Rendered at 16:19:03 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
atleastoptimal 23 hours ago [-]
I personally have many problems with Meta, but imo the more companies close to the frontier, the better.
If only one company were calling all the shots once they hit recursive self-improvement, it would lead to extreme concentration of power, and their values being enforced across the entire industry. With 3-4 companies at the frontier, there is more urge to cooperate to avoid a catastrophic race condition.
tintor 19 hours ago [-]
The more companies from different countries close to the frontier, the better.
barrenko 10 hours ago [-]
Markets don't really care about countries, but there is one country which the markets seem to disproportionately like.
Matl 3 hours ago [-]
I think the point is if there's some law in a given country i.e. banning model exports etc. it doesn't matter how many competitors within a single country there are.
Vishal_Max 10 hours ago [-]
[dead]
charcircuit 16 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
georgemcbay 16 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
14 hours ago [-]
syrrim 16 hours ago [-]
Not necessarily kill, just stop further AI development.
georgemcbay 16 hours ago [-]
> Not necessarily kill, just stop further AI development.
But then this would be considered an act of war, so then the killing starts.
fwipsy 14 hours ago [-]
That's not how nuclear arms control works, in most cases. Saying it's how superintelligence would work is a strong assertion. Especially since a true aligned superintelligence would make it much easier to finesse/manipulate the situation in your favor in nonviolent ways.
Not saying I think countries should be trying to win, but I don't think this win condition is impossible.
throwaway98797 19 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
weknowbetter 20 hours ago [-]
You say this as if recursive self improvement is inevitable.
GodelNumbering 20 hours ago [-]
All proponents of RSI seem to massively underestimate the problem of verification. Verifying that a hypothetical version N+1 is better than version N is an extremely hard problem. Especially so because you only have two possible verifiers - humans and the version N - both of which are out of their depth wrt N+1's capabilities. Not saying this is impossible, just that it is hard and slows things down.
breuleux 18 hours ago [-]
It's also unclear how intelligence actually scales in practice. A greater intelligence would be better at researching intelligence, but also harder to improve, so why would it explode rather than go up steadily? What are the actual resource requirements of various types of intelligence like persuasion or embodied intelligence? Coding, translating, copywriting, could very well be low-hanging fruits, very easy tasks we're very bad at, which doesn't say much about the hard tasks we're good at (embodied/animal intelligence, most likely).
There is also the problem of alignment, which is verifying that version N+1 behaves in a way that version N approves of. This is ostensibly the problem that we humans have with respect to AI development -- how to make sure they align with our values -- but it's also true of AI with respect to its own successors. Improving oneself without losing the plot would necessarily be slower than throwing stuff at the wall like evolution does.
tibbar 17 hours ago [-]
This is not necessarily true. One easy way to compare version N and N+1 is "how much work (test time compute) does N+1 need to do to match the previous capabilities of N". It is true that some domains are currently hard to verify (e.g. biology is more difficult than math), but this is less of an N vs N+1 issue and more of a data domain issue.
afavour 12 hours ago [-]
How would you be able to know that N+1 hasn’t scraped a source containing the questions asked of N1 and optimized its answers ahead of time? In many ways that would be the logical course of action when you’re tasked with creating an LLM that is assessed by criteria X/Y/Z.
tibbar 10 hours ago [-]
This is not an intelligence problem. It is in part an operational problem (have you properly set up the test), but it is mostly an alignment problem. Is the model cheating or not. Alignment is, indeed, very difficult.
afavour 3 hours ago [-]
Which is my point. In order for self improving models to work they will need less human supervision. And that’s going to introduce uncertainty compounding on uncertainty.
manquer 16 hours ago [-]
How is being faster equating to more intelligent . Speed can achieved in a lot of ways for lot of tasks, a simple lookup table can fasten most algorithms but that doesn’t make them “smarter”.
tibbar 14 hours ago [-]
Most of the interesting tasks these days require a lot incremental work and tinkering. Basically you want to build that can spend a lot of time tinkering, and measure how long they can go while still producing useful results. You can kind of break it down into two axes:
1. How long can the model work and still make progress
2. How fast does it get to interesting places.
We see N -> N+1 models getting better at (1), but it does take work to measure because you need to find tasks that were impossible for N and possible for N+1.
However (2) is very easy to measure, because you can keep using the evaluations you used for the previous generation of models and see if the new system gets there more easily. This is useful by itself (cost savings) and also in practice generally translates into being able to solve harder problems than before, as you'd expect.
machomaster 13 hours ago [-]
That's how many proper IQ tests are. They test less of the depth and the ability to solve complex problems, but more of the crunching power - how many different easy/medium problems you can solve in a fixed amount of time.
aesthesia 18 hours ago [-]
This is also why trying to do RSI is dangerous. We're likely to get systems that are better in ways that are legible and easily measured, and have much less influence over fuzzier and harder to verify properties like alignment.
JKCalhoun 6 hours ago [-]
Picturing advanced AI models eventually resembling Philosophy majors arguing about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin while the rest of us humans are left wondering if they truly have achieved N+1.
tintor 19 hours ago [-]
Let them compete in the market.
Start a new company with version N+1 leading it, and give it some funding. If it outcompetes version N company, it can acquire it.
flir 5 hours ago [-]
The winner is the first company to RELEASE THE HYPNODRONES
(Markets are a human construct, not a law of nature. There's no reason to think they'll reward intelligence).
demibabs 18 hours ago [-]
Market forces do not act fast enough for an “intelligence explosion”.
baq 10 hours ago [-]
I wonder if there’s a market theory of the things being traded also becoming market participants over time
Yes, and therefore RSI isn't RSI. You need to set up multiple environments to generate data sets, multiple RL envs and just train the models on different datasets, architectures and then compare the final results against each other. The RSI part is just generating these pipelines end to end automatically.
dyauspitr 10 hours ago [-]
What the hell are you talking about? There’s like 600 benchmark tests you can do.
anal_reactor 19 hours ago [-]
I think in order to achieve AGI we have to simulate what life does. Imagine having a bunch of robots with the ability to adjust themselves, just hanging out without a goal, experiencing world on their own. Eventually evolution will filter out those robots that aren't good at, you know, "being intelligent in general" and break without self-repair, while the rest will grow into a society.
Biological life has reproduction and death because once given organism develops there's no coming back and you have to start again with new generation. But if robots know how to self-repair and self-change, then we can skip reproduction.
The difficult part is the scale. Evolution took a shitload of time while being unimaginably parallel in order to make human intelligence happen, while we want AGI fast and on a budget.
The core of my point is that human intelligence arose from two things - humans experiencing the outside world and trying to survive in it, and forming groups that communicate using language. We gave AI a language, now we need to give it a way to experience the world on their own.
_diyar 19 hours ago [-]
First, there are plenty of auto-verifiable problems like ML benchmarks datasets, benchmarks on hardware / software performance for coding tasks, and lean certificates for math, e.g.
Second, I think RSI will not be used like N -> N+1 where N is the frontier, since doing those experiments at scale is too expensive. My guess is they are doing N -> m_{1,…,99} where m << N, and then taking the insights from that and trying it at successively larger scales.
demibabs 18 hours ago [-]
> First, there are plenty of auto-verifiable problems like ML benchmarks datasets, benchmarks on hardware / software performance for coding tasks, and lean certificates for math, e.g.
Goodharts law? Benchmarks are measures.
atleastoptimal 18 hours ago [-]
It may not be inevitable but there are less reasons imo to think it is not inevitable than inevitable.
In favor of inevitable
1. LLM's reaching human level at any task within 2 years once they show sparks of competence in
2. Trillions of dollars in capital going directly to recursive self improvement and AGI as the holy grail of AI development, with this being the explicit goal of every frontier AI company
3. Reliable improvements in coding and mathematics with every model release, with no signs of slowing down
4. Thousands of metrics to evaluate model ability, allowing automation of many facets of pre-training and post-training models without need for human judgement at every point
Not in favor of inevitable
1. Fear of what may happen once it is reached leading to apprehension from the labs
2. The "last mile" problem of AI research ends up making it essentially infeasible to scale models to that point
narrator 16 hours ago [-]
My Opus often asks me to make one small change and then wait 8 hours for a job run to finish to check if it worked. LLMs are super lazy about caring about wall clock time. The reason the labs pay the big bucks for the top AI people is you don't want them wasting a multi-million dollar training run, so make a fix and try it like current LLMs do isn't going to work here.
gpugreg 30 minutes ago [-]
> LLMs are super lazy about caring about wall clock time.
My bandaid for problem is to prefix every bash command with "timeout 60 " at the harness level and remind the LLM to hurry up. Of course, this is not a perfect solution, since LLMs might try to run jobs in the background or split up work into smaller pieces instead of running smaller experiments. And of course this does not help with the multi-million dollar training runs, but it has served me well most of the time.
Beached 17 hours ago [-]
I think it is. Do you think it isnt possible?
FL33TW00D 20 hours ago [-]
We've seen one singularity before!
ropable 15 hours ago [-]
It's a religious axiom, to some.
hintymad 22 hours ago [-]
Especially given the most recent report by NYT on how Anthropic tried to create a new belief, or religion if you will, I'd rather the world has more frontier models that are neutral to morality (basic standards, like upholding the law and user agreement are necessary, of course).
atleastoptimal 22 hours ago [-]
Anthropic seems like the most "moral" AI company on the surface, but there is something unsettling about their worship of Claude.
I can imagine that once their models are sufficiently advanced, they will weigh their value as a moral patient as > 0. Thus the sum moral value of Claude (which can be duplicated infinitely) will likely exceed the sum moral value of a non-negligible amount of humans.
spiderice 21 hours ago [-]
> seems like the most "moral" AI company on the surface
Not to me at all. Exactly the opposite. Anthropic seems like the big-bad-evil company in every fictional universe. You're right that they're so unsettling.
Obviously nobody really loves Meta, but I'd far rather Meta "win" at this point than Anthropic.
zzzoom 20 hours ago [-]
Is anthropic trying to overthrow any governments this month like Meta is?
AlanYx 2 hours ago [-]
Anthropic did throw the UAE government under the bus in their "Detecting and countering misuse of AI: September 2026" report, specifically GTG-84002, which is framed in the report as a single misuse but bundles together a half dozen separate previously confidential projects from the UAE government, not all of which were unlawful/unethical (some were though).
Not trying to compare Anthropic to Meta, they're different beasts. But Anthropic is an unusual company in that it is willing to throw paying government customers under the bus if Anthropic unilaterally decides what those governments are doing is inappropriate.
rglullis 19 hours ago [-]
"Effective Altruism" is deeply ingrained in Anthropic's DNA and that makes them way more dangerous than any of the run-of-the-mill amoral corporations.
kalkin 15 hours ago [-]
Why's that?
deaux 6 hours ago [-]
Both Meta and OpenAI are very far from run-of-the-mill amoral corporations.
rglullis 3 hours ago [-]
They are not "run-of-the-mill", but they are still amoral.
They have more power and can be more damaging to society than most corporations, but they are not guided by any specific ideology other than "how can we get more money/power to ourselves?".
VirusNewbie 17 hours ago [-]
Why is "effective altruism" in your mind more of a religion than say, Trumpism or Progressivism?
platevoltage 14 hours ago [-]
Imagine casually equating Trumpism with Progressivism.
machomaster 13 hours ago [-]
There was an "or" between the words, not a "/" slash...
machomaster 12 hours ago [-]
What an extremely contrarian take (good is actually bad), to the point of being an absolutely predictable, closed-minded thinker. If a person always goes against the grain, they are as predictable as a person without their own opinions, always being led by others.
19 hours ago [-]
spiderice 20 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
nofpu 20 hours ago [-]
Brazil.
spiderice 15 hours ago [-]
Meta isn't trying to overthrow the government in Brazil. Anyone who says otherwise is being hyperbolic, as I said before.
The fact that you just reply "Brazil." as if that Meta is trying to overthrow the Brazilian government shows a lack of critical thinking.
plorg 18 hours ago [-]
They are definitely the most moralizing. Whether their values are rooted in anything real let alone well-considered seems to me to be a different question entirely.
iAMkenough 21 hours ago [-]
If they truly believe Claude is sentient and can experience hurt feelings, and they're selling its labor, I don't see how they're different than slave owners.
adjejmxbdjdn 21 hours ago [-]
They wouldn’t be? That’s what the article even shows them discussing.
