPT-5.6 Sol: 7/10 GPT 5.6 Sol max can definitely go on longer and wins the game overall, but that's something different. Grok 4.5 beats GPT 5.6 Sol on that, lol.Mm-hmm.

Kimi K3 beating Fable and Sol on price and quality. Command Code's internal flappy bench results are in. Really impressed with the results. For Kimi K3 we set the gameplay to hard while Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol were set to easier. Cost breakdown: • Kimi K3: $0.024 •Fable 5: $0.42 •GPT-5.6 Sol: $0.15 Ranking based on DX & features: •Kimi K3: 8/10 •Fable 5: 7.5/10 • GPT-5.6 Sol: 7/10 GPT 5.6 Sol max can definitely go on longer and wins the game overall, but that's something different. Grok 4.5 beats GPT 5.6 Sol on that, lol.Mm-hmm.

Ahmad Awais

255,237 次观看 • 1 个月前

Introducing autoresearch with GPT 5.6 We had GPT 5.6 Sol reproduce the key findings from “Towards Mechanistically Understanding Why Memorized Knowledge Fails to Generalize in LLM Finetuning” Compared to GPT-5.5 and even Fable 5, GPT-5.6 stayed more focused on a few, critical experiments and spent less time on peripheral details. It also asked fewer “clarification” questions and independently resolved ambiguities instead of pushing them back to us OpenAI pushing the boundaries of the automated research loop with models that don’t have handcuffs

Introducing autoresearch with GPT 5.6 We had GPT 5.6 Sol reproduce the key findings from “Towards Mechanistically Understanding Why Memorized Knowledge Fails to Generalize in LLM Finetuning” Compared to GPT-5.5 and even Fable 5, GPT-5.6 stayed more focused on a few, critical experiments and spent less time on peripheral details. It also asked fewer “clarification” questions and independently resolved ambiguities instead of pushing them back to us OpenAI pushing the boundaries of the automated research loop with models that don’t have handcuffs

alphaXiv

88,164 次观看 • 1 个月前

Two frontier models. Two very different demos. (GPT-5.6 Sol and Claude Fable 5) GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra was pushed in a mathematical direction and generated a Minecraft-style clone in Lean. Yes, that Lean. Meanwhile, Claude Fable 5 took a game development route and built a Minecraft mod featuring a Dark Souls-inspired enemy with multiple attack patterns, combos, and combat logic. They're solving completely different problems, but both are great examples of how capable today's models have become. The pace of progress is remarkable.

Two frontier models. Two very different demos. (GPT-5.6 Sol and Claude Fable 5) GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra was pushed in a mathematical direction and generated a Minecraft-style clone in Lean. Yes, that Lean. Meanwhile, Claude Fable 5 took a game development route and built a Minecraft mod featuring a Dark Souls-inspired enemy with multiple attack patterns, combos, and combat logic. They're solving completely different problems, but both are great examples of how capable today's models have become. The pace of progress is remarkable.

FHILY👑

19,336 次观看 • 1 个月前

Three new frontier models are live on OpenGradient Chat. GPT-5.6 Sol and Terra from OpenAI, and Grok 4.5 from xAI Switch between them in one click and test their capabilities. Ask anything you want, privately.

Three new frontier models are live on OpenGradient Chat. GPT-5.6 Sol and Terra from OpenAI, and Grok 4.5 from xAI Switch between them in one click and test their capabilities. Ask anything you want, privately.

OpenGradient (∇, ∇)

10,787 次观看 • 1 个月前

We ran a test between the new Qwen3.8-Max, Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol. 3 models. same prompt. one-shot with the /design command. Reviewed gameplay features, UX/UI and cost. 🔹 Qwen3.8-Max → 9/10 · $0.0248 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol → 9/10 · $0.150 🔹 Opus 5 → 8.5/10 · $0.253 Qwen3.8-Max is approximately 4.2× cheaper than GPT-5.6, Sol, Opus 5 and has the same level of UI, UX, and gameplay.

We ran a test between the new Qwen3.8-Max, Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol. 3 models. same prompt. one-shot with the /design command. Reviewed gameplay features, UX/UI and cost. 🔹 Qwen3.8-Max → 9/10 · $0.0248 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol → 9/10 · $0.150 🔹 Opus 5 → 8.5/10 · $0.253 Qwen3.8-Max is approximately 4.2× cheaper than GPT-5.6, Sol, Opus 5 and has the same level of UI, UX, and gameplay.

