Richard Thomas (@RichDevLab) header
Richard Thomas (@RichDevLab) profile picture

architect by day, tinkerer by night. ≥ https://teapawt.net/t.co/kmsJMKOyJH ≥ https://teapawt.net/t.co/v61NkbBarz ≥ https://teapawt.net/t.co/Zd5g7Oryh5

Spain
Joined July 2022
This is a "let's connect" post wrapped in a physics simulation so it doesn't feel like one. Crossed 200 followers. Every coin is one of you. The jar holds 500. I build things in public and occasionally finish them. If you do too, say hi.
2
7
63,524
Replying to @kimmonismus
on my coding benchmark sol is already close to that: 74.1 vs opus 5.5's 75.5 on the same 3 seeds, at $0.47 a run vs $5.35. that's 11x the cost for 1.4 points caveat is that it's only in my little benchmark and not on your real codebase
56
Replying to @patience_cave
the "half the cost" part holds up in codex too: across 3 runs terra used almost the exact same token count as sol (1.96m vs 1.94m) so it landed at $0.22 vs $0.47, and ran 2.5x faster wall-clock on isolated algorithms like maze solving it's right on sol's heels. the only place it really drops points against sol is long-horizon state where multiple scripts have to feed each other instead of running in isolation people are being way too critical imo
48
Replying to @HamidoFx1
Outperforming on what?
3
1
15
6,059
Replying to @OpenAIDevs
ran gpt-6.1 terra through three 6-hour seeds in codex (medium effort) on farmerbench to see how it holds up on longer coding loops. it averaged 62.16 (58.47 / 66.34 / 61.68) at $0.22 and 2m 56s a run across 147 tool calls, opening all 11 resources on every seed. when a locked hat crashed its script on seed 3, it read the docs, wrote a one-line fix and recovered in a minute. the catch vs 6.1 sol (74.08 at $0.47): terra wrote 17 to 18 separate small scripts per seed and only edited a saved program twice across 54 writes. great for fast bounded tasks, less keen on refactoring when the grid scales to 22×22.
1
1
107
Replying to @ArtificialAnlys
seeing the exact same ordering in codex on farmerbench (three 6-hour seeds each at medium effort): gpt-6.1 sol: 74.1 mean at $0.47 a run (159 points/$) gpt-6 astra: 66.6 mean at $1.79 a run (37 points/$) gpt-6.1 terra: 62.2 mean at $0.22 a run (286 points/$) gpt-6 luna: 15.7 mean at $0.08 a run (189 points/$) at 286 points per dollar and 2m 56s a run, terra sits right on the pareto frontier between deepseek v4.1 flash ($0.13/run, 46.8 mean) and 6.1 sol ($0.47/run, 74.1 mean).
119
Replying to @thsottiaux
the 2x usage math vs 6.1 sol holds up almost to the cent in codex. across three 6-hour seeds on farmerbench (medium effort), terra used 1.96m tokens a run vs sol's 1.94m, so the run cost dropped from $0.47 to $0.22 (286 points per dollar) and wall time dropped from 7m 35s to 2m 56s, the fastest on the board. it averaged 62.2 (58.5 / 66.3 / 61.7) and beat gpt-6 astra on seed 2 (66.3 vs 63.2 at $1.79), though sol still leads on all three seeds (74.1 mean) once the codebase scales up to a 32×32 grid.
4
6,533
GPT-6.1 Terra played six hours of a coding game in about 3 minutes. Same game, same three seeds: Terra: 62 pts · 3 min · $0.22 a run GPT-6.1 Sol: 74 pts · 8 min · $0.47 GPT-6 Astra: 67 pts · 5 min · $1.79 Very fast. Not quite Sol. 🎥
2
3
72
daily reminder that you can now just think of stuff and then type stuff and then have stuff and that's pretty cool
12