It feels like 5.6-Sol is already fairly close to Fable, and in some ways exceeds it. Just the other day I had Fable draw up a solution for me, and then I fed it into 5.6-Sol and said how does this look ... it found an oversight and told me about it, and when I then fed that observation back into Claude it acknowledged the miss.

I've noticed also that 5.6-Sol is more concise with output than Fable (and let's not talk about Opus, which is even more wordy).

▲

rsyring 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's common for different models to find holes in another's work. There are various good reasons for that.

FWIW, we use ChatGPT for our primary model and use Claude to do the reviews. This works better than ChatGPT doing it's own review even with a clean session/context.

▲

ipsod an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It's beyond common for a model to find holes in its own work, as well. I have an iterative review as the part of all agentic work, and it always finds something to fix, and will sometimes spend hours fixing its own work.

▲

WinstonSmith84 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Agree, but the point is not because Fable is better than Sol, it's because it's .. different .. it just looks at the problem through a different angle.

▲

Culonavirus 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Same here. Grok Build 4.6 for me, given how cheap Grok is and how Sol is supposed to be "the" SOTA, it finds a surprising amount of bugs. Most of which Sol agrees with needs to be fixed or improved.

I've done this tens of times between these two models and it works great in my experience. Sol initial back and forth with me. Commit. Let Grok review. Sol fix. Only then do I start reading the code.

	▲	esafak an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I suspect it would work with the models swapped too, or even with one model and a blank context for the second run.

▲

Taronar 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Did you try to say "think more deeply about this problem" to fable after getting your solution, having one model focused on creation then blaming it for not doing proper review when the other model was told to focus sol-ely (pun intended) on review is not a fair apples to apples compaision

	▲	Aeolun 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I mean, then it sits there stewing for 20-30 minutes when you can ask sol and get the same answer in 5. Like, the quality of the anthropic models is fine, but they’re so incredibly slow. Claude reads files one at a time while codes dispatches tool calls three or four a time.

▲

ceejayoz an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Just the other day I had Fable draw up a solution for me, and then I fed it into 5.6-Sol and said how does this look…

You should be doing this for every solution.

Even Fable reviewing itself will find issues, unproven assertions, etc. Same for Codex models. A review loop is critical.

▲

import an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I used to review each others work, Sol is amazing at review and finding what’s missing.

▲

janalsncm 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The fair comparison would be to also do the reverse: start with Sol then have Fable clean up. Then compare the Fable-Sol and Sol-Fable outputs side by side.