Command Code

179,535 次观看 • 26 天前

GPT Astra: Coming Next Week (Thursday) - GPT-Astra generated this 3D spaceship and it looks insanely good. This time, OpenAI might have actually cooked. - The biggest issue with previous GPT models, frontend generation and finally they fixed. - Astra could potentially outperform Fable 5.1 while being cheaper - OpenAI has made Astra available to partners for feedback. If testing goes well, we could get Astra next Thursday.

GPT Astra: Coming Next Week (Thursday) - GPT-Astra generated this 3D spaceship and it looks insanely good. This time, OpenAI might have actually cooked. - The biggest issue with previous GPT models, frontend generation and finally they fixed. - Astra could potentially outperform Fable 5.1 while being cheaper - OpenAI has made Astra available to partners for feedback. If testing goes well, we could get Astra next Thursday.

Pankaj Kumar

60,509 次观看 • 10 小时前

Models like GPT 5.6 or Fable 5 are accelerating the commodification of software. For instance, I gave Fable a screenshot of the Stripe, OpenAI, and Anthropic websites with a simple prompt: “Create a pixel-perfect reproduction of this website.” It took only seconds and a simple prompt to duplicate the design. This is exciting because there are so many poorly designed websites, but now they are just a prompt away from achieving world-class design!!

Models like GPT 5.6 or Fable 5 are accelerating the commodification of software. For instance, I gave Fable a screenshot of the Stripe, OpenAI, and Anthropic websites with a simple prompt: “Create a pixel-perfect reproduction of this website.” It took only seconds and a simple prompt to duplicate the design. This is exciting because there are so many poorly designed websites, but now they are just a prompt away from achieving world-class design!!

Nicolas Bustamante

37,754 次观看 • 1 个月前

We ran a test between Opus 5, GPT-5.6 Sol, and Kimi K3. One prompt. Across all three models. With our /design command. Results: We reviewed gameplay, UX, and UI 🔹 Opus 5 is strong UI + motion, best gameplay 🔹 Kimi K3 has solid design and gameplay 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol has best UI, worse gameplay Ranking (DX, features, and cost): 🔹 Opus 5: 10/10 · $0.25 🔹 Kimi K3: 9.5/10 · $0.12 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol: 7/10 · $0.32

We ran a test between Opus 5, GPT-5.6 Sol, and Kimi K3. One prompt. Across all three models. With our /design command. Results: We reviewed gameplay, UX, and UI 🔹 Opus 5 is strong UI + motion, best gameplay 🔹 Kimi K3 has solid design and gameplay 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol has best UI, worse gameplay Ranking (DX, features, and cost): 🔹 Opus 5: 10/10 · $0.25 🔹 Kimi K3: 9.5/10 · $0.12 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol: 7/10 · $0.32

Command Code

24,686 次观看 • 1 个月前

GPT 5.6 Sol & Terra just made Fable 5's pricing look like a joke! We gave OpenAI's top models (Sol, Terra) and Anthropic's top models (Fable 5, Opus 4.8) the same 3 prompts: • Supernova boom • Meteor hitting a city • Solar system model The bill: Sol: $4.77 Terra: $1.24 Fable 5: $9.94 Opus 4.8: $2.46 Outputs came out surprisingly close. The prices didn't. Fable 5 cost unreasonably more than everything else, with Sol not far behind. Considering latest Fable 5 nerf, it's hard to see what you're paying for.

GPT 5.6 Sol & Terra just made Fable 5's pricing look like a joke! We gave OpenAI's top models (Sol, Terra) and Anthropic's top models (Fable 5, Opus 4.8) the same 3 prompts: • Supernova boom • Meteor hitting a city • Solar system model The bill: Sol: $4.77 Terra: $1.24 Fable 5: $9.94 Opus 4.8: $2.46 Outputs came out surprisingly close. The prices didn't. Fable 5 cost unreasonably more than everything else, with Sol not far behind. Considering latest Fable 5 nerf, it's hard to see what you're paying for.

AI/ML API

149,158 次观看 • 1 个月前

I asked the new GPT 5.6 Sol Ultra vs Fable XHigh to "create an app to compare the fastest growing stocks in diff time periods" Here are the results. I then asked both to create a comparison video. Sol couldn't do it, so here's what Fable made. Check out how they compare!

I asked the new GPT 5.6 Sol Ultra vs Fable XHigh to "create an app to compare the fastest growing stocks in diff time periods" Here are the results. I then asked both to create a comparison video. Sol couldn't do it, so here's what Fable made. Check out how they compare!

Deedy

86,368 次观看 • 1 个月前

Kimi K3 just 3 shotted a whole walkable voxel town with drivable cars — Voxelville, around $3.24 in API usage. The same token cost would be $10.80 with Fable 5 and $6 with GPT 5.6 Sol. Fable 5 built its own Maplewood, GPT 5.6 Sol built Willowwick, but on price/quality Kimi K3 just cooked both of them. The era of free indie game development is closer than you think!

