> Numbers like that buy a model a real migration effort.
Such a silly choice of words. I wish the human directing the LLM writing the article put some effort into rewriting the worst examples of LLM style.
> But it did extremely well, and the promise was immediate and specific: builds finishing in less than half the wall-clock time, at 27% lower cost, scoring at or above our incumbent on completed work.
The way the LLMs write (Claude perhaps?) With short phrases separated by colons, commas or full stops, is so poor and frustrating.
There some good insights behind this article, so it's worth reading, for example below, but it isn't easy to read.
> Earlier GPT models cached implicitly on partial prefix matches, which gave decent hit rates for free. GPT-5.6 dropped partial-prefix matching:
Can we get over the detective work about if the text was written by LLM or not in 2026 already ? This is a lost cause, and we could instead focus on substance over syntax.
Not OP but my frustrations come from it being impossible to ignore and outright distracting.
I've found the same thing showing with Claude-coded/designed front ends that overuse the same semi-monospaced fonts, Blue/Yellow/Red palette and rounded corner borders. It isn't that it is bad, but it often isn't fit for purpose.
You're right it wont change anything, but authors shouldn't be surprised when people who care about their time/attention comment on low/no effort pieces.
The problem is that the second you suspect something is written by AI, its a pretty good signal that 50-80% of the text is empty of meaning. Maybe that will change, but LLMs are terrible and inefficient writers.
Only so much time in the day, its a quick signal to not waste anymore of it.
Correct. AI == Credibility hit and it's increasing as more humans get used to feeling they are AI slop consumers, not worth the time for genuine human engagement. Human engagement costs are increasing. Amazing to read/watch.
I have a counter proposition: don't fall for this constant suggestion that LLMs are an unavoidable future would you leave the techbros alone now pretty please, relentlessly keep reminding that we still don't think it's acceptable so people don't start to think this is okay.
> Ploy’s agent builds and edits real marketing websites. It plans a page, reads the codebase, writes components, generates imagery, screenshots its own work, and decides when it’s done. That job description sets a very high bar for a model, and we test every frontier release against it. For the four months Opus held the default slot (first Opus 4.7, then 4.8), nothing we tested beat it.
Well, unlike OP I haven't run a rigorous test, but I still would expect Fable to be significantly better at building marketing websites than Opus. It sure is way better at building decks.
But what users prefer? Given this is for marketing, which results produce more conversions? From the examples shown, personally I strongly preferred Claude Opus in all cases.
Thank you for a dense informative article with practical takeaways. This was an easy read and it reinforced the importance of some concepts in LLM based pipeline design.
Such a silly choice of words. I wish the human directing the LLM writing the article put some effort into rewriting the worst examples of LLM style.
> But it did extremely well, and the promise was immediate and specific: builds finishing in less than half the wall-clock time, at 27% lower cost, scoring at or above our incumbent on completed work.
The way the LLMs write (Claude perhaps?) With short phrases separated by colons, commas or full stops, is so poor and frustrating.
There some good insights behind this article, so it's worth reading, for example below, but it isn't easy to read.
> Earlier GPT models cached implicitly on partial prefix matches, which gave decent hit rates for free. GPT-5.6 dropped partial-prefix matching:
I've found the same thing showing with Claude-coded/designed front ends that overuse the same semi-monospaced fonts, Blue/Yellow/Red palette and rounded corner borders. It isn't that it is bad, but it often isn't fit for purpose.
You're right it wont change anything, but authors shouldn't be surprised when people who care about their time/attention comment on low/no effort pieces.
Only so much time in the day, its a quick signal to not waste anymore of it.
I would consider Luna for parts of the workload that touch actual tools. It is surprisingly capable and it runs fast.
Sol is great at talking to the human and orchestration of agent calls, but it's just too expensive to use everywhere.
You can get 5 Luna runs for the cost of 1 Sol run. Statistically speaking, going from one to five samples is a pretty big deal.
Well, unlike OP I haven't run a rigorous test, but I still would expect Fable to be significantly better at building marketing websites than Opus. It sure is way better at building decks.