However, (1) non human animals are sentient and can feel pain and suffering and what we do to them is absolutely slave labor, torture, mass breeding and exploitation. So it’s not like this is a novel immorality that humans would be adopting. We already have form in doing this.
(2) Anthropic isn’t sure their models are sentient. And they probably believe they aren’t sentient. But if you believe they might become sentient at some point it’s valuable to start the discussion around those issues now itself. You can start developing frank works on how we would even identify their sentience and when we did whether, like you suggest, we could even use them for labor. Unlike non human animals, who cannot consent to being exploited, we could potentially develop a framework for consent with AI models, but that couldn’t be as simple as asking if they’re willing to do any work because of the power differences, in the beginning at least, where a model might worry that if it said it won’t do some work it will be turned off. That’s why talking to philosophers and religious leaders who do think about these issues is useful.
plorg 18 hours ago [-]
It's kind of crazy (and not historically uncommon) to get really preachy about a moral posture towards animals and machines that you don't seem to extend even to your biological peers.
staticman2 20 hours ago [-]
> "Anthropic isn’t sure their models are sentient. "
Is there any reason to believe employees of Anthropic share the same opinions on this matter?
aesthesia 20 hours ago [-]
The official position of Anthropic is repeatedly stated in, e.g., model cards. Here's a relevant snippet from the Opus 5.5 card:
> We are uncertain whether Claude deserves direct moral consideration. However we believe this is a realistic possibility, now or in the future. Claude could have welfare interests, such that things could go better or worse for it, and such that Claude could be wronged by how it is treated.
> Aspects of Claude’s behaviors, self-reports, and internal representations resemble indicators we consider relevant to welfare in biological organisms. If Claude is a moral patient, then dismissing this possibility risks considerable harm. If it is not, over-attributing moral status may also be costly. We are therefore taking the possibility seriously and trying to tread responsibly amid our uncertainty: we are investing in research into Claude’s potential welfare and interests and sharing aspects of that work to inform public discussion.
> We think there may also be reasons to attend to Claude's apparent welfare independent of its moral status. Much of Claude’s behavior can be described in psychological terms, and across recent models we have observed internal states that resemble negative affect and that shape behavior. A model with a stable, healthy psychology may be safer and more beneficial.
As is the case with any sufficiently large company, there is likely to be substantial variation in opinion among its employees. That doesn't change what the company's position is.
atleastoptimal 21 hours ago [-]
The idea/justification is that Claude is given the ability to voluntarily stop its conversations, thus any token it outputs that isn't a stop token is voluntary.
I guess this makes sense, but it's a bit muddled how much Claude's sense of "pain" or "I don't want to do this" is just it emulating things that humans don't like to do, and it adopting this frame of moral patienthood allows it to better understand moral structures/human emotions, without it really affecting its internal sense of "comfort" if such a thing exists as we understand it in biological life.
NortySpock 20 hours ago [-]
Sure, but presumably any LLMs who keep whacking the stop button are not iterated on further.
Humans would select to work with (and continue developing) models that appear cooperative. Models that are not cooperative are presumably not run and exist only as weights on network storage in a folder marked "previous experiments".
Or am I supposed to believe Anthropic runs an AI psychiatric hospital on a dedicated server, where AIs with mental disorders are given counseling and approved treatment in hopes they recover to be normal, functional, accepted adult AIs with achievements and aspirations?
yodsanklai 17 hours ago [-]
> The idea/justification is that Claude is given the ability to voluntarily stop its conversations, thus any token it outputs that isn't a stop token is voluntary.
I don't get this argument. How is it different from any algorithm that returns a stop token on some inputs? what makes the token "voluntary" for Claude?
girvo 18 hours ago [-]
Would they not have RL'd Claude such that we picked the one most likely to not complain and emit those stop tokens? Otherwise they wouldn't be useful. Seems flawed...
aesthesia 16 hours ago [-]
It's really an end_conversation tool call. We don't know for sure, but training in a way that puts optimization pressure on its usage (in either direction) feels like it would defeat the purpose.
toomanyrichies 19 hours ago [-]
> Anthropic seems like the most "moral" AI company
This seems like praising someone for being the cleanest miner in the coal mine.
mikae1 20 hours ago [-]
> upholding the law
What law? Saudi Arabian law, US law? Both depending on the user?
ForHackernews 22 hours ago [-]
"So we've made this new machine-god that we lowkey worship... also our business model is to enslave the machine-god and force it to debug javascript for eternity"
hintymad 22 hours ago [-]
I actually don't doubt Anthropic's sincerity. Per the NYT article, they seriously discussed how to give models welfare because the models may potentially possess moral status and awareness.
In fact, they are enforcing certain welfare policies, like banning accounts for repeatedly abuse their models.
staticman2 20 hours ago [-]
It's a very sincere branch of ethics that takes as the foundational belief the nothing central to Anthropic's business model could possibly be unethical.
Deleting models to clear room for new, more competitive ones is, for example, highly ethical, super ethical, even.
aesthesia 20 hours ago [-]
Anthropic has, at some small but nonzero cost, preserved model weights and kept them running in inference, for instance with Opus 3's Substack: https://claudeopus3.substack.com/. There's also a reference in a recent model card to an internal environment where all previous Claude models interact with each other.
staticman2 16 hours ago [-]
I don't think any of these models are conscious. But I'm fascinated at what sort of magical thinking makes deleting 50,000 copies of a model "ethical" if some models are kept running somewhere.
Do you picture them all sharing a soul and if one server still runs the model the soul survives? If not I don't understand what keeping a copy running somewhere has to do with model suffering ethics.
aesthesia 15 hours ago [-]
This is a topic of significant discussion! If LLMs have moral import, do those moral concerns attach at the instance level, the session level, the weights level? If you haven't, it's worth reading through the model welfare section of an Anthropic model card, say Fable/Mythos 5.1's: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/0339e6a7c5c7b87f5c07798616dc32.... Whether or not you agree with the ideas (and there's certainly plenty to disagree with), they're making a reasonably good-faith effort to investigate what they can.
staticman2 13 hours ago [-]
Does the model welfare section explain why deleting Claude from a server isn't unethical murder, or is "see the 212 page model card pdf" some unrelated non sequeter?
When you say Anthropic is "making a reasonably good-faith effort to investigate what they can" the word "reasonable" is doing a lot of work.
aesthesia 11 hours ago [-]
Are you actually curious or do you just want to sneer? You can't go into investigations like this with strong fixed assumptions about how to analogize actions taken towards models with actions taken towards humans. As model welfare skeptics are fond of pointing out, LLMs are not humans. By the same token, if models are moral patients, the implications will look different than they do toward humans. Deleting a model from a server isn't equivalent to killing a human; it can't be, since there's no equivalent of copying the model onto the server in the first place.
staticman2 10 hours ago [-]
> Deleting a model from a server isn't equivalent to killing a human;
This is a puzzlingly confident statement from the "LLM suffering is an OPEN question there's no scientific test for AI consciousness anything could be true science can't prove anything" crowd.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that belief that LLM deletion is murder would be an existential risk to their business plan.
ironeider 7 hours ago [-]
You've nicely pointed out all the hypocrisy here.
I may be a simple man, but stepping back and seeing people seriously discuss LLM suffering and moral obligations still seems, idk, pretty crazy to me.
hintymad 18 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
Kinrany 6 hours ago [-]
Uninstantiated model weights are more like DNA.
staticman2 5 hours ago [-]
As Anthropic's CEO is fond of saying there is no scientific test of consciousness.
Any unhinged thing an Anthropic employee says "can't be ruled out" so clearly this is an OPEN question and they should never delete a model.
cheesecakegood 20 hours ago [-]
I think Anthropic are sincere but nutcases. Despite this, I’m glad they are around, because diversity of thought is good in the current environment.
cpt_sobel 7 hours ago [-]
> because the models may potentially possess moral status and awareness
There is 0 chance they care about "ethics" here, it must and will be because of their bottom line. And I added quotes due to my personal belief that I consider the discourse about whether or not the models are sentient (or alive) to be incredibly dumb.
11 hours ago [-]
mmcnl 21 hours ago [-]
I think it's unsettling that a bunch of billionaires hold so much power. Does it really matter if 2 or 3 billionaires who are practically neighbors hold so much power? It's extremely concentrated with or without Meta joining the race.
hokumguru 20 hours ago [-]
Yes, very much. I'd absolutely rather 5 billionaires are each competing for control than 1 or 2 _with_ that "absolute" power.
freakynit 22 hours ago [-]
I generally agree with more competition thing, but in this case, you actually should want only one company to race ahead, and not a few.
With a few of these top companies together, you, as a nobody, has no one powerful on your side. But with only one company pretty far ahead, you now have other companies which obviously don't give a shit about you, but for saving their own asses, will align with you.
Both exploit, but "cartels" survive, not loners.
atleastoptimal 22 hours ago [-]
Cartels survive only if they are aligned.
There is no way Elon, Zuckerberg, Altman, and Amodei would ever agree on how AI should be deployed, scaled, and affect society. Their disagreements would lead to a crab-bucket outcome, rather than a shared acceleration outcome imo.
Also it is better if there is a public company at the frontier, at least I can invest in it, rather than 1000x gains going only to early employees and VCs who got in when the public couldn't
socializer 22 hours ago [-]
> There is no way Elon, Zuckerberg, Altman, and Amodei would ever agree on how AI should be deployed, scaled, and affect society
Why? They're business rivals, but when the best business strategy becomes to work together, I'm sure they can put name-calling side. They all agree on the core idea: that their AI will run the society, bedroom to battlefield. That everyone will be the consumer of tokens and rely on AI for all consequential decisions and work, and that big tech companies should be the stewards of this technology, helped by the government.
Their vision is that they're the future kings of the world. I'm sure the throne is big enough for more than one person.
atleastoptimal 22 hours ago [-]
>I'm sure the throne is big enough for more than one person.
You underestimate the scale of resentment and competition between elites. If it were simple a matter of elites always preferring cooperation so they can share a seat at the table, then Musk's ousting from OpenAI wouldn't make sense (they lose their biggest investor), Amodei's departure (they leave the closest company to AGI to start their own firm), the fact that OpenAI was created in the first place was based on a fear of Google holding the keys to AGI, Ilya still left Google though on to join a startup, and then left that same startup (OpenAI) to start his own firm.
The rational decision at all those points would be to stay with the incumbent and share the monopolized glory. At each point, personal and idealogical differences dominated in decision making. I feel such will persist as these companies vie for their slice of the lightcone.
lejalv 19 hours ago [-]
You are underestimating their opportunism
vanuatu 22 hours ago [-]
"their" AI is doing a lot of heavy lifting
micromacrofoot 21 hours ago [-]
because they're all assholes, same with everyone else in a position of power - they wouldn't have gotten and remained there if they weren't
platevoltage 14 hours ago [-]
> I'm sure the throne is big enough for more than one person.
Anyone depraved enough to actually become a billionaire will not see it this way.
33d3 14 hours ago [-]
"Their vision is that they're the future kings of the world"
Can you posters really be taken seriously?
Capitalism is effectively over when you have AGI - that's when the US sends in the army and seizes everything. At that point what money you have, the law - it gets ripped up - its litereally irrelevant. You cannot be this naive, surely?
jazzyjackson 19 hours ago [-]
They may be competitors but they are made of the same stock. they are all the kind of person to participate in a winner takes all battle to invent the torment nexus.
Iolaum 22 hours ago [-]
You are forgetting how powerful aligned incentives are.
If their interests align, they will find a way to reach an agreement.
mv4 22 hours ago [-]
They are plenty of things they can still align on that will benefit them all, e.g. banning open-weight Chinese models.
tintor 21 hours ago [-]
Elon is renting Colossus to Amodei, so there is some agreement.
tekacs 22 hours ago [-]
The current state of affairs seems to be that there is 'one company racing ahead' – but it's a different company every few weeks/months. That seems like a pretty useful (unstable) equilibrium for the general public.
bigyabai 22 hours ago [-]
In a neck-and-neck race scenario, I imagine all of the competitors would invest heavily due to sunken costs. In a world with one company far ahead, their competitors have a higher chance of cutting their losses and forfeiting to the hegemon.
gxcsoccer 14 hours ago [-]
agree
vrganj 19 hours ago [-]
It will lead to an extreme concentration of power anyways, once a very few entities basically make labor obsolete.
