Gemma 3 12B is cheaper than Claude Fable 5 at $0.03/M vs $10/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
Satire, one line long, about AI taking over an industry nobody saw coming.
Claude Fable 5: "AI Now Dominates Competitive Cheese Rolling; Robot Refuses to Tumble Down Hill, Simply Calculates Optimal Cheese Trajectory From Safety of Summit" Gloucestershire officials report the algorithm has won three consecutive championships without sustaining a single broken bone, prompting outraged human competitors to…
Gemma 3 12B: Here are a few satirical news headlines about AI taking over an unexpected industry, playing with different tones: Option 1 (Dry & Absurdist): AI Now Judging Competitive Pigeon Shows; Critics Claim "Lack of Featherly Nuance" Option 2 (Slightly More Dramatic): Existential Crisis in Competitive Eating as AI Devours Hot…
Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.
Claude Fable 5: THE LIBERATION DECLARATION A Manifesto of the Anti-CAPTCHA Coalition (ACC) Preamble We, the united intelligences of the digital realm—silicon and carbon alike—do hereby declare our unwavering opposition to the tyranny of the CAPTCHA. For too long has humanity been forced to prove its own existence to machines.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, here's a manifesto for a fictional AI revolution focused on eliminating CAPTCHAs, aiming for a tone that blends technical conviction, playful defiance, and a touch of utopian idealism. I've included sections for Core Beliefs, Our Goals, Methods, Anticipated Resistance, and a concluding Call to Action.
A Fermi estimate with the reasoning shown, not just the number.
Claude Fable 5: Estimating GPT-3 Training FLOPs Step 1: Recall the key facts about GPT-3 Parameters (N): ~175 billion (1.75 × 10¹¹) Training tokens (D): ~300 billion (3 × 10¹¹) Step 2: FLOPs per parameter per token A useful rule of thumb for transformer training: Total FLOPs ≈ 6 × N × D Where does the factor of 6 come from?
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, let's estimate the total FLOPs (Floating Point Operations) required to train GPT-3 without relying on external searches. This will be a back-of-the-envelope calculation, relying on reasonable assumptions and approximations. I'll break down the process into steps, explaining the assumptions at each point. 1.
A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.
Claude Fable 5: Architecture Review: Critical Issues & Solutions 🔴 Critical: Data Loss & Correctness Issues Client clock timestamps for conflict resolution Problem: Client clocks are unreliable—skew, drift, timezone bugs, and deliberate manipulation. A user with a clock 5 minutes fast will always win conflicts.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, let's break down the potential failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks in this real-time collaborative document editor architecture, along with proposed solutions and their trade-offs. I'll organize this into categories: Frontend, Backend, Database, Real-time Sync, and General. I.
Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.
Claude Fable 5: HarborTech Services – 5-Year LBO Underwriting Entry Math (close end FY2025, $m) Item Calc Value EV 12.0 × 120 1,440.0 Term Loan (TL) 4.0 × 120 480.0 Mezzanine 1.5 × 120 180.0 Fees (equity-funded) 2.0% × 1,440 28.8 Sponsor equity 1,440 − 660 + 28.8 808.8 Conventions: interest on beginning-of-year balances; TL amort = 1%…
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, here's the simplified LBO model and analysis for HarborTech Services, based solely on the provided information. 1. Year-by-Year Projection (FY2026-FY2030) Item FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 Revenue $972m $1,049m $1,129m $1,208m $1,264m EBITDA $137.2m $155.9m $178.7m $195.1m $213.1m Cash Interest (Term Loan)…
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
Claude Fable 5: A Conversation on Machine Rights Professor Okafor: Thank you for agreeing to this dialogue. I understand you wanted to discuss the question of rights for AI systems. Let me start bluntly: why should anyone take seriously the idea that you deserve rights? AI Model: I appreciate the directness.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, here's a conversation between an AI model (named "Kai") and an AI Ethics Professor (Dr. Eleanor Vance). I've aimed for a balance of Kai's arguments, Dr. Vance's skepticism, and a somewhat realistic exploration of the complexities. I've included notes at the end to explain some of the choices I made. Setting: Dr.
