Levie 分享了 Box AI Complex Work Eval 的详细结果:Fable vs Opus 4.8 在真实企业知识工作问题上的对比。Fable 的主要差异化:不在复杂推理上走捷径、多步计算正确、跨运行显著更一致。
按行业:媒体娱乐 78% vs 61%,技术 81% vs 73%,金融服务 89% vs 83%,医疗 66% vs 60%。
具体案例:法律并购尽调——Fable 正确识别联合所有权条款违反排他性(100% vs 78%)。医疗放射错误审计——Fable 正确得出不存在 Grade 3 错误,Opus 过早升级(63% vs 41%)。媒体类型盈利预测——Fable 识别 20% 阿根廷税已嵌入,Opus 双重施加(74% vs 负分)。金融服务五年债务预测——Fable 正确对期初余额应用利息,Opus 对总额应用(83% vs 62%)。SaaS 功能估值——Fable 精确运算,Opus 多处算错(100% vs 74%)。177 赞。
Levie:Box AI eval Fable vs Opus 4.8。Fable 不走捷径、多步计算正确、跨运行一致。媒体娱乐差距最大 78% vs 61%。177 赞。
Levie shares detailed Box AI Complex Work Eval results: Fable vs Opus 4.8 across real enterprise knowledge work problems. Fable's main differentiators: it doesn't take shortcuts on complex reasoning, gets multi-step calculations right, and is significantly more consistent across runs.
Key results by industry: Media & Entertainment 78% vs 61%, Technology 81% vs 73%, Financial Services 89% vs 83%, Healthcare 66% vs 60%.
Specific examples: Legal M&A due diligence—Fable correctly identified joint-ownership clause violating exclusivity (100% vs 78%). Healthcare radiology error audit—Fable correctly concluded no Grade 3 errors existed while Opus prematurely escalated (63% vs 41%). Media genre profitability—Fable recognized a 20% Argentine tax was already embedded; Opus double-applied it (74% vs negative). Financial Services 5-year debt projection—Fable applied interest to opening balances correctly; Opus applied it to total facility (83% vs 62%). SaaS feature valuation—Fable exact arithmetic, Opus got multiple calculations wrong (100% vs 74%). 177 likes.
In our Box AI Complex Work Eval, we tested the model against Opus 4.8 and saw huge boosts across almost every industry.
The main differentiators for Fable vs Opus 4.8 is that it doesn't take shortcuts on complex reasoning, it gets multi-step calculations right, and it's significantly more consistent across runs.
Media & Entertainment 78% vs 61%, Technology 81% vs 73%, Financial Services 89% vs 83%, Healthcare 66% vs 60%.