@PawelHuryn claude sonnet better than opus?
ต้นฉบับฉันเลยทดสอบ GPT-6.1 Sol กับงานจริง: 2 repo, 105 บั๊กที่แฝงไว้ หาและแก้เท่าที่จะทำได้ ต่างจาก GPT-6 Sol ที่เป็นแค่ GPT-5.6 Terra โดนเนิร์ฟ ตัวนี้ของจริง ผลลัพธ์: - GPT-6 Astra (max): 45 ตัว ราคา $33 - GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 44 ตัว ราคา $6.56 - GPT-5.6 Sol (max): 43.5 ตัว ราคา $95.35 - Opus 5.5 (max): 41.7 ตัว ราคา $58.53 - GPT-6 Sol (max): 29.3 ตัว ราคา $9.33 มีโมเดลแบบนี้ ส่วนลด 50% สำหรับแพ็กเกจ $200 ก็ไม่สำคัญอีกต่อไป n=1 เดี๋ยวมีการรันเพิ่มและผลลัพธ์ในระดับความพยายามอื่นๆ ลงเพิ่มใน thread นี้ ove
0
0
0
0
ความคิดเห็น 42
-
-
@PawelHuryn Sonnet 5.5 in first, what?
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn @grok explain
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn GPT 6.1 sol has been absolutely stupid for me. https://x.com/cyberpeterg/status/2105313537543303596?s=20
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn what was the 1 bug Astra caught that Sol missed?
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn Nuts
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn 44 bugs, $6.56. Cost-per-fix is the ladder.
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn WOWIE! amazing results :)
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn @grok sol 6.1 is clearly cutting into OAI's margins. Is this "race to the bottom" reminiscent of early 2000's internet prices? When did this race start? When did it end? Outcomes?
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn Просто на подписке за 200$ можно было бы бесконечно пользоваться 6.1 sol ultra и не покупать кредиты, openai это непонравилось😂
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn do the fixes get checked for new bugs too, or just whether the planted ones are gone?
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn Opus 5.5 at 41.7 for $58.53 against 6.1 Sol at 44 for $6.56 is the line that matters here. Once you log a few more runs, I'd love to see whether the misses overlap or whether Opus catches bugs Sol never touches, because that decides routing versus just picking one.
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn how much you got from openai? "With a model like this, the 50% cut to the $200 plan doesn't matter." all these are just for this sentences to plant the idea it's ok. it's not ok bro.
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn Short: 6.1 Sol finally sits on the right shelf. Not the bug king. The king of cost per bug found.
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn Interesting
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn There is alternative 3D visualization of the results, can make 3 axis comparison easier. https://icauro.com/toabundance?benchmark=bug-hunt
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn The only problem? "remove the xx button from the page" ... 'valutating bla bla bla' ..... 10 minutes later 'button removed, i'll now verify if the button is not visible' ..... . 15 minutes... 'the button is removed and not present on the page' (but still in temp page) 30m tot
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn thanks for running this and sharing the test results!
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn A bit useless to show the highest level of AI. The real challenge comes when you test on medium.
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn is it just me or is gpt 6.1 sol slow? what tps are you getting?
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn In terms of criticality (identifying more impactful bugs), was GPT-6.1 Sol on par with GPT-6 Astra and Fable 5.1? Btw, thanks for this, this is gold! 🤝
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn https://x.com/SlovenskiGlas1/status/2105265982948180341
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn GPT 6.1 Sol is basically a telenovela: the cast is great, young, and gorgeous, the costumes are stunning, but almost nothing actually happens. You could easily skip four episodes and still not miss a beat.
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn TY
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn Glad you're adding n=3. I'd put a bug-by-bug stability view next to the totals: fixing 44 different bugs each run creates a different review workload from reliably fixing the same 44.
ต้นฉบับ-
@jakestone2306 It's not 100% deterministic. Bugs differ a lot between runs. This view: https://bughunt.productcompass.pm/?preset=featured&view=coverage
ต้นฉบับ-
@PawelHuryn @jakestone2306 GPT-5.6 Sol + GPT-6.1 Sol looks like an interesting combination or is it just a coincidence that one finds bugs at the end the other one missed ?
ต้นฉบับ-
@PawelHuryn @jakestone2306 Uh, just saw that GPT-5.6 Sol is horrible expensive, I would get away cheaper with Astra ! ... but combination of multiple models might be a cost effective approach to try.
ต้นฉบับ-
@SvenMeyer It could be complementary coverage, or just run-to-run variation. I'd compare two passes of one model with one pass each of two models, at the same total budget. Count newly fixed bugs on the second pass, not just the combined score.
ต้นฉบับ
-
-
-
-
-
@PawelHuryn For finding bugs, does it make sense to first run Sol 6.1. Then run Opus 5.5 with the knowledge of known bugs from Sol. Can it lower the total cost while catching more bugs?
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn i used 6.1 for bug findings. it was much better than opus 5.5. but opus is much better in performance, design and smart code
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn 跟我在實際工作中使用6.1 sol xhigh 的體感一樣，有好又省！好像有點慢？
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn I would advise against testing every model on Max reasoning. Most tend perform better on Medium or High, like my test here where Terra and Luna both suffer on Max:
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn The real story is the price ratio, not the score — 44 bugs for $6.56 vs 45 for $33. At one-fifth the cost you can just run five passes and brute-force the gap. Makes the whole "Astra got shelved for safety" line look more like a pricing problem.
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn 6.1 sol’s performance for the price is honestly wild.
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn Great overview! Are you planning to also check gpt-6.1-luna?
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn it matters. this model ships far more slop than 6 sol did
ต้นฉบับ -
@PawelHuryn Would be nice to see amount of slop and regressions introduced. Gemini for me was terrible for fixing things, it wasn't using good architecture, patterns and introduced a lot of regression. But the results may actually vary by how good your agentic context is in the workspace.
ต้นฉบับ
스크롤하면 더 불러옵니다