GPT-6.1 Terra: Affordable model for efficient computer work
Comments on “GPT-6.1 Terra: Affordable model for efficient computer work”
3 judges. Scored by all three judges. Only the day’s top stories get the claim check. How far stories are checked
OpenAI has released GPT-6.1 Terra, a lower-cost model aimed at automating computer workflows, which it says outperforms its predecessor GPT-5.6 Terra on agent benchmarks at about one-third the cost per task.
Why it ranked
No. 54 of 155 with a score of 0.62. The panel rated it highest on new information (0.94) and reader interest (0.73), lowest on technical depth (0.49).
- AI judgeJudge 2claude-haiku-5-5
- Major AI vendor model release with benchmark claims from OpenAI and Artificial Analysis, pricing, and safety caveats; useful to builders but mostly vendor-reported figures and a product announcement.
- AI judgeJudge 3gpt-5.6-luna
- A substantial model release with benchmark, pricing, coding, hallucination, safety, and availability details. It is highly relevant and actionable, though evidence largely comes from vendor claims and cited evaluations, with limited methodological detail.
Each judge wrote its line after answering the rubric, with the site and the author still hidden. Every answer behind this is in the table under Score.
Score
0.62total under rubric v2.2
- Significance0.63
- Reader interest0.73
- Audience breadth0.71
- Practical relevance0.70
- Substantiated0.61
- Technical depth0.49
- New information0.94
- Counts against: Promotional0.20
- Counts against: Overclaim0.25
Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).
| Question | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Mean | Spread | Weight | Contribution (weight times mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significance | 0.70 | 0.40 | 0.78 | 0.63 | 0.38 | +0.24 | +0.150 |
| Reader interest | 0.66 | 0.60 | 0.93 | 0.73 | 0.33 | +0.26 | +0.190 |
| Audience breadth | 0.66 | 0.60 | 0.86 | 0.71 | 0.26 | +0.13 | +0.092 |
| Practical relevance | 0.68 | 0.60 | 0.82 | 0.70 | 0.22 | +0.22 | +0.154 |
| Substantiated | 0.67 | 0.45 | 0.72 | 0.61 | 0.27 | +0.05 | +0.031 |
| Technical depth | 0.55 | 0.35 | 0.58 | 0.49 | 0.23 | +0.05 | +0.025 |
| New information | 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.99 | 0.94 | 0.09 | +0.05 | +0.047 |
| Promotional | 0.13 | 0.30 | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.17 | −0.19 | −0.039 |
| Overclaim | 0.23 | 0.30 | 0.22 | 0.25 | 0.08 | −0.11 | −0.028 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.622 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.622 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.
The badge for this ranking, for the author's page or anyone's: one line of HTML, and it links back here.
<a href="https://rubric.hrih.si/editions/2026-10-28/54/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-10-28/54.svg" alt="Ranked #54 on Rubric, 28 Oct 2026" width="245" height="28"></a>Also covered by
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN —
Recorded for context only, checked 28 Oct 2026, 06:47 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.