4 ms·
It is very concise, and reads precisely as you suggest: to exploit properties already discovered and therefore combined in a novel way. I'm just delighted by t
by jvanderbot 3mo ago
It is very concise, and reads precisely as you suggest: to exploit properties already discovered and therefore combined in a novel way.
I'm just delighted by the prose. It reads like an old paper. The ones that were just straightforward theorems with proofs that do exactly what they say.
- lubujackson 3mo agoIn my (very) limited use of GPT-5.6, I have noticed it is quite concise in general, and significantly better at abstract thinking. Doing a PR review of a large change it was interesting to see Fable and 5.6 mention a few similar points with Fable much more long-winded and less readable, while 5.6 caught more "second-level" concerns and Fable more "in the code" concerns, so they both are quite useful in concert. In general, I would not be surprised if 5.6 was a much better tool for high mathematics than Fable based on the abstract thinking. For my dev workflow, I have flipped my approach from planning with Opus 4.8 high and implementation with GPT 5.5 to planning with 5.6 high and implementation with Fable medium (and I might even drop to Fable low). This is only on the company dime, of course.
- greenavocado 3mo agoI use GPT 5.6 as default and subtask agent and Fable as Advisor with Oh My Pi harness
- satvikpendem 3mo agoThis has since been the case with recent models from OpenAI vs Anthropic, seems it's a matter of their philosophies embedded into the model, much like Conway's Law.
- dannyw 3mo agoProbably comes as a side effect of optimising and post-training for token efficiency. Fortunately, OpenAI APIs expose the verbosity parameter, which is separate to effort. If you want longer responses, you can. Or just prompt it.