Excellent idea, most terrible execution. Comparison are completely subjective, problem space is too simplistic for today's AI, the resultstable simply ignores that a face isn't a cube (therefore, gpt 5 shouldn't have 100% success) and the retry is uneven. Also, given the random nature of AI, sampling once each model isn't very scientific.

This feels like a kid trying to do science. The will is there, but lacks experience.

I tried to one-shot the first test (the Rubik's Cube test) with LucidQuery's Swift model, to test it, as there are not much benchmarks about it and that they brag a lot about it, and I was pleasantly surprised to see it achieving a result similar to Grok 4.5 but in one shot (there is the same issue that if you scramble twice the solve button does not work anymore, but it got it in one shot).

Though it crunched most of the free quota, 47111 tokens, so I couldn't make multiple attempts.

I have not used grok 4.5 yet, but the other pictures match my experience doing anything graphical with the other models that it cracks me up. gpt 5.5 has no design sense whatsoever. It cannot even make terminal output not look terrible. I've asked it to use colors and formatting in various ways and got goofy randomly colored output. opus 4.7 and later seemed to have an inuitive design sense by comparison - 2d or 3d. Fabel 5 is just rock solid.

Yes, subjective. But it matches my repeated experiences with these models for what it is worth.

So strange to write a whole post with Claude giving the best results and Grok consistently the worst, but awarding Grok the winner because at least it did the worst fastest?

I am 99% sure the post was written by AI

Love the idea, I think more complex games would show the gap in ability better.

Do it again but this time get them to make a multiplayer online Jetmen REVIVAL game. Online play is key, because it's very complex. Jetmen is a good game for this since it has physics and customization that's complex enough but still simple.

I'd like to see the comparisons with DeepSeek, Qwen, Mimo, Kimi and GLM

Isn’t the number of turns most important? Some agents take repeated input, while others can mostly one-shot what I’m looking for.

Why not wait one more day for GPT-5.6?

Chat got ones were slow on Firefox mobile

Interesting that all four models converge on such similar designs, for such short prompts.

Barring the retry thing, n=1 on all models? Am I misreading, or is this a joke?

Variance in quality on these things is so, so high.

This is disgustingly biased. The conclusion is that Grok holds its own?! There was zero evidence of that.

Too nice to Grok, if there are really cost savings it should say how much each of the three demos cost so we can judge if it's worth the lower quality (probably not). The time to complete each would also be interesting.

“The honest headline:”

Written by Claude. Ugh. If it’s worth publishing, it’s worth proofreading, folks.

Tried at work , this release def a moment I will remember. My work is not the same . The model is the first model that offer exactly as I want :

For hard tasks , that needs precision I will wait and pay expensive tokens

For everything else , query data , logs, rolling out releases , I’m using grok and it’s much better vs other tools and much cheaper too .