Thoughts[^0] from Theo, who had early access:<p>> It's a damn good model. Not quite as "smart" as Fable, but it is incredibly capable. Fixed all the problems I had with GPT-5.5.<p>> It is incredibly determined. Will run for a day without even using a /goal. It understands subagents incredibly well and is great at orchestrating. It's super pleasant in use cases like OpenClaw and Hermes Agent. It knows iOS dev incredibly well.<p>> It has rough edges too, but FAR fewer than 5.5 did.<p>> For many things, gpt-5.6-sol will become my obvious defaults.<p>> It is better about [following instructions] than 5.5 was. Understands intent well and hammers until it gets there. Sometimes a bit too hard.<p>Also[^1]:<p>> gpt-5.6-sol is world leading in computer use. It made me use it 100x more. When we lost access to 5.6, I quickly started to go insane without it<p>[^0]: <a href="https://nitter.net/theo/status/2074708892341481755" rel="nofollow">https://nitter.net/theo/status/2074708892341481755</a>
[^1]: <a href="https://nitter.net/theo/status/2074720467395756499" rel="nofollow">https://nitter.net/theo/status/2074720467395756499</a>
I feel like listening to Theo about anything technical is like consulting a Labrador retriever for advice on quantum physics.<p>Every time I've ever seen one of his videos it's pretty clear he has very little understanding of development or engineering. I first became aware of him from his early "unit tests are a waste of time" stuff, and it seems his skillset is building a personal brand. Fair play, he's clearly talented at that, but that doesn't make his opinion on anything else worthwhile.
Increased tenacity & goal following is exactly what I want in this model, to make it compete with Claude models.<p>(A little toning down of the goblin fetish would be nice too, haha.)
“Understands intent well and hammers until it gets there. “<p>If there’s anything I learned over the past 12-18 months is that this is a recipe for disaster, except for throwaway stuff.<p>I thought most senior engineers settled on the fact that steering a model yields much better results?
Damn this is exciting. I love that gpt models are much faster, efficient and cheaper than Claude models. They are so fast even on high/xhigh that I don’t find myself using the parallel agent setup anymore much since its cognitively less demanding to just follow along what the model is doing and most tasks it will complete in <5-<10mins anyway.
Will it be available on subscription tiers? That will get me to switch away from Anthropic.
I’m bouncing back between Codex and Claude like a ping-pong ball. I much prefer the experience using Codex, less verbose and to-the-point I’ve found. But Fable, being as strong as it is, is a big draw for Claude right now. I’ll likely switch back to Codex if 5.6 Sol is comparable.
Is this the reason Anthropic extended use of Fable 5 via subscriptions until July 12? Seems a bit like it
Probably, but I think it's too little too late. Not much point to it if it's not permanent. The "get the most out of Fable until it goes away" frenzy is getting old fast. The cybersecurity blocks are very obnoxious too.<p>If OpenAI can launch a Fable tier model that's actually usable on a subscription, then Anthropic is just going to lose, and badly.
Mirror: <a href="https://xcancel.com/OpenAI/status/2074704958419792299" rel="nofollow">https://xcancel.com/OpenAI/status/2074704958419792299</a>
I'm most curious about whether OpenAI finally taught its models how to design interfaces. They have been behind the other labs in this area for what feels like ages.
Any previewers have hot takes? I've really preferred gpt-5.5 over Opus 4.8 for data analysis and scientific software work. It seems much more reliable. Fable is unusable for the type of work that I do (due to guardrails). Really looking forward to trying these new OpenAI models out.
Interesting to hear people like gpt-5.5. For me it feels smart only at one shot prompts, but if you try to build up session context before doing something it feels magnitudes inferior to Claude.
I'm almost sure its because the thinking of previous turns is stripped with the responses API, so if I tell it to analyse something deeply, what remains of the understanding in future turns is only the short response text of that analysis
For compiler work I found that Sol is noticably better than 5.5 (and I generally use OAI models because I like the Codex app), but Fable was still obviously better.
It seems comparable to Fable to me in my uses.
The question is, launch to who …
I find codex way more usable. It’s not pretentiously verbose like Claude. It’s also responsive - I can see the progress easily and steer the conversation. With Claude, it might take 15 minutes and I would lose patience.
I held out on OpenAI until last month because I despise Sam Altman, but using Codex is a great experience and 5.5 (medium) I'm on 20$ is very capable, follows instructions when it should and confronts me/challenges me when it should.<p>UX is nicer where the agent is somehow "separated" from execution.