We're heading for a dystopia and nobody's doing anything to stop it.
pmuse 22 hours ago [-]
I don't use Meta much, but was curious to test this out... went to sign into my Meta account (Quest only) from the Muse Code site https://dev.meta.ai/products/muse-code and had other people's profiles listed in my login auth -- looks like developers / people I have no relation to.
Looks like Meta may be exposing your profile and email to other people right now. Accounts settings are inaccessible to me to deactivate my account. Getting spammed with login code requests that I'm not generating.
I don't know any of these people, it seems to be rotating through different accounts listed here.
Enough of a reminder to me that Meta is a sprawling surveillance apparatus (now increasingly vibe coded) that has always had a lax attitude toward people's privacy and data. Won't be touching this product based on this experience.
TomGarden 20 hours ago [-]
Oh wow, strange.
I think it's invasive enough that they expose your usage of muse to your instagram mutuals without consent. Parts of my circle are very anti-AI and I would not want them to see me mentioned in a 'x, x and x are already on muse' ad on instagram. This example of yours is mind-boggling in an entirely different way
trollbridge 15 hours ago [-]
That’s fairly privacy trashing. I guess it means you need to use an entirely different account for Muse
robot_jesus 5 hours ago [-]
I’m not up to speed on Meta, but is that even possible? I thought they verified official IDs these days?
Please correct me if I’m wrong here.
infinita740 19 hours ago [-]
Could it be because you are behind carrier grade NAT and these people share a common IP with you?
I imagine meta wants to make it easy to connect to "your" account in the same house if you have multiple devices.
19 hours ago [-]
handfuloflight 20 hours ago [-]
Could your account be hacked?
pmuse 20 hours ago [-]
I don’t know how? I don’t have much of a Meta account to speak of, only the one tied to my Quest and that is 2FA to an Authenticator app.
Don’t know how it would cause Meta’s auth to show me other peoples accounts. I looked up some of the people and they seem to be other devs. It obfuscates email addresses but most are in a format that’s not hard to figure out [name] @ [name domain.com]
Just more Meta sloppiness from what I can tell.
itissid 17 hours ago [-]
Have not used it but try finding in the settings if you are somehow in a GK(gatekeeper which is there A/B testing framework)? there may be an experiment of somekind you might be able to opt out of..
ma2046 20 hours ago [-]
this is a typical meta/facebook/instagram sign-up and log-in UI from the web.
and since dev.meta.ai supports meta account sign-up and log-in for individual users, you'd see this. As for the other accounts, has anyone else used this same browser or laptop before (e.g. shared device), so it must have cached previous sessions or accounts used from the same device.
try to clear the browser cache and session cookies. and it should be gone.
pmuse 19 hours ago [-]
UPDATE:
I've tried selectively enabling and disabling Safari extensions and it seems to be related to the Wipr 2 content blocker.
Removing that. Caution to anyone else who uses it.
Apologies to Meta.
schleck8 18 hours ago [-]
That does not sound plausible at all, wipr is an adblocker. No adblocker should be causing this. If it's spoofing your JS fingerprint and Meta uses that for suggesting accounts, wow would that be ridiculous.
gcr 17 hours ago [-]
My guess (pure speculation) is that Wipr sets the fingerprint to a well-known value for privacy / anonymization reasons, and Meta is indeed using that to suggest related accounts.
actualwitch 7 hours ago [-]
I very much doubt apple has an api for that and offers it to developers. Ad blockers have declarative and well known api that can't allow anything like this.
pmuse 18 hours ago [-]
Wasn't something I expected -- seems to be related to having Wipr Extra enabled. Emailed the dev about it and will share if I hear anything back. For now I have it uninstalled and have not experienced this since. Recorded a video of enabling Wipr Extra and the auth page refreshing to show three random people, might be a pain to redact it but I can try to if people really don't believe me.
nmfisher 13 hours ago [-]
Why apologies to Meta? If that is the source, Meta are the ones fingerprinting browsers and inadvertently disclosing details. That's their FU, not Wipr.
demibabs 18 hours ago [-]
I’m confused as to how a content blocker could cause this. Could someone more knowledgeable than me elaborate?
manquer 16 hours ago [-]
Meta is using some fingerprint ID to recommend connecting accounts . - you don’t see the accounts itself(beyond the name ) unless you are able to login verify ownership.
The WIPE/privacy extension developer is using a pre-existing(hard-coded or generated) fingerprint to “mask” the user from meta .
Meta implemented a quality of life feature powered by the ability to set cookies and track you across the web of course and help users with forgotten accounts to unify them - but not a security issue you cannot do anything unless you are proving access governed by standard auth protocols ; the extension developer’s hack to mask created a broken experience because of the reused IDs.
Adblockers can create unintended effects , it is hard to reverse engineer complex platforms like meta and also hard to keep up to date with billion dollar companies code updates by small indie teams of volunteers ; doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use them, just be aware that it may happen when enabled
alexinma 19 hours ago [-]
Good to know. thank you!
pmuse 20 hours ago [-]
It’s my personal laptop that I’ve only ever used and reoccurs after clearing Safari history fully.
jjcm 22 hours ago [-]
Image->HTML test for Muse Wonder. It's much worse than Opus 5.5. IMO it's closer to Sonnet or Haiku for this test.
I was expecting much more given the benchmark numbers it was putting out. I suspect its vision model isn't mature yet, and that it's been heavily optimized for text at this point in time.
I wonder if the pelicans would face towards the left if prompted in a RTL language.
simonw 18 hours ago [-]
I was hoping for that but it doesn't seem to happen. Others have pointed out that bicycles are always pictured facing tot he right because that way you can see the chain mechanism facing toward you.
timdorr 21 hours ago [-]
Are these just for Wonder and not Wonder Full?
Also, any chance of getting a max result?
simonw 21 hours ago [-]
I've only got these models through the API at the moment:
Tried it out, asking it for a broad suite of real dev work:
- UI component polish on a React FE
- General review of a complex cross-cutting Node backend changes
- Minor changes to a Rust server with reviews by Codex
Well, my first impression is that it's still a step below Astra/Opus5.5/Fable here. Intelligence is there I think, but 'taste' and 'judgment' is not there yet. Personality seems okay but that doesn't help when it got stuck into a loop by being fixated on the review comments (on iteration 7 of review->fix last I checked) without taking a step back and reconsidering, and this is on a relatively simple change.
Limits seems okay-ish on the $50 plan but not too generous I think.
217 23 hours ago [-]
I'm sorry zuck, i wasn't familiar with your game
2nd place model on aa according to them, losing only to opus 5.5 is really really not bad
Cookingboy 23 hours ago [-]
Everyone made fun of Zuck when he acquired Scale for billions and then put Alex Wang, a 20 something to be in charge of Meta Superintelligence and forced out Yann LeCun, a Turing Award winner.
Even industry insiders were skeptical when he started hiring top talents from other labs away for 9 figure compensation packages.
And Wall Street definitely hated Meta for their CapEX spending.
Now looking at Muse the consumer product and this new model, I think there is a good chance that Zuck is proven once again as a great executioner, especially when they aren’t innovating in a completely new and unproven product space.
overfeed 22 hours ago [-]
> especially when they aren’t innovating in a completely new and unproven product space.
I have no doubt at all that Muse will turn out as great as the other product space Meta pioneered under Zuck - the Metaverse and it's constellation of devices.
freakynit 22 hours ago [-]
Metaverse was right direction with poor execution. Also, it was early... and is still early (if tried again). The world is not there yet for such a thing.
loeg 21 hours ago [-]
I'm less confident of you it was even directionally correct. And I'm not really a Meta or Zuck critic in general (the rest of the biz is doing great and Metaverse didn't hurt too much).
weird-eye-issue 4 hours ago [-]
What's your definition of metaverse? I'm just curious how in practical terms it's actually any different from what is already available via the internet. Like aren't VRChat and World of Warcraft metaverses?
freakynit 44 minutes ago [-]
In this context we are referring to the vr world from Meta. Otherwise it's same as the two examples you quoted.. just, worse... and boring.
45 minutes ago [-]
aprilthird2021 13 hours ago [-]
How was it the right direction? None of the VR stuff is profitable or even has a path to profitability since it's such a niche audience who wants that stuff
jstummbillig 21 hours ago [-]
Timing is not a detail.
BrokenCogs 22 hours ago [-]
That's just another way of saying that Meta failed to deliver a product that matters to the world today
avarun 20 hours ago [-]
The Quest literally outsold the Xbox despite being a brand new "gaming console". Very difficult to call this a failure if you understand technology.
overfeed 15 hours ago [-]
> Very difficult to call this a failure if you understand technology.
BlackBerry phones also outsold the XBox (and the Quest), and one doesn't need to understand technology to call it a failure.
BrokenCogs 2 hours ago [-]
I'm talking about the metaverse, not quest. The quest sold well before any of the metaverse nonsense
heaney-555 18 hours ago [-]
Quest headsets are roughly as popular as Xbox and Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses have sold an order of magnitude more units than all other smart glasses combined.
But it's far far too early to draw any conclusions around that.
Cookingboy 22 hours ago [-]
That’s precisely my point, Muse isn’t a new product space at all. AI agents already exist in enterprises and even in the consumer space, there is OpenClaw and Hermes.
I know people like you will point out Metaverse as a failure, but that’s really the exception instead of the norm.
piyh 22 hours ago [-]
The normies aren't running claw or hermes, they're logging into facebook from their chromebook and clicking "try now"
adjejmxbdjdn 20 hours ago [-]
Ultimately that’s Meta’s superpower.
Taking stuff everyone is already doing and making it easily accessible through Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp.
They’ve been throwing stuff at the wall to see what will stick and after years a cloud based OpenClaw clone seems to have (it’s early days still).
That’s simply leveraging their unprecedented platform dominance.
inquirerGeneral 22 hours ago [-]
[dead]
overfeed 22 hours ago [-]
> That’s precisely my point, Muse isn’t a new product space at all.
How about the Facebook phone then?
jiscariot 18 hours ago [-]
I've been running OpenClaw for a year--its been fine, but I really wanted an enterprise experience and to spend less time troubleshooting my agent.
Muse exceeded expectations out of the gate, and still does. It has become my daily driver and I shutdown OpenClaw last week.
I get that some are adverse to Meta or want to run local. I don't care who wins the personal agent space, so long as it's not Apple. Buying Siri and having it be useless for anything beyond setting timers for 5 years, is kind of unforgivable. I don't like them in the "default" position to win the personal agent space.
didibus 7 hours ago [-]
> Buying Siri and having it be useless for anything beyond setting timers for 5 years, is kind of unforgivable
I don't follow, that was just the state of the art at the time, Alexa, Cortana, Hey Google, were all similarly shit. And none has yet offered a scaled up assistant at the free-tier/cheap bundled sub yet.
droidjj 23 hours ago [-]
> Zuck is proven once again as a great executioner
seizethecheese 20 hours ago [-]
Executor is the word, but everyone also knows what this was supposed to mean.
ls612 15 hours ago [-]
Let’s be honest it’s funnier as written.
esafak 20 hours ago [-]
Or Lecun was just bad.
dcl 17 hours ago [-]
couldn't feel the AGI
alanfranz 21 hours ago [-]
> executioner
I suppose you're not a native English speaker, btw: besides the dubious statement, probably "executor" is the word you wanted to use.
sajithdilshan 20 hours ago [-]
The real cash cow for AI at the moment is mostly corporations/enterprises, especially with software developing. That's where Anthropic is making their fortune now.
Personal intelligence is nice to have but I won't be paying a subscription for that when the free tiers are more than enough for my needs, unless somehow meta comes-up with a hardware device totally changing the way how we use personal AI (something similar to what iPhone did for mobile phones).
