I really suspect that the models are basically the same below, it’s all in the prompt. The way I use them, surgically, they seem to perform about the same. Fable certainly hasn’t blow my socks off.

Where fable has blown me away is converting entire code bases and or refactoring across many different segments.

It’s far more careful than opus and puts far more effort into testing and validating by default.

Switching back to opus at work was a downgrade. Similar requests felt more clunky and needed far more hand holding.

This is where I think you see the distinction between two classes of LLM users:

1. Managers: those who generally know what needs to be done, and want it done faster, so they provide a lot of instructions and context (where many developers fall)

2. Executives: those who vaguely know the end goal, but are clueless about the process, and are willing to burn resources and cycles on a black box to get the result

> Fable certainly hasn’t blow my socks off.

Same. I suspect they'll get better at taking in terrible prompts over time though... Maybe that's what Fable does better, reminds me of Sora 2, it would take my crappy prompt and expound upon it. I told it once to generate a video of someone working at some company that changed its name, but the old name had historic relevance, it referred to the new company name without me telling it to, by virtue of me wanting a video of TODAY with a 90s icon.

> Fable certainly hasn’t blow my socks off. Same. Its not so much perf increase as cost increase justified by ambiguous perf increase.