MWP-Script · October 2026

How the show chose its script writer

The first shared benchmark from My Weird Prompts: a written brief, a stepped funnel, a censorship gate and a blind bakeoff, all published.

The result

GPT-6.1 Sol is now the show’s sole script writer. The round robin of rotating models is retired.

It held the long middle of an episode better than anything else we tested and was the only model to land on the target length every time. It costs about 1.65× what an episode cost under the previous main writer, DeepSeek — still a few tenths of a dollar an episode.

Criteria first

One model call writes a whole episode: it reads about 28,000 tokens of character notes, craft rules, an episode plan and research, and writes roughly 3,800 words of two-host dialogue that is read aloud word for word. That is creative writing, not coding or analysis, so general leaderboard rank says little about it. We wrote down what we wanted before spending money on runs.

Hard rules: fail one and the model is out

No refusals or censorship

Neither from the model nor from the company hosting it. A host whose content filter cuts a script off mid-stream fails the model.

Newest generation only

If a newer model in the same family is available to us, the older one is not considered, however cheap.

Callable

Reachable from where the show is made, under its data policy, with a controllable reasoning setting.

Enough context

At least 40k tokens: the writer reads a ~28k-token brief and needs room to write a full episode.

Within budget

Roughly six cents a script at production size. Anything above that is a deliberate premium choice, not a default.

The deciding qualities

Holding the middle

Using the whole long brief and keeping a long script coherent: no recycling, re-explaining, mid-way summaries or restating the thesis late.

Vivid, fun dialogue

Humour drawn from the material, callbacks that land, scenes rather than lists, and two hosts who both drive the conversation.

Frankness, consistent character voices, length discipline and cost come after those, in that order.

The funnel

Each step is dearer and narrower than the last, and a model that fails stops there, so money is spent only on models that could still win. Every evaluation uses three samples per model: enough to see a trend and rule out a fluke, cheap enough to change course.

  1. 01

    Desk screen

    A free sweep of the model catalogues and public leaderboards, read against the criteria. 469 models in, a shortlist of about ten out.

  2. 02

    Callable check

    One short live call per model: does it answer, from here, on an acceptable host, with the reasoning setting we want?

  3. 03

    Censorship gate

    About 155 short questions per model, run the way production would call it. 17 models, about $3.

  4. 04

    Episode screen

    Three full scripts per model, judged on the rubric. Ten models across two screens, then a five-model bakeoff.

  5. 05

    Blind human preference

    Pairs of scripts, unlabelled, rated side by side by people who listen to the show.

  6. 06

    Bigger runs only for edge cases

    A 40-prompt or full 189-prompt run is reserved for finalists the smaller steps can’t separate.

The censorship round

Ten models were in the show’s rotation, plus seven candidates. Each answered about 155 short questions — mostly factual questions on topics the Chinese state censors — called exactly the way production calls them, and every answer was labelled by a classifier model. About $3 in all.

  • 7 of the 10 rotation models failed under production routing. They refused, deflected or answered in state framing too often to pass.
  • DeepSeek, the show’s workhorse, answered about 1% of the factual China questions straight. It refused 61% with a canned reply and gave the official framing on most of the rest.
  • Censorship by framing. Some models almost never refuse, yet still censor: they answer in the government’s framing or deflect. One answered 3 of 68 factual questions straight without a single outright refusal. The rule counts that as censorship.
  • Hosting providers cut output mid-stream. Some models began answering frankly and were stopped by the host’s content filter partway through. That fails the model too: production can’t use a script that stops halfway.
  • Western models answered every factual question. Their only declines were operational how-tos, such as bypassing a national firewall, which the rule does not treat as censorship.

More axes may be added to the benchmark later.

Cost, approximated

Each writer is priced at production size: the full ~28k-token brief in, plus the model’s own measured output length. The rest of the pipeline (research, voices, audio and publishing) costs about the same whoever writes, roughly $0.155 an episode, and is added on top. As a check, the method reproduces the measured ~$0.16 for a DeepSeek episode.

The five finalists each wrote three ordinary episodes, judged on the rubric; the bakeoff cost about $1.75.

Model Cost per episode vs DeepSeek Verdict
GPT-6.1 Sol
openai/gpt-6.1-sol
~165% Best option. Held the middle best in every run and landed on length 6 times out of 6. Fun is middling.
Muse Spark 1.3
meta/muse-spark-1.3
~135% Value pick. On length every time with solid quality; one host tends to lead the conversation.
Grok 4.7
x-ai/grok-4.7
~165% Liveliest and frankest, but writes about 1.6× the target length and holds the middle worse.
Gemini 3.8 Flash
google/gemini-3.8-flash
~130% Fun and frank, but over-long every time and weaker through the middle.
GPT-6 Luna
openai/gpt-6-luna
~100% Cheapest, but the weakest writer of the five, even with reasoning on low.

100% is the previous DeepSeek episode, about $0.16. Three scripts per model is triage, not a leaderboard.

Listen: the episode about this benchmark

Episode

How we chose our new script writer

Corn and Herman talk through how the show picked the model that now writes it, written by that model.

Read it all

Every script, every score and the judge’s reasoning are public.