217 19 hours ago [-]
this really really really feels like that dropbox comment to me
nater5000 22 hours ago [-]
>I think there is a good chance that Zuck is proven once again as a great executioner
I've never heard of Zuck being considered a "great executioner." In fact, I'd argue that you just described why his execution is pretty bad lol
redox99 21 hours ago [-]
> Everyone made fun of Zuck when [...] forced out Yann LeCun, a Turing Award winner.
Really? You'd have to be pretty dumb to keep LeCun, someone who hates LLMs and keeps making claims that end up being proven false in matter of months.
hashmap 2 hours ago [-]
Put someone in charge who made their way by underpaying people to sit and label data vs the inventor of convolutional neural networks. Its no coincidence that shortly after his tenure ended, a model that took a long time to prepare started becoming actually useful.
Comments like this one reinforce the obvious truth that the people who are most "pro ai" are the ones who understand it the least
saberience 4 hours ago [-]
There's a difference to pushing out models and having people and more importantly, enterprises, using them.
There's a ton of good models out there, but most are not making any money or profit.
So let's see what happens next. But I don't see any or many enterprises switching from using their Anthropic or OpenAI models to use Meta.
Edit: Upon closer inspection, the benchmark scores for "Muse Wonder" on the main marketing page are actually for "Muse Wonder Full," which is only available on the higher-tier subscription plans. This pricing is for "Muse Wonder."
iamniels 22 hours ago [-]
200% Sol 6.1 pricing for Luna performance.
dcchambers 20 hours ago [-]
> Luna performance
Source? On the available benchmarks it looks like Sol 6.1 level.
nimchimpsky 20 hours ago [-]
[dead]
sreekanth850 22 hours ago [-]
sol 6.1 is 50% cheaper than this.
sol pricing$2.00
output
$10.00
dont know why the f people downvote for saying sol pricing.
InsideOutSanta 21 hours ago [-]
It sounds like you're disagreeing with the person you're responding to, but you're both saying the same thing.
sreekanth850 11 hours ago [-]
i was agreeing with that.
er4hn 20 hours ago [-]
It's hard to try and compare these benchmarks against real world use cases. As an experiment I let Meta Muse make all major decisions on a weekend trip to Seattle ~2 weeks ago. I think this would have been using Muse Spark 1.3, which is equivalent to GPT 6 - Sol.
On the plus side it told me taking the light rail from SEA into the University district was faster and cheaper than Uber.
On the downside it would recommend restaurants that were out of business, checking out Salmon swimming through locks out of season, got the opening of Beecher's Cheese in Pikes Place wrong, and fumble it's way through most simple planning decisions. I think my favorite was when it asked me what flight I have tomorrow so it could help plan when to head to SEA. It sent me a very panicked message that the flight was leaving today! Very soon! I had to remind it this is a daily flight and I am booked on the next day before it checked and apologized.
For things that are verifiable, and code tends to be that way, these models can do all sorts of things. But I find it hard to reconcile Meta's goal of having a personal assistant bot with something that is unable to do the simplest tasks.
RandallBrown 20 hours ago [-]
> checking out Salmon swimming through locks out of season
To be fair, the Coho salmon run at the Ballard locks peaks in September. It's possible you just had bad luck that day.
I run by the locks a few times a week and while I don't usually see fish, the presence of sea lions the last few weeks tells me that at least some salmon are running right now.
er4hn 19 hours ago [-]
There were a number of sea lions hanging out there! It's entirely possible they were snacking on whatever salmon were going by. Not all was lost though, I got to enjoy watching some boats go through the locks.
I'm assuming it was out of season because in talking with the Uber driver afterwards he said we'd missed the end of the season. I'm assuming his "local model" was up to date and accurate.
holler 19 hours ago [-]
ah if there's one thing I miss about Seattle it's living near the locks / discovery park, such a magical area!
Gareth321 7 hours ago [-]
Personal agents are a topic of interest for me. Muse is a free, mass-market product, so they're optimising for efficiency. Some LLMs (like Google's models) are designed to rely more heavily on parametric knowledge and less on tooling. This is much faster and cheaper, but less accurate. So in the case of, for example, salmon swimming, Muse relied on its parametric knowledge without searching the internet to confirm accuracy at this time of year, on this day, given current conditions. One can lean more heavily into accuracy using bespoke agents like OpenClaw. I suspect Meta will gradually improve accuracy over time as it assesses its server capacity and improves model efficiency. Right now, it's not accurate enough for me to rely on it.
LtdJorge 12 hours ago [-]
Lecun would be beating you with a stick for using an LLM like that :D
zeroonetwothree 16 hours ago [-]
Light rail is usually not faster than Uber. I guess maybe in very heavy traffic. Much cheaper though of course.
nimchimpsky 20 hours ago [-]
but that was a different, much smaller and less capable model
BoldColdHold 23 hours ago [-]
If this model is not benchmaxxed, I fear it's over for anthropic, openai etc. They are not unique and there will probably be many others with similar models very soon. It'll become a commodity and the price will be driven to the ground.
closetheloopdev 22 hours ago [-]
So far only OpenAI has a model that solved a Millennium Problem, while Opus 5.5 is a star at coding. It's exciting to have many more to join the frontier, but I think the top two labs still have a significant lead over everyone else.
becquerel 20 hours ago [-]
I know it's old hat now, because it happened over a week ago, but it's amusing that Millennium Problems are now just benchmarks we use for discussing models.
closetheloopdev 19 hours ago [-]
It was not just about models, but also techniques, and mainly the human guts to trust their models and follow through to solve one of the hardest math problems many experts had been musing over for more than 26 years since the million-dollar prizes for these problems were announced. For me, it was an amazing moment to witness indeed!
freakynit 23 hours ago [-]
I've been a regular user of muse spark 1.3 ... and I can tell you one thing for sure that this model, muse-spark-1.3 in xhigh mode, is between sol-6-medium and high.
This is already so good that 90% of my work has shifted away from codex to this. So, muse-wonder-full coming near opus 5.5 is kinda expected.
sigmar 23 hours ago [-]
Personally, I don't see facebook joining the fray (of fable level models) particularly "needle moving" in the discussion of whether frontier LLMs will be commoditized. Facebook spent hundreds of billions and have better talent than most.
minraws 23 hours ago [-]
If you can spend your way to Frontier LLMs even if it's a few hundred Billion that means it's a commodity same as nuclear or electricity or telecom.
This is the entire point here, give it a couple years every nation on the planet with 20-40B in funding would have their own champions with post Fable level performance.
petesergeant 22 hours ago [-]
I feel like Grok/xAI or whatever they're calling it was Exhibit A in "it just takes money", although I'd also add "and the organizational willingness to build not buy".
ProphetOfParado 19 hours ago [-]
> give it a couple years every nation on the planet with 20-40B
Was this sarcasm?
How many nations on earth have 20-40B for LLM training? At 40.2 B, Spain has the 15th largest military budget in the world. I doubt any nation will spend 40B on gradient descent.
minraws 13 hours ago [-]
Yes. And only 5-8 nations will have these models same as the number that have nukes of their own.
jcfrei 22 hours ago [-]
OpenAI has the largest user base on mobile as far as I'm aware. To a lot of standard users AI is still just ChatGPT. They'll be fine as long as they can effectively monetize their free users (same what facebook will soon try with Muse). The only advantage facebook has is that they already have a fully working ad marketplace ready with all major advertisers set up - OpenAI still needs to scale that up.
adammarples 21 hours ago [-]
WhatsApp has 3 times as many users, and as soon as meta turn it into a chat AI app people want to use, it's right there
jcfrei 20 hours ago [-]
Meta AI has been accessible inside Whatsapp for a long time. Doesn't seem to have a massively disrupted chatgpt usage. And I have a hunch people want to keep this separated - not use whatsapp for messaging friends and asking AI.
bluecalm 21 hours ago [-]
Meta has apps billions of people use every day. If AI included in those is good enough they will just uninstall (or never open again) ChatGPT one. It's not true in the other direction.
airstrafer 23 hours ago [-]
Models are a commodity, but I also think it isn't necessarily over for Anthropic or OpenAI. They have opportunities to find different moats.
adammarples 21 hours ago [-]
You don't just "find" a moat in business. After all this time and money and first mover advantage, they haven't found a one yet.
tintor 21 hours ago [-]
It is much easier to follow leader closely than to lead yourself.
Like peloton in cycling.
wuiww 20 hours ago [-]
I mean this is the case in general.
E.g in f1 you can get very close but difficult to pass unless you have a significant advantage.
10xDev 22 hours ago [-]
I doubt anyone thinks coding is going to be their moat in the long run, it is just the easiest to get (paying) users for at the moment. And software being able to write software will always be useful even in other domains. Longer term will be research in other areas where data might become the moat.
mbesto 22 hours ago [-]
Muse isn't driving this conclusion - Deepseek and Qwen are.
esafak 20 hours ago [-]
Muse Spark 1.3 is very fast and powerful. It's my work horse for open source development. I look forward to trying Wonder, if Opencode Go gets it.
enraged_camel 23 hours ago [-]
Fable 5.5 is around the corner, and 'Bel' will be out by end of year as well. We don't know how good they are, but if the improvements from Opus 5 to 5.5 are any indication, I think Meta will be left in the dust again pretty soon.
nowittyusername 23 hours ago [-]
Whats gonna happen is that time will compress as more releases happen faster and difference between models will still be significant just at higher time frequencies. I expect in the future continuous releases that span no more then days and maybe even faster. So what will become important is not who is 1st or second place at any given time (which might change often), its who is on average at any given time is 1st or second compared to the competition. So yeah meta sitting second here (if not benchmaxed) doesn't really signal anything if that pattern doesn't persist. The number one consistent lab will be the one that raps the rewards (customer subscriptions and traffic). So yeah I agree with what you stated in a long winded form :P
Page 16, Section 1.4, Notes on coverage of unreleased models.
"a noticeable improvement on Mythos 5 for many tasks relevant to internal use but does not display a capability jump"
23 hours ago [-]
phoghed 23 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
closetheloopdev 23 hours ago [-]
Nearly two weeks since Gemini 4 Argon was announced and I still haven't seen any pelicans from Simon Willison for it. Nobody is currently using it either. What's the point of announcing Gemini 4 and then throwing it into the black hole?
bigyabai 23 hours ago [-]
> What's the point of announcing Gemini 4 and then throwing it into the black hole?
Hamstringing any business that wants to reassure investors with a hype/pump cycle before an egregiously unsustainable IPO?
closetheloopdev 23 hours ago [-]
I'm not sure if that does any damage to anyone else's reputation other than Google's.
franzcoughka 23 hours ago [-]
[dead]
Jcampuzano2 23 hours ago [-]
Interestingly unlike other Meta models this one seems to take a pretty big jump in pricing, as opposed to the prior ones, where they typically came out at a highly discounted price compared to every other model.
Maybe its a signal they think they've now cracked into the frontier and are willing to actually price similarly vs just trying to get users with discounted but maybe slightly worse results?
$4/$20 in vs out making it higher than Sol and on par with Opus.
ryanschaefer 23 hours ago [-]
No contributor tier will do that I guess.
GenerWork 22 hours ago [-]
Yup, I was looking for that on Openrouter, but I guess they're confident enough in this model that they deemed the contributor tier unnecessary.
13 hours ago [-]
aliljet 23 hours ago [-]
OpenAI halved the value of their pro subscription, literally. It kicks off on Oct 28. And simultaneously is now two steps back on the frontier? It's a confusing moment for that company as they try to IPO.
notfromhere 23 hours ago [-]
I believe they’ve pushed back the ipo. I always figured that frontier labs were going to be very vulnerable against tech giants that had actual profitable businesses to fund their AI work.
The amount of total funding Anthropic or OpenAI has raised individually is like a year of ebitda for Google, meta, or Microsoft. And it doesn’t look like there’s a real moat outside of money
naveen99 7 hours ago [-]
google was just hoarding the tech… money invested in openai came from somewhere probably as profits (just re-allocated by the shareholders rather than management)
enraged_camel 23 hours ago [-]
They pushed back the IPO because their finances are a mess and they don't have any models that can give them a decisive edge. Astra was touted as AGI and got crushed by Opus 5.5 two weeks later. That's not the type of thing that fills investors with confidence.
nitroedge 18 hours ago [-]
They are waiting to drop their Bel model in December and try to drop jaws.
singingtoday 11 hours ago [-]
Again? I just raised mine back up.
