I'm using Kimi 2.7 and GPT 5.5 at home, Opus (4.8 I think) at work and I really don't see much difference honestly.

Sure, Claude might be 90% correct and Kimi only 70% correct but does that matter when 90% isn't enough to make it work autonomously anyways?

My workflow is just strict supervision of what's happening, I also edit the agents file with anything I see the model doing that I don't like.

My sessions are also short, after any task which is completed, I just kill the session and start a new one so I don't think I have more than 15 min sessions unless it's tech discovery.

▲

embedding-shape 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Sure, Claude might be 90% correct and Kimi only 70% correct but does that matter when 90% isn't enough to make it work autonomously?

Huuh, what does this mean? GPT models frequently do 100% of what I tell them to do, anything less and I'd see no point in using agents for work at all. Do you tell them stuff then 30% of the cases Kimi goes off and does other things, or what do you mean? The time the agent does something unexpected, I can almost always trace it back to me fucking up something in the user prompt, or the system prompt being wrong somehow, I'd lose my mind if it was only "70% accurate".

> My workflow is just strict supervision of what's happening, I also edit the agents file with anything I see the model doing that I don't like.

Same, including inspecting exactly what the (full verbatim) sent system/user prompts are, which the change we're all discussing here is getting in the way of.

But "Kimi only 70% correct" sounds like it's so bad it's not worth using. In my testing, I didn't find that the model just went out and did other things, but all the providers I tried were way slower than even Sol which is kind of slow to begin with, and it's really inefficient with it's thinking. Tasks that took Sol five minutes could take 15 minutes with Kimi for example, which just feels like such a waste too.

▲

realusername 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Huuh, what does this mean? GPT models frequently do 100% of what I tell them to do, anything less and I'd see no point in using agents for work at all.

I never managed to have this experience even with SOTA models, they routinely make architectural mistakes, wrong assumptions and take shortcuts they should not take. Less for sure but they still do it often. I didn't try Fable yet though so can't comment on it.

So based on that, since I have to watch everything they do anyways, why would I pay extra?

> But "Kimi only 70% correct" sounds like it's so bad it's not worth using

If you want an analogy, it's like the numbers of 9s in server availability and since currently I'd rate nothing above 90%, it's zero nines. Since I have to deal with unreliability with every provider, I don't see why it would be worth it to pay more to still deal with it.

	▲	embedding-shape 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I never managed to have this experience even with SOTA models, they routinely make architectural mistakes, wrong assumptions and take shortcuts they should not take. Less for sure but they still do it often. I didn't try Fable yet though so can't comment on it. Ah, you let them make architectural decisions? :P That might explain it. Agents for me are more like pair-programming or just "what types the code", all the design and decisions are made by me, so if those are wrong, it's my fault. The agents are just used to implement what I've decided to have implemented, and I can't remember the last time codex did a mistake without correcting itself, or made a wrong assumption or taken shortcuts, unless I explicitly told it something that lead to those things. > So based on that, since I have to watch everything they do anyways, why would I pay extra? Personally I pay more to have to fix less later, and for a piece of mind that if I ask it to do X, it doesn't go off and do Y.