GPT-5.6 vs. Claude Fable 5 for Physical AI, which performs best?

一句话概要

We tested the latest frontier models in the Dyad agent on five modeling and simulation problems, comparing accuracy, cost, time, and work style.

原文开头节选

We tested the latest frontier models gpt-5.6-terra in our agent, on five modeling and simulation problems of varying difficulty. Here are the results: claude-fable-5 0.889 weighted score $9.60 / trial · 16.1 min gpt-5.6-sol 0.814 weighted score $1.74 / trial · 13.4 min gpt-5.6-terra 0.786 weighted score $1.25 / trial · 12.6 min gpt-5.6-luna 0.727 weighted score $3.26 / trial · 25.0 min Physical AI lives or dies on whether the modeled physics is correct. A model of an aircraft, a separation column or a charged particle can compile and run cleanly while the physics it encodes is impossible. Agentic AI makes this failure mode worse, because agents steer by feedback from tests, and the tests are often written by the same agent. In domains like web development or compilers that loop works well enough, since correct behavior is contained and checkable.

There is also a trust problem with the numbers that already exist. Nobody takes the model providers’ self-reported benchmarks at face value, and for good reason: the provider publishing the score is the same party with every incentive to …

(以上为原文节选,完整内容见下方”原文来源”)

这条动态今日登上 Hacker News 首页(76 赞 / 18 评论,来源 juliahub.com)。技术雷达每日自动聚合 AI 工程、后端架构、DevOps 方向的前沿动态;相关工程落地可浏览下方的相关服务与延伸阅读,或直接与我们团队交流。