One that I'm willing to share (albeit from just a week ago) - I built a Python library last week that bundles MicroPython compiled to WASM to create a sandboxed code execution library: https://github.com/simonw/micropython-wasm
I just told Claude.ai (not even Claude Code - this was the standard Claude chat interface) running Fable 5:
Clone simonw/micropython-wasm from GitHub
and research how this could use a full
Python as opposed to MicroPython
uv run --with https://static.simonwillison.net/static/cors-allow/2026/cpython_wasm-0.1.0-py3-none-any.whl \
cpython-wasm -c 'print(45 ** 56)'
(It's possible Opus or GPT-5.5 could have done this too, I've not tried the exact same sequence. The Fable vibes are good here, though.)
I see a lot of people saying they are happy with weaker models, but I am the opposite, I need more strength, more intelligence!
I am quite happy that opus 4.8 can do some medium intelligence problems. And maybe Fable 5 can do some more more of those! I have a lot of problems to solve!
It feels like you can give it a big chunky problem and leave it alone and it gets it done, with less questions and fewer design decisions that I wouldn't have made.
In reviewing its code I'm finding less to complain about than Opus. But it's all vibes, if you want a more scientific comparison you'll have to look elsewhere.
It made sense for people doing proper and fair AI breakdowns waiting on an embargo, but now it's just slop I don't trust anymore.
Update: looks like I've spent $82.92 in Fable 5 API priced tokens so far today (still all included in my subscription.)
Here's a TIL on how I'm calculating spending using AgentsView: https://til.simonwillison.net/llms/agentsview-custom-model-p...
Though that's also what makes humans so good at solving problems as well, it turns out.
Also, slight tangent: but I do find the "clanker" insult kind of funny. I feel like it counter-intuitively makes the models sound cooler than they are, if anything. I love clankin' shit.
Next time you get a new and a fresh and an inspiring idea, and you spend hours solving a unique problem nobody has ever done before. You can take comfort in the fact that a few months later some lame and uninspiring developer can write the same problem in a prompt and get the plagiarism machine to steal your work, just in a more lame and uninspiring way.
OK then - do it, faster.
> You can take comfort in the fact that a few months later some[...] developer can [solve] the same problem [using your work]
Isn't that what collaboration and sharing software is supposed to be all about?
On the other hand: "Stop trying to make 'clanker' happen! It's not going to happen!"
"AI slop" caught on but "clanker" did not.
It caught on, sure, but not exactly in the way I expected. The wild popularity of "slop" as a term for AI eventually gave way to the genericization of the word "slop" to mean "content of low quality, regardless of source", and is seemingly being used as just a derogatory term for anything that people dislike (particularly by folks in left leaning communities). For example, I've seen people refer to (clearly human written) commentary from some political commentators as "slop".
You comment kind of reinforces the idea by the fact that you have to now say "AI slop" specifically to disambiguate it. It's kind of a fascinating little turn.