nwienert

Hm I had built out a system that tested a few hundred decisions and clef beat Jev pretty handily, I think there was actually 0 instances where clef regressed and it improved about 20% of the false decisions.

Terrible take, it’s tied with Astra Max yet you decided to round it down for no good reason.

Then you try to pin discount pricing when everyone has some discount going on, and knows they will release some new model before it ends anyway.

And if you’d have used Muse Max at all you’d know it’s not been really in the same league as the rest. Then again Astra and Sol are both not really competing with Opus now with 5.5 either.

It’s a solid release on paper and until anyone uses it I find anyone trying to proclaim a loser completely unreliable.

If they’re smart they pull a DeepSeek and teach flash to beat this entirely within a month or two, I wouldn’t bet against it.

Interesting, rolling out new limits would explain a lot. Where did you hear this? I wonder if they detect users with multiple accounts and do that first.

I just used Build for ~4 hours, no Bot.

Either this is untrue or my account is in some bugged state. I bought the 300 plan 3.5 weeks ago, and found it's usage about 1/10th of others, running out always the first day of usage for the whole week while CC for example would last 2-3 at higher usage.

It reset just a few hours ago and I've been running it, couldn't be more than 15 sessions none more than an hour long:

---

Session usage: no model calls yet in this session.

Weekly limit: 46%

Next reset: September 27, 23:20

---

I actually have to believe my account is messed up tbh, it's so bad. For reference I've ran 12 fable and some ~40 Opus sessions since reset yesterday on a CC account, at least 5x more usage by my estimate:

  Current week (all models)

                                       28% used

  Resets Sep 28 at 5am (Pacific/Honolulu)

---

Ok looking at it more, Grok and Grok Build just really suck. They are about 10x less token efficient, often using 200+ tool calls in a row for what are not even big tasks where Opus would use 5-10. Their cache hit rate is worse, and two sessions got into basically unnecessary loops costing a solid quarter of the entire week. And this was on smaller tasks as I tend to use it for easier things.

By far the worst value subscription of any. I tried Superheavy and got about 5-10% the usage of CC/Codex.

I'm not anonymous, you can find me on X or LinkedIn.

Me 78 days ago - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48693623

And see the commenter agreed with me.

Lol @ sus though, I mean I am curious how this can be because I do see people saying Codex is more generous and wonder how it can be. I have too much usage for too long to have any doubts, but for all I know OpenAI black boxed me or Anthropic put me in some nice bucket, I wouldn't be surprised if they do that. I did see some mention that they can limit your tokens if they suspect you of things, though I forget the source of that.

It's really not a question, in every dimension I've confirmed it including socially across a lot of the heaviest users. There was a short period of time this was true it's not been true for months now.

There was a period of time Codex was better, they slowly cut it back by my estimate 3x a few months ago.

I've verified this with the heaviest users I know, I've run the numbers myself over and over.

I have too many max accounts on each to not know this. My Claude accounts typically are doing 2x the number of sessions, and every single week the Codex accounts run out faster even with all these resets. I can easily burn a full weeks usage in a half day, it's closer to 1.5 with CC.

Anthropic gives you much more compute with their $200 plan, inclusive of resets, and this has been true for a very long time.

There was only a brief window of time that the opposite was true.

[delayed]

Cool stuff. I'm moving One[stack.dev] onto pure rust now, and Tamagui v3 compiler will also is moving from Babel to Yuku which is quite interesting - from my testing it's more flexible and quite a bit faster than OXC.

Went from years behind to months pretty quick.

Insert the famous Louie CK phones on planes bit. Sand is thinking, working, coding and now looking for you, for pennies an hour... but "oof" it's not good enough.

It's more likely they are found to be breakthrough medicines in inflammatory disease, addiction, and general life extension at this point.

> The question now is if GLP-1s have additional anti-inflammatory influence.

This is well established, not at all a question.

> they might reduce some inflammation markers slightly more than weigh loss alone

There's no "slightly," It's going to be a news story for years to come. It's a broad spectrum anti-inflammatory drug of a breadth and efficacy never seen before.

Careful, you may have a bit of psychosis. They are very, very far from incomprehensible, and also very far from the top at least of my field. The best in my field are produce far higher quality results, and I think that's true for all fields. It's just an incredibly good 85% quality machine that experts all use because they can guide it to be up to their quality faster than doing it themselves.

That's roughly my experience. Luna is extremely efficient and at higher levels of reasoning and longer running tasks more capable.

Reading the DS reasoning is wild, it's constantly going in circles. The most minor lack of clarity in your prompt and it will spend ages going back and forth on what you meant. It reasons 5x longer than the preview which makes it really slow now as well. We did a lot of work to nudge it to be decisive and improve our evaluation setup to there's more clarity, and it helped but only marginally.