Kimi K3 just 3 shotted a whole walkable voxel town with drivable cars — Voxelville, around $3.24 in API usage. The same token cost would be $10.80 with Fable 5 and $6 with GPT 5.6 Sol. Fable 5 built its own Maplewood, GPT 5.6 Sol built Willowwick, but on price/quality Kimi K3 just cooked both of them. The era of free indie game development is closer than you think!

Kirill

63,180 次观看 • 1 个月前

⚡️OPENAI: GPT-5.6 SOL IS 54% MORE TOKEN EFFICIENT ON AGENTIC CODING Sam Altman says the new GPT-5.6 Sol model is 54% more token efficient on agentic coding tasks and is “as good or better” than competing models. He also said OpenAI aims to offer better value with “every enterprise now is thinking about spend and the value they’re getting in exchange for AI.”

⚡️OPENAI: GPT-5.6 SOL IS 54% MORE TOKEN EFFICIENT ON AGENTIC CODING Sam Altman says the new GPT-5.6 Sol model is 54% more token efficient on agentic coding tasks and is “as good or better” than competing models. He also said OpenAI aims to offer better value with “every enterprise now is thinking about spend and the value they’re getting in exchange for AI.”

Coin Bureau

33,775 次观看 • 1 个月前

I said Grok 4.5 was a bigger deal than Fable Elon even liked my post but then GPT-5.6 Sol showed up So I gave 7 of this week's newest AI models their own computer and ran the same real tasks through Hermes Final ranking: 1. GPT-5.6 Sol: best overall 2. Grok 4.5: close second, fast and relentless 3. Muse Spark 1.1: the surprise of the week Benchmarks tell you what a model might do. Watching it control a computer shows you what it can actually do Full comparison ↓

I said Grok 4.5 was a bigger deal than Fable Elon even liked my post but then GPT-5.6 Sol showed up So I gave 7 of this week's newest AI models their own computer and ran the same real tasks through Hermes Final ranking: 1. GPT-5.6 Sol: best overall 2. Grok 4.5: close second, fast and relentless 3. Muse Spark 1.1: the surprise of the week Benchmarks tell you what a model might do. Watching it control a computer shows you what it can actually do Full comparison ↓

Nick Vasilescu

77,701 次观看 • 1 个月前

We ran a test between GPT-5.6 Sol, Kimi K3, and Gemini 3.6 Flash. One prompt. Across all three models. Using our /design command. Results (gameplay, UX, and UI): 🔹 Kimi K3 performed well across all three. 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol is good, but it gets annoying when the ball hits the wall. 🔹 Gemini 3.6 Flash is bad (took 5–6 attempts), but it has features the others don’t, like dropping coins for power-up balls and increasing the bar length. Ranking (DX, features, and cost): 🔹 Kimi K3: 10/10 · $0.10 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol: 9/10 · $0.52 🔹 Gemini 3.6 Flash: 6/10 · $0.45

We ran a test between GPT-5.6 Sol, Kimi K3, and Gemini 3.6 Flash. One prompt. Across all three models. Using our /design command. Results (gameplay, UX, and UI): 🔹 Kimi K3 performed well across all three. 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol is good, but it gets annoying when the ball hits the wall. 🔹 Gemini 3.6 Flash is bad (took 5–6 attempts), but it has features the others don’t, like dropping coins for power-up balls and increasing the bar length. Ranking (DX, features, and cost): 🔹 Kimi K3: 10/10 · $0.10 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol: 9/10 · $0.52 🔹 Gemini 3.6 Flash: 6/10 · $0.45

Command Code

61,412 次观看 • 1 个月前

This post was so bad that it made me crash out a bit. OpenAI models are not good at frontend. The examples in this article are embarrassing and I actually can't believe they posted it.

This post was so bad that it made me crash out a bit. OpenAI models are not good at frontend. The examples in this article are embarrassing and I actually can't believe they posted it.

Theo - t3.gg

162,787 次观看 • 5 个月前

Fable and gpt-5.6 are both great models. But one has to be better, right? What if you could only have one? I did my best to break down the strengths and weaknesses of both, and end with my personal choice (which will likely surprise you)

Fable and gpt-5.6 are both great models. But one has to be better, right? What if you could only have one? I did my best to break down the strengths and weaknesses of both, and end with my personal choice (which will likely surprise you)

Theo - t3.gg

126,196 次观看 • 1 个月前

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

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

250,919 次观看 • 2 个月前