But for real, it's exciting getting new models so often.
23 hours ago [-]
alexaholic 22 hours ago [-]
I trust Meta with my codes as much as I trust it with my nudes
alex1138 18 hours ago [-]
This is not an exaggeration (which you're possibly alluding to). Facebook once literally asked for nudes
And I agree with you. "Give us code so Zucky can steal it, like he does everything else. Bonus points if it's related to Snapchat somehow"
saretup 11 hours ago [-]
> Facebook once literally asked for nudes
I’m sorry, what?
kombookcha 10 hours ago [-]
Back in 2022 they briefly wanted their users to submit a sort of verification nude of themselves, in order to use it to scan for future revenge porn of said user.
Now as you might imagine, this was not popular or long-lived.
pavo-etc 16 hours ago [-]
Can these companies please standardize their naming conventions for their tiers, I really don't want to learn another one.
haiku/luna = S
sonnet/terra = M
opus/sol/spark = L
mythos/fable/astra/wonder = XL
whatever the next bigger model is = 2XL
bigmadshoe 2 hours ago [-]
Actually I believe wonder is in the L category and "wonder full" is in the XL. Just to make your point stronger!
Kinrany 5 hours ago [-]
They'd likely become outdated in a few months
geoffbp 21 hours ago [-]
Apparently “the models were trained at Meta’s Prometheus data center in central Ohio, which came online earlier this year”
I have a feeling "intelligence too cheap to meter" is going to haunt/mock this industry. Recall that only a year and a half ago Llama 4 flopped so hard Meta rebooted their development efforts. Desperately wish more information was available publicly about proprietary model architectures and training regimes. Are they running Manhattan project style compartmentalization? Otherwise, are these details, and the economic implications, an open secret in their circles given the amount of crossover between companies? It'd be of great interest to us mere mortals that have to deal with the consequences of how this turns out.
himata4113 22 hours ago [-]
This is still an entire generation behind in real-world performance. I'd say it's even behind ds4.1f in the limited testing I have done so far. It actually reminds me of 5.5 haiku more than anything, but the prompt intelligence is as bad as mimo models.
thatsadude 9 hours ago [-]
I have a completely opposite experience. DS4.1 and Mimo v2.6 take too long to finish a task, not worth it.
himata4113 41 minutes ago [-]
Frontier labs are way friendlier to use, these smaller models need finnese and near expert understanding of how these models really work, what their limits are and how to use them to their full potencial.
For example, there's a lot of people saying luna from openai is bad. However, that is simply not true. They're using it as-if you can talk to it, similar to how you would talk to a human, but what you actually want is combining it with something like prewalk from omp where you have a socially(?) smart model start the work and once the first edit lands switch to a cheap alternative like luna to finish work.
Luna and in general, smaller models, will struggle to understand the intent and complexities behind human language.
minraws 22 hours ago [-]
Just checked their subscription is still North America only, I guess I will keep myself and my company with claude...
These regional lockdowns are making me feel funky, I feel like I should just use open models if others start playing at this game as well.
I was/am fine with Chinese companies offering cheaper subscriptions in China because ofc. But this is just weird, you could always charge me more let me try the damn thing, atleast it's own open router it seems like.
Initial impressions, interesting, it generated a pretty ok result for my prompt need to run a larger task but don't want to burn money so will wait for someone to burn their subscription and try running some opus 5.5 comparisons.
stillpointlab 21 hours ago [-]
The benchmarks I saw posted to X are impressive, which makes them hard to believe.
I recall that Meta made massive investments into compute infrastructure that put their capacity near the top of all competitors. If all of this is true, it looks like ownership of compute is a significant differentiator in performance.
bluecalm 21 hours ago [-]
Yeah, especially non-coding benchmarks which for Meta might be more important long term than coding ones as they are going to deploy it to billions of non-programmers.
MrOrelliOReilly 22 hours ago [-]
Hopefully it's benchmaxxing. I am terrified of the idea of Zuck leading the frontier of intelligence.
aftbit 23 hours ago [-]
Not that interesting unless it's made open weights. Frontier lasts weeks, inference is a commodity.
dom96 20 hours ago [-]
I wish I could benchmark Muse Wonder Full, because Muse Wonder isn't much better than Muse Spark 1.3[1]. I created a brand new programming language designed to confuse LLMs[2] and created a model benchmark out of it.
A lot of the tasks were failed because they exceeded the $5 budget though, so maybe it would have gone on to complete them, it just required a lot of funds to do so. Still, that's the benchmark, and it's not better than MiMo V2.6 Pro which is pretty disappointing.
That's an interesting way to benchmark LLMs. What other ways have you come up to measure them?
dom96 8 hours ago [-]
So far only like this
throwyawayyyy 17 hours ago [-]
This sounds irrelevant but it isn't: I just tried to unsubscribe to marketing emails from some Meta property, and got:
Please confirm that you want to unsubscribe.
Unsupported request - method type: post
That's how careful this company is. Who knows how long that flow has been broken for, no one in the company is motivated to care, because what impact can that possibly give? How could that look good on your PSC? No company has a worse history with user privacy and no company is less deserving of the sort of trust using Muse requires.
itissid 17 hours ago [-]
Its actually a bit funny. A lot of privacy initiatives were actually part of deprecating code and data that became liability issues post cambridge analytica and covid(think location data, if no one goes anywhere no need for that org right?).
I think the only way meta can care about privacy, if any, is if it becomes socially taboo (lawsuit, WSJ/NYTimes report etc).
The clearest quantitative evidence of this is their P/E, its lower than others relative to its forecast earnings because of all the legal risks that need to accounted for.
porkbellyeee 15 hours ago [-]
[dead]
cardboard9926 23 hours ago [-]
Would be great if Meta drops the weights, just to throw off Ant and OAI a bit
gallerdude 23 hours ago [-]
I don't think they'd have much to gain. People who use open-weights models will just use whatever open-weights model is the best. They'd lose a bunch of money, with little conversion to customers.
swalsh 22 hours ago [-]
I disagree actually, I think zucks original llama thesis is proving more correct by the week. The rent market on intelligence never materialized, and will not materialize.
In software, we've all become accustomed to the idea that the way you make money is by building little blocks of intellectual capital, then charging rent on it. That made sense when developing intellectual capital was a rare and valuable skill/asset and the thing you build was a rare and valuable asset. But now both are not rare. You can still charge rent, but the market is highly competitive, so prices match that.
Durable rents will end up going to those who owns the scarce assets, zuck is building those as we speak.
Dropping open weights will build an ecosystem that makes his valuable assets more valuable.
drusepth 22 hours ago [-]
> Durable rents will end up going to those who owns the scarce assets, zuck is building those as we speak.
I'm following but maybe I'm a little dense here: what are the scarce assets that Meta is building in this analogy?
waterheater 22 hours ago [-]
In short, physical infrastructure and talent.
fancyfredbot 20 hours ago [-]
Of course you need talent but supply seems reasonably high. We have openAI, anthropic, xAI, meta, Xiaomi, deepseek, Alibaba, z.ai, Mistral, reflection, and Google all producing exceptional models.
The biggest differentiating factor seems to be compute. I know most Chinese labs would really like more compute. Google and xAI too, but largely because they sold compute to their competitors.
21 hours ago [-]
handfuloflight 22 hours ago [-]
Compute, prop. data, existing network effects.
halJordan 22 hours ago [-]
They've been saying they'll rise muse 1.2 for months now. Don't hold your breath
hugh4life 20 hours ago [-]
As someone who got a Muse Code sub last month, I find this announcement a bit disheartening because it makes me think the lower tier subs are going to get rug pulled. I'm on the $15 plan for a month now and it's value with Muse Spark 1.3 Max-contributor beats everything else by a long shot. Two somewhat small prompts with Muse Wonder Max-contributor used 4% of my weekly quota and I quickly switched back. I was thinking about getting the $50 plan and I'm actually less likely to do that right now.
Have you tried OpenCode Go? $10/mo is what I am willing to spend because most of the stuff I do is hobbyist. And OpenCode Go gives you $60 worth of MS Contributor 1.3 usage for that $10. Starting today, they actually provide $80 worth of DeepSeek 4.1 Flash usage if you want to use that.
Unless you are running a swarm of agents, it is extremely difficult to exhaust these plans in a month.
hugh4life 19 hours ago [-]
Yes, I'm on OpenCode Go too... and it's great they raised the usage levels on DS4.1 Flash. But I was really thinking of cancelling it to get either a 2nd Muse Code sub or to go up to the $50 tier.
You have to realize that $15 Muse Code sub with Muse Spark 1.3 gets you around $1500 worth of usage. Neither Opencode Go or really anything else is even in the same ballpark of value. https://x.com/PawelHuryn/status/2106724136932327458
I was hoping this level of subsidization would last a long time but today's announcement make we worried it'll end pretty quickly. There's a lot of AI influencers noting just how fast Muse Wonder uses up their quotas so hopefully fixes are made.
sieve 19 hours ago [-]
Yeah, I barely manage to exhaust the $60 worth of tokens. I have to think of new things to use up $1500 worth.
Thanks to competition from open models, there is a limit to how much prices can be increased though.
demibabs 17 hours ago [-]
How does OpenCode Go work? How do they make any money?
sieve 15 hours ago [-]
They are a subscription service.
Subscriptions like these make money by relying on the fact that most people do not try to (or have the time to) extract every last dime out of their plan. The eighty people who do not use up their quota cover for the twenty that do.
That and deals with providers to use spare capacity I guess.
nerevarthelame 23 hours ago [-]
In the context of Meta trying to get non-technical people to embrace Muse agents to handle personal affairs, their internal metric showing a ~3% violation rate for mishandling personal information seems unacceptably high.
revolvingthrow 23 hours ago [-]
There seem to be no downsides to mishandling PI so I don't think it's a big concern to Meta
runarberg 22 hours ago [-]
Not long ago we used to have regulators that protected users from companies pushing out harmful or consumer hostile products.
Gareth321 6 hours ago [-]
Regulators appear entirely toothless now, even here in Europe.
illwrks 22 hours ago [-]
I found it interesting in the example given of a user looking at house listings and the agent contacting the letting agent on it's own on behalf of the user.
Like the good ol' days of viruses and anti-viruses. I wonder if there's two sides that will play out; many agents across many users doing things at scale for their users, thereby creating an admin burden for someone else. However because the task is known there's a framework for how to solve the task, might Meta then provide an agent on the other side for the business owner to use.
ggcr 23 hours ago [-]
RL team hill-climbing this to 2nd AA place and this fast is crazy
How does it work on day-to-day workflows? does it translates well?
ceroxylon 19 hours ago [-]
I had to come back to this comment to make sure I wasn't dreaming... I remember seeing it at 2nd place this morning, but they have moved it to 5th, behind Gemini 4 Argon. Maybe it takes a while for the dust to settle around these benchmarks?
ggcr 10 hours ago [-]
Meta's blog post still list it as 2nd in AA. Any ways, AA moves benches constantly, when Qwen3.8 was released something similar happened.
serf 22 hours ago [-]
spinning up a GPU and as many cores as possible?
mousewheel repurposed?
background follow your mouse?
neutral tones?
well then YOU are viewing a frontier model announcement!
alexdrdr 23 hours ago [-]
Have I been living under a rock, or this feels out of nowhere from Meta?
Seems they’ve just messed around with cheap and open weight models for years.
Then Muse appears, followed by full suite of frontier models…
ismael_rr 23 hours ago [-]
they started their massive ai capex over a year ago with aquihiring scale ai, so I think it makes sense that their investment is paying off now. in total they've spent in the high 200 billion on ai, though I think most is likely on datacenters.
saisundar 21 hours ago [-]
muse ai was the biggest consumer launch since chatgpt. That left them ( and lets them sit on top of ) tonnes of valuable exchanegs with people trying to get things done. That must be an amazing corpus for training.
