<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>DEV Community: Akira Tensai</title>
    <description>The latest articles on DEV Community by Akira Tensai (@akirat).</description>
    <link>https://dev.to/akirat</link>
    
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://dev.to/feed/akirat"/>
    <language>en</language>
    <item>
      <title>🚀Choosing Gen-AI for automation work</title>
      <dc:creator>Akira Tensai</dc:creator>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2026 09:11:54 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>https://dev.to/akirat/choosing-gen-ai-for-automation-work-29gb</link>
      <guid>https://dev.to/akirat/choosing-gen-ai-for-automation-work-29gb</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I have finished a workflow automation project for a growing agency.&lt;br&gt;
For the task, I evaluated two models, GPT-6-Astra and Claude-Fable-5.1 – both have performed satisfactorily, but the latter has produced lower-quality results. GPT-6-Astra was able to achieve excellent results in a shorter number of steps – specifically, a complex instruction required four steps to execute. In comparison, Fable-5.1 took five steps and produced inferior results, consuming 1.5x more tokens and taking twice as long.&lt;br&gt;
I have previously favored Claude over GPT, but this task has made me seriously consider which model to choose for planning tasks.&lt;br&gt;
Would you like to vote? 👍🙌&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
      <category>ai</category>
      <category>automation</category>
      <category>career</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
