It's the same story every time OpenAI or Anthropic releases a new model. They are generous with compute for the first few days, and use maximum fidelity with uncompressed weights. Everything runs at its best to make a good first impression. But eventually they pare things back and the models perform a little worse.

The most charitable explanation I can think of for this is something like regression to the mean. When a model is first released, there'll be a subset of users who, just by chance, sample the highest quality band of the distribution that answers their query. Some of them will rush over to social media and post about how amazing a model is. Over time, those users' mental model of responses will converge but they'll perceive the model's return to typical performance as a downgrade.

This guess/explanation predicts that most users won't match what the initial social media hype claims, doesn't discount user experience as simple habituation nor does it assume companies are lying when they say there have been no changes to the model itself (quantization included).

I also think there's an aspect where initial testing is more forgiving because the more persnickety polish bits can be ignored and tests are likely to have similar structure to things that can be trained for. Meanwhile, actual specific work items are a broader unusual distribution with more stringent acceptance criteria.

Personally, I can detect a separation between Sol and Astra (but not as large as that between Opus and Fable). While they can solve most of the same problems, Astra takes less time, is less frustrating to talk to, is cleaner, notices more, spins wheels less and requires less corrections.

You think they introduce stronger quantization after a few days?

I am sure every input send to openai is prechecked by a dumb model and then send to another one. They heavily tweak this to improve performance.

Or a lot worse

Do you have hard evidence of this assertion?