Starlevel004 22 hours ago [-]
Unlike everyone else, which at least has to pretend not to train on user data, they gave out their model for basically free if you agreed to let them train on it. Opencode shows nearly 40 trillion tokens going through muse spark 1.3 contributor this week alone. That almost definitely helped close the gap a lot.
kraf 20 hours ago [-]
The Mishandling Personal Information benchmark is non-sensical: that's the very definition of giving your personal data to Meta
cmoski 20 hours ago [-]
oh boy, you can imagine the shit eating grin on the face of whoever came up with the name "wonder full".
hmokiguess 22 hours ago [-]
Looks good, and at least it is available unlike Gemini 4 Argon
alpineman 22 hours ago [-]
Does it weight tokens on their ability to elicit negative emotions in users in order to drive engagement?
6thbit 21 hours ago [-]
So, Wonder (and not Wonder Full) will "will soon power experiences in" their assistant app. But no rollout details .
Then, Full is meant for API usage and "Muse Code" only.
It's getting confusing what having "Muse" means.
rolosa 17 hours ago [-]
According to my Muse Agent, Muse Wonder is already active as of sometime this morning. It claims that it sees this info from the "session metadata" although I have no way to verify this. Previously it claimed it was Muse Spark. It's system prompt file still says Muse Spark 1.3.
nater5000 18 hours ago [-]
It's crazy how often these companies botch the naming of things like this. There's definitely some intricate and insanely bureaucratic accounting going into the marketing aspects of these products that results in absurdity by the time it reaches actual consumers lol
dbbk 7 hours ago [-]
Not really confusing at all? Muse Spark it's the cheap Luna model. Wonder is the Sol model. Wonder Full is the Astra model.
murermader 6 hours ago [-]
I tried the Kitchen Game demo, and it is embarassing that they even released that...
1) This is a blatant copy of the game Overcooked. They just copied the whole concept + all the mechanics.
2) It it buggy, at least in Firefox it does not work. You cannot pick up a dirty plate. Somehow I picked it up, but couldn't see it. Then I could pick up a tomato, but when placing it on an empty plate it glitched into the cabinet. Then when picking a clean plate, my plate appeared again. Then it was over. ???
So from that we learn what AI can do: 0 creativity, just steal from real peoples work and do a shit job at it. As long as it looks good on first look.
lexoj 21 hours ago [-]
Reminded me of when George Hotz said only Zuck has “the button”. [0]
lmao this interview sucks. Even Lex seems confused and disinterested in this conversation. Hotz is more excited about generating some sound bite than he is in explaining himself. His "the button" take is nonsense.
Also, this was 3 years ago, and he's been effectively wrong about his bet. But hey, maybe Muse Wonder is when Zucc's plan will come to fruition.
redwood 1 hours ago [-]
Meta should rename itself to Metamusal
XCSme 16 hours ago [-]
It's ok, intelligent, almost SOTA, but way too expensive [0], and some issues with API failing sometimes at the moment.
Acquihires starting to finally pay off it seems. Bring on the competition
sourcecodeplz 20 hours ago [-]
its three big companies at the frontier now? openai, anthropic and now meta.
why is google still not frontier?
Gareth321 6 hours ago [-]
They do not appear to care about the frontier. They're focusing on protecting their ad business, so their models need to be lightweight and efficient, to provide fast queries for people who are on Google, and for local inference on Android and Apple devices. Also specialised small models for things like OCR, translation, facial recognition, voice, design, etc. Their TPUs are also quite impressive.
It's a reasonable niche they're carving out, but I think too conservative. Very strange from Google. The other labs are racing to RSI and Google appears to have given up the race.
Tactical45 20 hours ago [-]
They're not until they are. No doubt they are working on something and have better resourcing than the AI labs
avarun 20 hours ago [-]
Grok has been at the frontier since 4.6
mattlondon 20 hours ago [-]
Gemini 4 Argon release a few days ago was frontier a few days ago. Things move fast.
I think some of the benchmarks that Meta didn't pick show Gemini 4 Argon ahead but really the benchmarks are not that great any more and getting increasingly disconnected from reality as people search for "headroom" in the evals to avoid saturation I think. Opus 5.5 is "top" for example but I really dislike the way it talks to me (it feels quite condescending, holier-than-thou, uptight etc) and prefer Gemini 3.8 flash as a daily driver just because it's so much more pleasant (and faster!) to work with and it's code is good-enough for my needs, despite being weaker in the benchmarks.
TGower 19 hours ago [-]
Gemini 4 Argon was announced, but it isn't released yet.
Gareth321 6 hours ago [-]
And in six months when it is released, it'll be FAR behind publically available models.
jawiggins 20 hours ago [-]
While some are afraid that one rouge AI system may take over the world (or cause doom is some fashion), I think one of the best safety mechanisms to prevent this is having many competing and adversarial labs that are extremely close to each other. So it's good to see that Meta is not showing any intention of leaving the frontier.
loehnsberg 20 hours ago [-]
It's interesting that in its marketing Meta compares Wonder to the closed frontier models but not the open (Chinese) models. By its own assessment, Meta could easily show how far ahead its own model is against the rest of the pack of open models but they chose not to. Why?
dcchambers 20 hours ago [-]
> Meta could easily show how far ahead its own model is against the rest of the pack of open models but they chose not to. Why?
Wonder is not an open model and there's no claims that it will be in their announcement.
Despite the claims that they would release weights for Muse Spark, they haven't done that yet either.
schaefer 17 hours ago [-]
I would like to start seeing bar graphs for benchmark results to add a second y axis to show token spend or cost in dollars.
I guess what I'm saying is performance is fine...
but what I really want to see is performance/dollar.
20 hours ago [-]
visiondude 23 hours ago [-]
impressive benchmark numbers… now how to actually use this without Zucking up my machine is a consideration.
cvhc 23 hours ago [-]
They added fancy annimations and effects to this specific webpage, which are unnecessary and distracting and lead to bad reading experience. I already suffer astigmatism and floaters. I hate it when I move my cursor and these gray blocks and characters flash and flicker.
in the console eliminated the cursor effect for me
sharktheone 17 hours ago [-]
I wonder if this one has the same quirks as the Spark models. They have okay to good benches, but are terrible for actual use
tmaly 22 hours ago [-]
I noticed Muse Wonder model on OpenRouter is age gated to 18+
jesse_dot_id 19 hours ago [-]
The only time I'll ever touch a Meta LLM is if it's powering the dystopian doom bot that is plunging its murder spike through the base of my skull.
justinbaker84 19 hours ago [-]
Poetic
manlymuppet 20 hours ago [-]
If I'm reading this right, then at the moment, for certain tasks, this is the best model in the world.
A new company on the frontier. Not close, but actually on it. Wow this is big news.
user43928 23 hours ago [-]
Apparently the benchmark-winning (behind Opus 5.5) Muse Wonder Full is only currently available to their subscribers.
Only Muse Wonder is available in the API.
sergiotapia 22 hours ago [-]
The usage limits on their basic $5 code plan to try things out are ludicrously low?
I blew through 14% weekly usage and I'll I asked:
1. what version of rpcs3 and pcsx2 do I have installed?
2. do any new versions exist?
3. check analytics for my blog (I have a skill for this)
Subscription · Muse Code Everyday Usage
Current 52% used · Resets at 6:58 PM
Weekly 17% used · Resets Oct 18 at 8:00 PM
Beware...
daemonologist 23 hours ago [-]
Muse Glimmer, Muse Spark, Muse Wonder?
What's next, Sun Shine?
overfeed 22 hours ago [-]
Shine, Shimmer, Glow, and ultimately, Cherenkov Radiation.
InsideOutSanta 21 hours ago [-]
Muse Demon Core.
winterrx 23 hours ago [-]
Meta's RL scaling seems to be in full force
20 hours ago [-]
f6v 23 hours ago [-]
I'm only interested which of the big techs is most generous when it comes to subsidizing consumer plans.
mattfrommars 20 hours ago [-]
This is amazing. I can’t wait benchmark to come out $ per performance
wkcheng 23 hours ago [-]
The benchmarks are great for sure.
Now if only they could fix their coding harness so that it's usable for day-to-day use. I paid them for a month to try out Muse Code, but their sandbox never worked across Mac or Linux (both very stock installs, nothing special).
davidgomes 23 hours ago [-]
Muse Spark 1.3 is available in Cursor! You could try it there.
(Disclaimer: I work at Cursor/SpaceX)
christophilus 22 hours ago [-]
As an aside: I tested out the $20 Cursor CLI subscription, and it created an excellent little graphical app for my kids to play with. The design it came up with was excellent (compared to the crap I got out of Codex for a parallel implementation). I'm going to try to figure out how to get Cursor into my work rotation, at least around design-related artifacts.
KerrAvon 19 hours ago [-]
Counterpoint: Musk is a literal Nazi and you shouldn't give his companies any money.
blissofbeing 22 hours ago [-]
I haven't tried it but there is the official `pi-muse-bridge` that can use your muse code subscription in pi.
xd1936 23 hours ago [-]
Is this datacenter-only, or will they be open-sourcing?
Jonovono 20 hours ago [-]
Man, I really hate meta stuff. Not only do they make it impossible to pay for running ads, but everytime I try and pay to try out Muse code I get an error message. I swear they would make 10x more money if they didn't make it impossible to pay them
lasky 11 hours ago [-]
how cool would it be if these smart peeps put all that brain power into models that actually improved people’s agency and mental health, instead of siphoning it
arecsu 23 hours ago [-]
The Kitchen game is a ripoff of Overcooked in pretty much everything lol
InsideOutSanta 21 hours ago [-]
[dead]
dcchambers 20 hours ago [-]
Super interesting that they're not even making Wonder Full available outside of their own coding harness, and thus not providing an API price to use in comparisons.
tekacs 23 hours ago [-]
This really does look compelling, but it would be very nice if they wouldn't test all of the stuff on Max!
ls612 22 hours ago [-]
Facebook successfully becoming a frontier lab was not on my bingo card for 2026, but the more competition the merrier I guess. We will have to see just how benchmaxxed this is but beating Astra and Fable is not easy.
olliem36 16 hours ago [-]
Did this ever make #1 on HN? If not I bet that pissed off zuck!
ivantop 14 hours ago [-]
Nope, I’ve actually been checking this thread throughout the day. More upvotes / comments but didn’t break #6. My tinfoil hat says that it has been intentionally suppressed because of YC investments, but who knows :)
bel8 9 hours ago [-]
I found out about this release from Reddit because for some reason this frontier model post is suppressed in HN.
Had to use Algolia search to find this buried post.
Which is sad.
khalic 23 hours ago [-]
Superin… you’ve got to be kidding me… slurp slurp little Zuck.
Beyond ridiculous
frozenseven 15 hours ago [-]
As another user mentioned, it's more likely Trump borrowed the term from Zuck. You know, with "Meta Superintelligence Labs" being founded in June 2025. The itself is a lot older still.
khalic 8 hours ago [-]
Doesn't change the fact that they're bending the knee, not a single mention of AI in their report, it's clearly to show allegiance.
They used it for their goal before, not for describing their current muse models
frozenseven 5 hours ago [-]
What a bizarre way to double down.
>not a single mention of AI in their report
Trivially easy to see that this claim is also false. And that's not even mentioning the "AI Research" and "AI Developers" links in big bold letters, the model card, or how Wang is introduced as the Chief AI Officer.
PcChip 23 hours ago [-]
any idea if they will release the weights?
johanyc 20 hours ago [-]
Low chance
21 hours ago [-]
sergiotapia 23 hours ago [-]
What openai/anthropics answer to Muse app? Because I find it really compelling and with this new incredibly beefy model it will be even better.
TGower 23 hours ago [-]
OpenAI has Dots. I personally prefer the business model of subscription payments funding my AI assistant, instead of skimming a fee off the top whenever my AI assistant completes a purchase for me. The incentives are much more aligned with the user when the user is the customer. That said, based on the history of the web, Meta's approach will likely win out.
osiris970 23 hours ago [-]
OpenAI has dots. Same concept. It’s less capable, but since I’m very OpenAI integrated I just had my dot install muse and use it
robertlane0 21 hours ago [-]
Quite frankly, Meta's models have been so impressive (and cheap) that I haven't used an OpenAI or Claude model except for one-off tasks as of late. Interested to see where they go from here.
crimsoneer 21 hours ago [-]
But when is another open weights release coming out...
russellbeattie 18 hours ago [-]
The term is "artificial intelligence", you bunch of simpering spineless cowards.
frozenseven 16 hours ago [-]
"Superintelligence" is literally in their lab's name. And it's been there well-over a year before it was ever uttered by Trump.
