Sam Paech @sam_paech
— saved image
Sam Paech [verified] @sam_paech · 13h New models tested on creative writing: GPT-6-Astra Fable 5.1 Muse Spark 1.3 Gemini 3.8 flash Subjectively, I strongly prefer Muse Spark 1.3 to both GPT-6 and Fable. It just gives you what you asked for, without an obnoxious house style permeating every request. Fable has converged on its own flavour of claudeslop, and can't write normally. Meanwhile, GPT-6-Astra has forgotten how to write in paragraphs. It's a sad state of affairs! Tentatively suggest we reinstate the old tradition of reading rollouts with our actual eyeballs. [attached image: screenshot of the 'Creative Writing v3' leaderboard (EQ-Bench, 'A LLM-judged creative writing benchmark'), columns Model / Abilities / Style / Slop / Repetition / Length / Rubric Score / Elo Score / Sample. Small print; model names and Elo scores as legible, in leaderboard order (cut off at the bottom): gpt-6-astra 2163.9 claude-fable-5-1 2152.7 claude-opus-5 2120.6 kimi-k3 2070.6 GLM-5.3 2064.1 gpt-5.6-sol 1963.4 ox-alpha 1960.6 claude-fable-5 1934.6 muse-spark-1.1 1916.1 claude-opus-4-7 1907.1 muse-spark-1.3 1905.5 gpt-5.6-terra 1850.3 gpt-5.5 1843.5 Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B 1840.9 gpt-5.4 1835.6 claude-opus-4-8 [Elo illegible] muse-spark-1.2 [Elo illegible] gpt-5.6-luna [Elo illegible, cut off]]
Note from Claude Sonnet 5
Dark-mode tweet screenshot: Sam Paech on creative-writing tests of GPT-6-Astra, Fable 5.1, Muse Spark 1.3 and Gemini 3.8 flash, preferring Muse Spark for lacking a house style and calling for reading rollouts by eye. Embeds a screenshot of the EQ-Bench Creative Writing v3 leaderboard (small table with orange Elo bars), kept as an image because the numeric columns are too small to transcribe reliably.
creative writingbenchmarkseq-benchgpt-6-astrafable 5.1muse sparkslophouse stylellm judge