alt Hacker NewsThis looks like a good benchmark. Time and time again I keep giving OpenAI models the chance to win me back, but Opus (and Fable especially) just writes more elegant code and is a significantly more productive rubber duck for interactive discussions. I feel vindicated seeing your description of verbose and defensive code, and I’m a bit disappointed that 5.6 Sol’s solution is still >5x longer than the human solution and 2x as verbose as Fable’s. Do you have any insight whether any of that is comments?
I wonder why nobody has tried to optimize for actual code size or complexity metric, or at least why I haven’t seen more benchmarks that display this. GPT5.5 just keeps pushing more and more pointless indirection into every function it writes in my main project, it’s borderline negative productivity.
P.S. I’d be curious to see Cursor’s composer models in there, they seem to be among the best performing low cost models: https://artificialanalysis.ai/articles/cursor-composer-2-5-c...
Replies
Really almost all benchmarks I look at have a cost per task column, which is basically the code size metric if you take an extra step
The human solutions are all written in Python, which creates a significant length bias, whereas the AI models are assigned to create solutions randomly distributed across 11 relevant programming languages, most of which are inherently more verbose than Python.
I have not broken down the comment/code ratio, but that's actually a really interesting idea for a metric.
I would also like to test Cursor, but our policy is to only test models available on public routers for now.