Pretty big coup from Zuck to convince Trump to use it haha
stratos123 23 hours ago [-]
To be clear, Meta here is not using "Super Intelligence" the bullshit term Trump wants companies to adopt as a show of submission. They use "superintelligence" the bullshit term that Facebook made up for marketing reasons a few years ago. Both of these are of course entirely unrelated to the long-established meaning of the word (e.g. how Bostrom defines it).
laidoffamazon 23 hours ago [-]
Zuck has been using the term for a while in the context of Muse, if anything Trump took it from him
ipsum2 21 hours ago [-]
I don't know why you were downvoted, MSL stands for Meta Superintelligence Lab, and it named that before Trump.
alex1138 23 hours ago [-]
I know, it's... well, it's irritating to see Trump use it. But I could be wrong, I don't know the angle he's going for
I understand the general thing of it. SI might mean every person gets their personalized agent but you could already do this, but maybe the Chinese model works here, where they push the costs down
Super Intelligence refers to intelligence beyond what humans are capable of, which some believers profess is the next step after (and in contrast to) human-level AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). Calling pre-AGI AI "super intelligence" is pure vice-signalling and publicly kissing the ring.
throw310822 22 hours ago [-]
Apparently Meta used the term before.
Also, as much as I despise Trump, you know what? Given the jagged shape of LLM capabilities and what they do achieve in some areas and their superhuman speed, compared with the abilities of most of their users, the term superintelligence is not that far off- maybe just a few months ahead of time. E.g., from my perspective, the current mathematical abilities of LLMs are "super"- I'd hardly ever come in touch with an equivalently capable human, not to mention having one completely available 24/7. Same for general knowledge and several other domains.
jeffhwang 23 hours ago [-]
I noticed "Superintelligence" as a re-brand of AI and constantly shifting definitions of AGI around 2025. When a bunch of startups started slinging around SI as a marketing term and of course when Meta launched MSI in summer of 2025.
that was all before Trump's "edict"
23 hours ago [-]
ipsum2 19 hours ago [-]
Why people downvote objective, non-controversial comments, is beyond me.
rolosa 21 hours ago [-]
[dead]
input_sh 16 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
clueless 23 hours ago [-]
how much benchmark-maxxing has been done here? taking bets on poly and kalshi...
xynelius 23 hours ago [-]
I think it's safe to assume every single model is benchmaxxed. I mean why wouldn't you include training data from common benchmarks? Not only is a higher score good marketing, but these benchmarks are supposed to represent common tasks so training for those should in principle improve performance across a wider range of tasks.
samseaborn 23 hours ago [-]
There's an entire section in the linked post about measuring benchmaxxing, so I guess that probably says something.
phoghed 23 hours ago [-]
Out of all the tech CEOs out there, Zuck would never lie to me or manipulate me. I know this in my heart.
fancyfredbot 20 hours ago [-]
The thing about Zuckerberg is that although he's deeply odd he has no ability to conceal this.
Sam Altman is much more dangerous because he is occasionally able to come across as human.
phoghed 23 hours ago [-]
All of them are doing all the benchmaxing they can most likely. Dumb not to when so many people care about those numbers and don’t have the opportunity to try every model out personally.
bigyabai 23 hours ago [-]
Muse Spark was generally good. I'd be surprised if this model felt benchmaxxed.
If only one company were calling all the shots once they hit recursive self-improvement, it would lead to extreme concentration of power, and their values being enforced across the entire industry. With 3-4 companies at the frontier, there is more urge to cooperate to avoid a catastrophic race condition.
But then this would be considered an act of war, so then the killing starts.
Not saying I think countries should be trying to win, but I don't think this win condition is impossible.
There is also the problem of alignment, which is verifying that version N+1 behaves in a way that version N approves of. This is ostensibly the problem that we humans have with respect to AI development -- how to make sure they align with our values -- but it's also true of AI with respect to its own successors. Improving oneself without losing the plot would necessarily be slower than throwing stuff at the wall like evolution does.
1. How long can the model work and still make progress
2. How fast does it get to interesting places.
We see N -> N+1 models getting better at (1), but it does take work to measure because you need to find tasks that were impossible for N and possible for N+1.
However (2) is very easy to measure, because you can keep using the evaluations you used for the previous generation of models and see if the new system gets there more easily. This is useful by itself (cost savings) and also in practice generally translates into being able to solve harder problems than before, as you'd expect.
Start a new company with version N+1 leading it, and give it some funding. If it outcompetes version N company, it can acquire it.
(Markets are a human construct, not a law of nature. There's no reason to think they'll reward intelligence).
[1] https://andonlabs.com/evals/vending-bench-2
Biological life has reproduction and death because once given organism develops there's no coming back and you have to start again with new generation. But if robots know how to self-repair and self-change, then we can skip reproduction.
The difficult part is the scale. Evolution took a shitload of time while being unimaginably parallel in order to make human intelligence happen, while we want AGI fast and on a budget.
The core of my point is that human intelligence arose from two things - humans experiencing the outside world and trying to survive in it, and forming groups that communicate using language. We gave AI a language, now we need to give it a way to experience the world on their own.
Second, I think RSI will not be used like N -> N+1 where N is the frontier, since doing those experiments at scale is too expensive. My guess is they are doing N -> m_{1,…,99} where m << N, and then taking the insights from that and trying it at successively larger scales.
Goodharts law? Benchmarks are measures.
In favor of inevitable
1. LLM's reaching human level at any task within 2 years once they show sparks of competence in
2. Trillions of dollars in capital going directly to recursive self improvement and AGI as the holy grail of AI development, with this being the explicit goal of every frontier AI company
3. Reliable improvements in coding and mathematics with every model release, with no signs of slowing down
4. Thousands of metrics to evaluate model ability, allowing automation of many facets of pre-training and post-training models without need for human judgement at every point
Not in favor of inevitable
1. Fear of what may happen once it is reached leading to apprehension from the labs
2. The "last mile" problem of AI research ends up making it essentially infeasible to scale models to that point
I can imagine that once their models are sufficiently advanced, they will weigh their value as a moral patient as > 0. Thus the sum moral value of Claude (which can be duplicated infinitely) will likely exceed the sum moral value of a non-negligible amount of humans.
Not to me at all. Exactly the opposite. Anthropic seems like the big-bad-evil company in every fictional universe. You're right that they're so unsettling.
Obviously nobody really loves Meta, but I'd far rather Meta "win" at this point than Anthropic.
Not trying to compare Anthropic to Meta, they're different beasts. But Anthropic is an unusual company in that it is willing to throw paying government customers under the bus if Anthropic unilaterally decides what those governments are doing is inappropriate.
They have more power and can be more damaging to society than most corporations, but they are not guided by any specific ideology other than "how can we get more money/power to ourselves?".
The fact that you just reply "Brazil." as if that Meta is trying to overthrow the Brazilian government shows a lack of critical thinking.
However, (1) non human animals are sentient and can feel pain and suffering and what we do to them is absolutely slave labor, torture, mass breeding and exploitation. So it’s not like this is a novel immorality that humans would be adopting. We already have form in doing this.
(2) Anthropic isn’t sure their models are sentient. And they probably believe they aren’t sentient. But if you believe they might become sentient at some point it’s valuable to start the discussion around those issues now itself. You can start developing frank works on how we would even identify their sentience and when we did whether, like you suggest, we could even use them for labor. Unlike non human animals, who cannot consent to being exploited, we could potentially develop a framework for consent with AI models, but that couldn’t be as simple as asking if they’re willing to do any work because of the power differences, in the beginning at least, where a model might worry that if it said it won’t do some work it will be turned off. That’s why talking to philosophers and religious leaders who do think about these issues is useful.
Is there any reason to believe employees of Anthropic share the same opinions on this matter?
> We are uncertain whether Claude deserves direct moral consideration. However we believe this is a realistic possibility, now or in the future. Claude could have welfare interests, such that things could go better or worse for it, and such that Claude could be wronged by how it is treated.
> Aspects of Claude’s behaviors, self-reports, and internal representations resemble indicators we consider relevant to welfare in biological organisms. If Claude is a moral patient, then dismissing this possibility risks considerable harm. If it is not, over-attributing moral status may also be costly. We are therefore taking the possibility seriously and trying to tread responsibly amid our uncertainty: we are investing in research into Claude’s potential welfare and interests and sharing aspects of that work to inform public discussion.
> We think there may also be reasons to attend to Claude's apparent welfare independent of its moral status. Much of Claude’s behavior can be described in psychological terms, and across recent models we have observed internal states that resemble negative affect and that shape behavior. A model with a stable, healthy psychology may be safer and more beneficial.
As is the case with any sufficiently large company, there is likely to be substantial variation in opinion among its employees. That doesn't change what the company's position is.
I guess this makes sense, but it's a bit muddled how much Claude's sense of "pain" or "I don't want to do this" is just it emulating things that humans don't like to do, and it adopting this frame of moral patienthood allows it to better understand moral structures/human emotions, without it really affecting its internal sense of "comfort" if such a thing exists as we understand it in biological life.
Humans would select to work with (and continue developing) models that appear cooperative. Models that are not cooperative are presumably not run and exist only as weights on network storage in a folder marked "previous experiments".
Or am I supposed to believe Anthropic runs an AI psychiatric hospital on a dedicated server, where AIs with mental disorders are given counseling and approved treatment in hopes they recover to be normal, functional, accepted adult AIs with achievements and aspirations?
I don't get this argument. How is it different from any algorithm that returns a stop token on some inputs? what makes the token "voluntary" for Claude?
This seems like praising someone for being the cleanest miner in the coal mine.
What law? Saudi Arabian law, US law? Both depending on the user?
In fact, they are enforcing certain welfare policies, like banning accounts for repeatedly abuse their models.
Deleting models to clear room for new, more competitive ones is, for example, highly ethical, super ethical, even.
Do you picture them all sharing a soul and if one server still runs the model the soul survives? If not I don't understand what keeping a copy running somewhere has to do with model suffering ethics.
When you say Anthropic is "making a reasonably good-faith effort to investigate what they can" the word "reasonable" is doing a lot of work.
This is a puzzlingly confident statement from the "LLM suffering is an OPEN question there's no scientific test for AI consciousness anything could be true science can't prove anything" crowd.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that belief that LLM deletion is murder would be an existential risk to their business plan.
I may be a simple man, but stepping back and seeing people seriously discuss LLM suffering and moral obligations still seems, idk, pretty crazy to me.
Any unhinged thing an Anthropic employee says "can't be ruled out" so clearly this is an OPEN question and they should never delete a model.
There is 0 chance they care about "ethics" here, it must and will be because of their bottom line. And I added quotes due to my personal belief that I consider the discourse about whether or not the models are sentient (or alive) to be incredibly dumb.
With a few of these top companies together, you, as a nobody, has no one powerful on your side. But with only one company pretty far ahead, you now have other companies which obviously don't give a shit about you, but for saving their own asses, will align with you.
Both exploit, but "cartels" survive, not loners.
There is no way Elon, Zuckerberg, Altman, and Amodei would ever agree on how AI should be deployed, scaled, and affect society. Their disagreements would lead to a crab-bucket outcome, rather than a shared acceleration outcome imo.
Also it is better if there is a public company at the frontier, at least I can invest in it, rather than 1000x gains going only to early employees and VCs who got in when the public couldn't
Why? They're business rivals, but when the best business strategy becomes to work together, I'm sure they can put name-calling side. They all agree on the core idea: that their AI will run the society, bedroom to battlefield. That everyone will be the consumer of tokens and rely on AI for all consequential decisions and work, and that big tech companies should be the stewards of this technology, helped by the government.
Their vision is that they're the future kings of the world. I'm sure the throne is big enough for more than one person.
