> Not quite as "smart" as Fable, but it is incredibly capable.
THIS IS BECAUSE GPT-5.6 SOL IS... just a more posttrained version of GPT-5.5, not a brand new bigger model than GPT-5.5. It's not like how Mythos is bigger than Opus.
OpenAI switching to Sol/Terra/Luna renaming is just a way to rip off people and charge more usage for the same sized model.
GPT-5.6 --------> GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6-mini ---> GPT-5.6 Terra
GPT-5.6-nano ---> GPT-5.6 Luna
Except OpenAI is about to advertise GPT-5.6 Sol and GPT-5.6 Terra as a whole tier better, than if they named it GPT-5.6 and GPT-5.6-mini.
This is because GPT-5.6 is just a more posttrained version of GPT-5.5, not a bigger model than GPT-5.5. It's not like how Mythos is bigger than Opus.
GPT-5.6 --------> GPT-5.6 Sol
GPT-5.6-mini ---> GPT-5.6 Terra
GPT-5.6-nano ---> GPT-5.6 Luna
Two important things to note, if you want to verify what I say/correct me:
GPT-5.6 Terra actually scores worse than GPT-5.5 on many benchmarks. It's not GPT-5.5 trained with more compute; it's basically GPT-5.6-mini that's been distilled from GPT-5.6 full size. Remember, GPT-5.4-mini had almost the same benchmarks as GPT-5.2 after all.
Opus 4.8 runs at ~90 tokens per second. Fable 5 runs at ~40 tokens per second on from Anthropic, because it's a bigger/slower model.
A few days after the release, when the dust dies down, look at how many tokens/second GPT-5.6 Sol is running at. I will bet it's the about same as GPT-5.5, and not half the speed. (OpenAI is not incentivized to slow down the model for paying customers). But the model tokens/sec will be a big clue- if OpenAI is charging more money for the same sized model or not.
You can’t squeeze blood from a brick. At a certain point, you need to tolerate a little messiness to optimize societal growth.
Think of it as a dial you can turn clockwise or counterclockwise:
Security <——> Freedom
A healthy society would have good feedback mechanisms that allow it to change the dial of the government in power, to adjust to the current situation. Obviously, there’s no one optimal position; to use a historical example: Churchill was great for Britain during WW2, and immediately elected out afterwards.
This is going to age very poorly when the best Chinese labs ALREADY just started not open sourcing their models.
Qwen 3.7 is not open source; previous Qwen versions would have open source releases, but Qwen 3.7 plus does not. The second best Chinese model, Minimax M3, is testing the waters by taking longer and longer between “model release” and open sourcing it. This time, they spent 2 weeks after release before open sourcing it. There’s also a lot of rumors of GLM and Deepseek not open sourcing future models.
It’s pretty obvious that you cannot take Chinese models as open source for granted, they’ll be closed source soon.
That would be REALLY easy to detect. It'll be 4x slower.
The tokens/sec of the model is basically directly proportional of the memory bandwidth of the hardware it runs on. So either OpenAI has to gimp model performance for its entire life, or somehow magically speed it up 4x on the first day.
There's almost 0% chance that OpenAI doesn't quantize the model right off the bat.
I am willing to bet large amounts of money that OpenAI would never release a model served as fully BF16 in the year of our lord 2026. That would be insane operationally. They're almost certainly doing QAT to FP4 for FFN, and a similar or slightly larger quant for attention tensors.
This is "Steve Jobs looking at someone on a fruit diet" and thinking "I can do it too" levels of reckless.
Hell, Dunbar's Number is 150 people, and you expect to have 50 directs? That's literally 1/3 of your 150 being occupied by directs. It seems clearly infeasible the more you think about it.
This is stupid and irrational. It's like seeing someone eat 100 cakes, and then assuming everyone can do it. And then getting diabetes afterwards.
It seems quite counterproductive to assume such a system would scale to everyone else, or that everyone else could possibly implement this. This is cowboy levels of human resource management, not careful engineering.
Yes, I see them all the time when I drink lots of alcohol [1]. This is a common issue with humans called "hallucination" which proves that humans are unreliable.
That's an extremely high bar. To use something off the top of my head: a 19th century scientist discovered Algebraic topology, does that make Algebraic topology easy?
It's pretty clear for me to argue that those things are NOT intuitive at all, and not easy to recognize. That's not changing the goalposts at all. Would the median american voter understand Poincaré's contributions to algebraic topology? Obviously not. Things that are easy for people to recognize: "touching a hot stove burns you". Things that are not easy for people to recognize: Poincaré's contributions to algebraic topology.
Honestly, your argument falls apart the moment you think about it critically. If it was so easy to recognize bias, then wouldn't all the people in the species already recognized it and voted to shape our legal system to handle any such bias, so it wouldn't be an issue right now? Clearly, that's not the case (we're still dealing with such issues), and understanding such biases is obviously an issue for people in the general public.
None of those things are easily recognized though. They're not universals. A term like "cognitive biases" generally require a college level education.
If you go to a tribe in the middle of the rainforest, would they be able to explain those concepts? Of course not.
Plus, I already gave an example of a species wide bias at the end of the comment- phone addiction for kids. I'm clearly not saying it's impossible for a human to spot a bias, but rather... how many 5 year old kids recognize that phone addiction is a bad thing?
> We’re really not that vulnerable to such things as a species, because we as individuals all have our own minds and our own sets of biases that cancel out and get lost in the noise.
[Citation Needed]
Just because if you have a species-wide bias, people within the species would not easily recognize it. You can't claim with a straight face that "we're really not that vulnerable to such things".
For example, I think it's pretty clear that all humans are vulnerable to phone addiction, especially kids.