what a heavy, poorly performing site. my fairly powerful macbook pro struggles on that site.

Then, of course, there's the fact that all of the start and access buttons just open the same page in a new tab.

I’m constantly disappointed by Anthropic’s models.

I become more disillusioned every day.

It seems like, by having the models write Python code, they tend to write Python code like an average developer. Which is to say, quite bad.

Add in the complete failure of the models to adhere to instructions in Claude.md, memory files, and added multiple times in prompts, I’m wasting huge amounts of time fixing bad design decisions that the model just slips in.

This is different from the Mouser open source app for Logitech?

My own experience is that with the best models, if you provide reasonable tools, with progressive discovery, and a semi-clear user request, the system prompt is essentially worthless.

Yes, this is already accounted for in many benchmarks, but without deep context of the problem type, the top line pricing is the best starting point.

In my own experience, Fable is more token efficient than opus 4.8 with a higher likelihood of completing tasks correctly or at least with minimal corrective work. Opus regularly struggled to gather the correct context and reason effectively about what it had gathered.

GPT-5.6-sol crushes fable in speed and token efficiency and is clearly superior across many tasks that matter for me.

I also find all models from anthropic after opus 4.6 to suffer from the same ai slop language that long plagued OpenAI and seems to have been reduced drastically in 5.6

Don't forget that you are not really seeing the thinking tokens used - so non-trivial to count them.