Ours is a full-stack app one shot test so it includes backend, frontend, design, and QA/testing. It's graded by Opus xhigh and Sol xhigh and the grades are averaged.

DS4 preview would finish in 20 minutes flat on high reasoning and grades 6/10. Luna high gets 9/10 in about 30 minutes. DS4-final is crazy - at high thinking it's taking over an hour and getting ~8 but only had one successful run as I got tired of waiting so long after many early abort/retries trying to debug why thinking was so long. The lowest thinking still takes over 45 minutes, and with thinking off it actually is finally closer to preview in time but actually get's a much more varying result anywhere from incomplete to 6 it seems.

Costs per run DS4 is best but not actually by a lot as it's spending 10x the tokens with all the reasoning and mistakes. It's a very brute force model and I really preferred preview in many ways for how predictably fast it was.

Side note, Spark 1.2 is a nice model for this test, best in frontend design and fastest to get results together, though not nearly as efficient as Luna. Grok scores similarly to Spark but at like $50/run vs the contributor Spark costing $1.50.

Edit: was curious to see and seems DeepSWE agrees at least: https://www.together.ai/blog/deepseek-v4-flash-0731-vs-gpt-5...

Edit 2: btw it tests a team of agents working together in a special harness and stack. So 20 minutes is for 8 agents essentially. That said everything was built around DS as it was the cheapest to iterate against so even with that advantage the new one struggles.

It's significantly worse than Luna and quite a bit slower in some fairly involved tests I run.

Yep, and the v4 flash final is about 2.5x slower than preview making it no longer a fast model, in fact slower than Luna and bigger models in many cases.

Spark is actually the interesting one imo. It's significantly better, also significantly faster. If you are ok with letting Meta soak up your data (which DS does too) it's also the same price.

Life's unfair, avoiding power concentration is a decent principle.

If you grow up in the right place at the right time, how much should you be in control of everyone else's life?

If you're ranking Opus > Fable you're ranking "do [clearly defined thing with easy to grade endpoint]" too much. Real world doesn't value that nearly as much and it's why benchmarks are maxxed.

Sol does not follow instructions well at all. I've caught it multiple times a day now since release going off in incredibly bone-headed directions. It's so easy for it to over-interpret, make wildly out of scope changes, or just completely mis-understand what you're saying. The code it writes also is quite bloated still, and in my still-forming understanding I feel Fable is much more reliably smart. Sol is just more persistent and fast, so it often gets there quicker or after many tries, where Fable will just get it right from the start albeit more slowly.

Yea, two more years for the last 10.

The feedback I heard was definitely not that. The mistakes it makes are incredibly hard to predict, and they were lucky that no one was on the side of the road as they could've killed someone if a person had been there and they'd been a half second late.

That's the point. It's actually worse than a dumber system, because it's not even past the margin where it can go a month without a mistake, but you don't have to correct most days. The absolute worst possible scenario for safety.

A friend of mine just got one, ex-Chrome core dev so a fairly sharp guy, his one month review was that it was incredibly capable but had already done two maneuvers that would've led to an accident without intervention.

I built an iOS simulator simulator, though only for RN. Runs in browser but covers 100% of the API of RN, iOS UI, and the top 1k native libraries basically now. Been an ongoing agentic experiment of mine that's about ready to release.

Kind of fun, you can develop iOS and Android both without a build step and without a Mac even.

I agree we're at diminishing returns, but when brain scanning gets good enough you have a better dataset than the internet, Facebook is deep into that research.

I did initially through some miracle, as I wasn’t overweight. But after that year was up I now do grey market. Finnrick does testing which seems like a decent way to source if you’re looking that way. Not affiliated though and haven’t done a lot of background research on them.

Btw I have a couple autoimmune issues and found Tirzepatide strongly preferable to Semaglutide.

I've been posting about this including here for years now. I wrote a long post about it a while ago here and on Reddit. At time no one was talking about it, and actually my Reddit post was buried behind tons of others which was frustrating at the time given I had basically shared a partial cure.

Now if you search "reddit eds glp-1" or tirzepatide you'll see tons and tons of long threads of people all saying the same thing - it's the only thing that actually helps.

For me it was something of a miracle, I have two overlapping immune issues and it seems to just turn me into a much more normal, functional person. Including fixing my sleep.

Never was overweight beyond maybe ~15lbs btw when I started or took it, and the effects are 100% not because of just fasting or weight loss. I had tried keto and OMAD before, and been at healthy weight my whole life.

There's a definite auto-immune modulating mechanism and it's so strong it seems better than basically most first-class drugs. Even things like prednisone which are like nuclear weapons don't give me relief like Tirzepatide does.

Btw highly recommend Tirzepatide of the three GLP-1 drugs, for me at least it's by far the most effective and least side effects.