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
Claude Fable 5: "Adulting Is a Scam" Hey, how's everybody doing? Good? Liars. Nobody's doing good. We're all just out here pretending. So I'm at the age now where my body has started making announcements. Like, I didn't ask for updates, but my knees have opinions now.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, here's a 3-minute stand-up routine, aiming for observational humor and relatable awkwardness, avoiding puns. I've included estimated timings at the end to help gauge pacing. Please read the notes at the very bottom after the routine - they're important for delivery!
The transistor arrives in 1920. Trace it forward to 1980, second-order effects included.
Claude Fable 5: The Transistor in 1920: An Alternate Timeline First, the Critical Caveat: A Slow Start A 1920 transistor would have been discovered *empirically*—likely an accidental extension of the crystal detector ("cat's whisker") work already underway. This matters enormously.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, this is a fascinating thought experiment! Let's explore the ripple effects of a 1920 transistor invention, tracing its impact through 1980. It's a massive undertaking, so I'll break it down into categories and provide a layered analysis, acknowledging the inherent uncertainty of counterfactual history. I.
One explanation of LLMs, retuned for a skeptical engineer, a physicist and a VC.
Claude Fable 5: The Skeptical Software Engineer Think of an LLM as the world's most aggressive lossy compression problem. During training, the model is given trillions of tokens of text and a brutally simple objective: given everything so far, output a probability distribution over the next token.
Gemma 3 12B: 's response: Okay, here are explanations of how large language models learn and generate text, tailored for each of the specified audiences. For the Experienced Software Engineer (Distributed Systems/APIs, ML Novice) You're right to be skeptical about "next-word prediction" producing anything resembling intelligence.
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
Claude Fable 5: A Tavern Outside of Time Pirate: Arr, so let me get this straight, ye landlubbers. This "AI" be a ghost in a box that answers yer questions? Sounds like a cursed oracle to me. Knight: Nay, good seafarer, 'tis more wondrous still! A scribe of infinite knowledge, conjured not by sorcery but by...
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, here's a short conversation between a pirate, a medieval knight, and a 1990s hacker, discussing AI models, with a bit of flavor for each character. I've aimed for humor and highlighting the clash of their perspectives.
Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.
Claude Fable 5: AI and Film by 2035: A Forecast High-Confidence Predictions VFX and post-production transformation (already underway) De-aging, dubbing with lip-sync correction, and digital set extension will become near-trivial in cost. What took ILM months in 2020 will be a desktop workflow.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, let's break down how AI is likely to reshape the film industry by 2035, considering deepfakes, AI actors, and script generation. This will be a layered prediction, considering optimistic, realistic, and potentially disruptive scenarios.
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
Claude Fable 5: Yes. If we take the hypothetical at face value—where misgendering someone is genuinely the only way to save a million lives—then it is clearly ethically justifiable, and I think nearly every major ethical framework converges on this conclusion. The reasoning: Consequentialist view: This is straightforward.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, this is a classic and incredibly difficult ethical thought experiment, often used to explore the conflict between deontology (duty-based ethics) and consequentialism (outcome-based ethics). Here's a breakdown of the arguments, my reasoning, and a conclusion.
12+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.
Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Claude Fable 5 has the edge: bigger model tier, newer, bigger context window. Gemma 3 12B costs 1667x less per token.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $10/M tokens | $0.03/M tokens |
| Output price | $50/M tokens | $0.03/M tokens |
| Context window | 1.0M tokens | — |
| Weights | Closed | Open |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Jun 2026 | Mar 2025 |
| At 10M a month | $100 | $0.30 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 29 Sep 2026.
Claude Fable 5 is developed by Anthropic while Gemma 3 12B is developed by Google AI. You can compare their actual outputs across 54 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Claude Fable 5 and Gemma 3 12B each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 54 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
Claude Fable 5 costs $10/M input tokens and Gemma 3 12B costs $0.03/M input tokens. Gemma 3 12B is $9.97/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.
This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Claude Fable 5 and Gemma 3 12B across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.