@mattpocockuk: Feels like categorising models got harder recently I used to put models in the bucket of Opus-like, Sonnet-like, or Hai…
Summary
Matt Pocock observes that categorizing AI models has become harder with new model names like Fable and shifting performance tiers, and asks the community how they evaluate models.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 07/03/26, 02:37 PM
Feels like categorising models got harder recently
I used to put models in the bucket of Opus-like, Sonnet-like, or Haiku-like.
But now we have Fable. Now Sonnet 5 behaves like Opus. Is GLM 5.2 Opus-like, or Sonnet 5-like?
So, I’m asking. How are you evaluating models?
Similar Articles
@elonmusk: Model comparison
Elon Musk discusses a comparison of AI models.
Models Are Hitting Diminishing Returns Within Software Engineering
A distinguished engineer at a hyperscaler argues that AI models are hitting diminishing returns in software engineering tasks, as he finds little difference between Claude's Fable 5 and previous Opus models, and predicts local models will soon provide comparable value.
@ben_burtenshaw: this is my working categorization for model shops in 2026, updated for open weight and / RSI. concepts like 'pre-produc…
Ben Burtenshaw outlines a non-sequential categorization for AI model shops in 2026, covering phases like pre-blog, pre-lab, pre-model, pre-rsi, and pre-cloud, emphasizing the need for updated thinking beyond traditional 'pre-product' concepts.
Benchmarks Say One Thing. The Vibes Say Another.
The author argues that recent AI model releases like Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 are incremental, similar to iPhone upgrades, and that the real innovation is shifting to tooling layers such as Claude Code and Codex.
I stopped comparing models months ago. My output improved .
The author shares that they stopped comparing AI models and focused on workflow design, leading to improved output. They argue that workflow has more leverage than model choice for most practical use cases.