tetsuo (@tetsuoai) “The Long-Horizon Terminal-Bench paper landed around May and concluded that the r” — TopicDigg

The Long-Horizon Terminal-Bench paper landed around May and concluded that the results showed headroom for improvement. The best of the 15 models they tested finished seven of the 46 tasks, and the mean across all models was about two. That ceiling is what fifth place looks like on the current board. Grok 4.5 is now at 13, and Fable 5 is at 12. A single task costs around 9.9M tokens, 231 episodes, and 85 minutes of wall clock time. That means agents are holding a plan across all of it and finishing, and that capability nearly doubled in two months. SpaceXAI is on top, and they marketed the 4.2x output token efficiency, which undersells it. Two dollars in, six out, per million. On a benchmark where one task burns ten million tokens, the bill is dominated by input replay, and they say Grok 4.5 solves tasks in under half the number of steps, so there is less accumulated context to resend on every call. The efficiency compounds on the input side, which is the side that costs money. Fable 5 is one task behind. Their own launch chart has them losing DeepSWE 1.1 to Fable by 17 points, and Grok 4.20 sits on this same board at 0.080 with zero completions, so whatever happened in 4.5 is not a family trait. My read is that the 4.5 jump came out of training alongside Cursor, which is a stream of real agentic edit trajectories nobody else has at that volume, and nothing in the counterevidence argues against it compounding into the next checkpoint.