4 ms·
Fable is by Anthropic, and this is too expensive, GLM 5.2 is roughly the same quality at a much cheaper price. (I mantain a client with llama.cpp and 101 model
by refulgentis 3mo ago
Fable is by Anthropic, and this is too expensive, GLM 5.2 is roughly the same quality at a much cheaper price.
(I mantain a client with llama.cpp and 101 models across 14 companies by http)
- LaurensBER 3mo agoAs much as I like GLM 5.2 it's clearly a step below Opus (or even Fable) for more complicated tasks. I would place it at Opus 4.6/4.7 level. Having said that, the safety system on Fable makes it an extremely unattractive model. It feels that half of the time you're paying double for Opus level performance.
- jml78 3mo agoFable won’t even generate a jwt to test endpoints because it is security related. It is crazy capable but useless for real work
- weego 3mo agoUnless your real work is outside the scope of one tiny niche of work.
- arcanemachiner 3mo agoEh, it doesn't hit you until it hits you. I finally bumped into a task that Codex would refuse to work on. Was I attempting to reverse-engineer a GPU driver? Yes. Was I trying to hack into the DoD? No. I wasn't doing anything wrong, but that's not what OpenAI's safety mechanisms thought.
- pimeys 3mo agoGLM has issues with tool calls and nested JSON and it wastes tokens pretty often. I see it being a bit above half the price of Opus in a bit more complex eval tasks. With some RL you could probably get the tool calls sorted and the price down.