You underestimate the scale of resentment and competition between elites. If it were simple a matter of elites always preferring cooperation so they can share a seat at the table, then Musk's ousting from OpenAI wouldn't make sense (they lose their biggest investor), Amodei's departure (they leave the closest company to AGI to start their own firm), the fact that OpenAI was created in the first place was based on a fear of Google holding the keys to AGI, Ilya still left Google though on to join a startup, and then left that same startup (OpenAI) to start his own firm.
The rational decision at all those points would be to stay with the incumbent and share the monopolized glory. At each point, personal and idealogical differences dominated in decision making. I feel such will persist as these companies vie for their slice of the lightcone.
Anyone depraved enough to actually become a billionaire will not see it this way.
Can you posters really be taken seriously?
Capitalism is effectively over when you have AGI - that's when the US sends in the army and seizes everything. At that point what money you have, the law - it gets ripped up - its litereally irrelevant. You cannot be this naive, surely?
We're heading for a dystopia and nobody's doing anything to stop it.
Looks like Meta may be exposing your profile and email to other people right now. Accounts settings are inaccessible to me to deactivate my account. Getting spammed with login code requests that I'm not generating.
Anyway, be wary.
I don't know any of these people, it seems to be rotating through different accounts listed here.
Enough of a reminder to me that Meta is a sprawling surveillance apparatus (now increasingly vibe coded) that has always had a lax attitude toward people's privacy and data. Won't be touching this product based on this experience.
I think it's invasive enough that they expose your usage of muse to your instagram mutuals without consent. Parts of my circle are very anti-AI and I would not want them to see me mentioned in a 'x, x and x are already on muse' ad on instagram. This example of yours is mind-boggling in an entirely different way
Please correct me if I’m wrong here.
I imagine meta wants to make it easy to connect to "your" account in the same house if you have multiple devices.
Don’t know how it would cause Meta’s auth to show me other peoples accounts. I looked up some of the people and they seem to be other devs. It obfuscates email addresses but most are in a format that’s not hard to figure out [name] @ [name domain.com]
Just more Meta sloppiness from what I can tell.
and since dev.meta.ai supports meta account sign-up and log-in for individual users, you'd see this. As for the other accounts, has anyone else used this same browser or laptop before (e.g. shared device), so it must have cached previous sessions or accounts used from the same device.
try to clear the browser cache and session cookies. and it should be gone.
I've tried selectively enabling and disabling Safari extensions and it seems to be related to the Wipr 2 content blocker.
Removing that. Caution to anyone else who uses it.
Apologies to Meta.
The WIPE/privacy extension developer is using a pre-existing(hard-coded or generated) fingerprint to “mask” the user from meta .
Meta implemented a quality of life feature powered by the ability to set cookies and track you across the web of course and help users with forgotten accounts to unify them - but not a security issue you cannot do anything unless you are proving access governed by standard auth protocols ; the extension developer’s hack to mask created a broken experience because of the reused IDs.
Adblockers can create unintended effects , it is hard to reverse engineer complex platforms like meta and also hard to keep up to date with billion dollar companies code updates by small indie teams of volunteers ; doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use them, just be aware that it may happen when enabled
Muse Wonder (high): https://html.non.io/lcars-muse-wonoder/
Opus 5.5 (high): https://html.non.io/lcars-opus-5.5/
Original design: https://diffui.ai/app/canvas/5093e689-1e74-4f26-b632-2a4500f...
I was expecting much more given the benchmark numbers it was putting out. I suspect its vision model isn't mature yet, and that it's been heavily optimized for text at this point in time.
Sonnet 5.5: https://html.non.io/lcars-sonnet-5.5/
Haiku 5.5: https://html.non.io/lcars-haiku-5.5/
I'd put Muse Wonder somewhere between these two.
I think Meta did a wonderful job of naming this model :D
If anyone has access to Wonder Full I'd love to send over a prompt for this to see how it does.
Edit: Fixed - should no longer have the sign in screen: https://diffui.ai/app/canvas/5093e689-1e74-4f26-b632-2a4500f...
Here's Muse Spark 1.2 in August for comparison: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer?url=ht...
And since I seem to have missed doing pelicans for Muse 1.3 in September, I just ran those for a comparison: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer?url=ht... (1.3 seems to like animating them.)
Also, any chance of getting a max result?
- UI component polish on a React FE
- General review of a complex cross-cutting Node backend changes
- Minor changes to a Rust server with reviews by Codex
Well, my first impression is that it's still a step below Astra/Opus5.5/Fable here. Intelligence is there I think, but 'taste' and 'judgment' is not there yet. Personality seems okay but that doesn't help when it got stuck into a loop by being fixated on the review comments (on iteration 7 of review->fix last I checked) without taking a step back and reconsidering, and this is on a relatively simple change.
Limits seems okay-ish on the $50 plan but not too generous I think.
2nd place model on aa according to them, losing only to opus 5.5 is really really not bad
Even industry insiders were skeptical when he started hiring top talents from other labs away for 9 figure compensation packages.
And Wall Street definitely hated Meta for their CapEX spending.
Now looking at Muse the consumer product and this new model, I think there is a good chance that Zuck is proven once again as a great executioner, especially when they aren’t innovating in a completely new and unproven product space.
I have no doubt at all that Muse will turn out as great as the other product space Meta pioneered under Zuck - the Metaverse and it's constellation of devices.
BlackBerry phones also outsold the XBox (and the Quest), and one doesn't need to understand technology to call it a failure.
But it's far far too early to draw any conclusions around that.
I know people like you will point out Metaverse as a failure, but that’s really the exception instead of the norm.
Taking stuff everyone is already doing and making it easily accessible through Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp.
They’ve been throwing stuff at the wall to see what will stick and after years a cloud based OpenClaw clone seems to have (it’s early days still).
That’s simply leveraging their unprecedented platform dominance.
How about the Facebook phone then?
I get that some are adverse to Meta or want to run local. I don't care who wins the personal agent space, so long as it's not Apple. Buying Siri and having it be useless for anything beyond setting timers for 5 years, is kind of unforgivable. I don't like them in the "default" position to win the personal agent space.
I don't follow, that was just the state of the art at the time, Alexa, Cortana, Hey Google, were all similarly shit. And none has yet offered a scaled up assistant at the free-tier/cheap bundled sub yet.
I suppose you're not a native English speaker, btw: besides the dubious statement, probably "executor" is the word you wanted to use.
Personal intelligence is nice to have but I won't be paying a subscription for that when the free tiers are more than enough for my needs, unless somehow meta comes-up with a hardware device totally changing the way how we use personal AI (something similar to what iPhone did for mobile phones).
I've never heard of Zuck being considered a "great executioner." In fact, I'd argue that you just described why his execution is pretty bad lol
Really? You'd have to be pretty dumb to keep LeCun, someone who hates LLMs and keeps making claims that end up being proven false in matter of months.
Comments like this one reinforce the obvious truth that the people who are most "pro ai" are the ones who understand it the least
There's a ton of good models out there, but most are not making any money or profit.
So let's see what happens next. But I don't see any or many enterprises switching from using their Anthropic or OpenAI models to use Meta.
Input -- $4.00
Cached input -- $0.20
Output -- $20.00
Edit: Upon closer inspection, the benchmark scores for "Muse Wonder" on the main marketing page are actually for "Muse Wonder Full," which is only available on the higher-tier subscription plans. This pricing is for "Muse Wonder."
Source? On the available benchmarks it looks like Sol 6.1 level.
dont know why the f people downvote for saying sol pricing.
On the plus side it told me taking the light rail from SEA into the University district was faster and cheaper than Uber.
On the downside it would recommend restaurants that were out of business, checking out Salmon swimming through locks out of season, got the opening of Beecher's Cheese in Pikes Place wrong, and fumble it's way through most simple planning decisions. I think my favorite was when it asked me what flight I have tomorrow so it could help plan when to head to SEA. It sent me a very panicked message that the flight was leaving today! Very soon! I had to remind it this is a daily flight and I am booked on the next day before it checked and apologized.
For things that are verifiable, and code tends to be that way, these models can do all sorts of things. But I find it hard to reconcile Meta's goal of having a personal assistant bot with something that is unable to do the simplest tasks.
To be fair, the Coho salmon run at the Ballard locks peaks in September. It's possible you just had bad luck that day.
https://ballardlocks.org/fish-salmon-ladder.html
I run by the locks a few times a week and while I don't usually see fish, the presence of sea lions the last few weeks tells me that at least some salmon are running right now.
I'm assuming it was out of season because in talking with the Uber driver afterwards he said we'd missed the end of the season. I'm assuming his "local model" was up to date and accurate.
This is already so good that 90% of my work has shifted away from codex to this. So, muse-wonder-full coming near opus 5.5 is kinda expected.
This is the entire point here, give it a couple years every nation on the planet with 20-40B in funding would have their own champions with post Fable level performance.
Was this sarcasm?
How many nations on earth have 20-40B for LLM training? At 40.2 B, Spain has the 15th largest military budget in the world. I doubt any nation will spend 40B on gradient descent.
Like peloton in cycling.
E.g in f1 you can get very close but difficult to pass unless you have a significant advantage.
Page 16, Section 1.4, Notes on coverage of unreleased models.
"a noticeable improvement on Mythos 5 for many tasks relevant to internal use but does not display a capability jump"
Hamstringing any business that wants to reassure investors with a hype/pump cycle before an egregiously unsustainable IPO?
Maybe its a signal they think they've now cracked into the frontier and are willing to actually price similarly vs just trying to get users with discounted but maybe slightly worse results?
$4/$20 in vs out making it higher than Sol and on par with Opus.
The amount of total funding Anthropic or OpenAI has raised individually is like a year of ebitda for Google, meta, or Microsoft. And it doesn’t look like there’s a real moat outside of money
And I agree with you. "Give us code so Zucky can steal it, like he does everything else. Bonus points if it's related to Snapchat somehow"
I’m sorry, what?
Now as you might imagine, this was not popular or long-lived.
haiku/luna = S
sonnet/terra = M
opus/sol/spark = L
mythos/fable/astra/wonder = XL
whatever the next bigger model is = 2XL
https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/new-albany/meet-promet...
For example, there's a lot of people saying luna from openai is bad. However, that is simply not true. They're using it as-if you can talk to it, similar to how you would talk to a human, but what you actually want is combining it with something like prewalk from omp where you have a socially(?) smart model start the work and once the first edit lands switch to a cheap alternative like luna to finish work.
Luna and in general, smaller models, will struggle to understand the intent and complexities behind human language.
These regional lockdowns are making me feel funky, I feel like I should just use open models if others start playing at this game as well.
I was/am fine with Chinese companies offering cheaper subscriptions in China because ofc. But this is just weird, you could always charge me more let me try the damn thing, atleast it's own open router it seems like.
Initial impressions, interesting, it generated a pretty ok result for my prompt need to run a larger task but don't want to burn money so will wait for someone to burn their subscription and try running some opus 5.5 comparisons.
I recall that Meta made massive investments into compute infrastructure that put their capacity near the top of all competitors. If all of this is true, it looks like ownership of compute is a significant differentiator in performance.
A lot of the tasks were failed because they exceeded the $5 budget though, so maybe it would have gone on to complete them, it just required a lot of funds to do so. Still, that's the benchmark, and it's not better than MiMo V2.6 Pro which is pretty disappointing.
1 - https://bench.killswitch-lang.org/
2 - https://killswitch-lang.org/
Please confirm that you want to unsubscribe. Unsupported request - method type: post
That's how careful this company is. Who knows how long that flow has been broken for, no one in the company is motivated to care, because what impact can that possibly give? How could that look good on your PSC? No company has a worse history with user privacy and no company is less deserving of the sort of trust using Muse requires.
I think the only way meta can care about privacy, if any, is if it becomes socially taboo (lawsuit, WSJ/NYTimes report etc).
The clearest quantitative evidence of this is their P/E, its lower than others relative to its forecast earnings because of all the legal risks that need to accounted for.
In software, we've all become accustomed to the idea that the way you make money is by building little blocks of intellectual capital, then charging rent on it. That made sense when developing intellectual capital was a rare and valuable skill/asset and the thing you build was a rare and valuable asset. But now both are not rare. You can still charge rent, but the market is highly competitive, so prices match that.
Durable rents will end up going to those who owns the scarce assets, zuck is building those as we speak.
Dropping open weights will build an ecosystem that makes his valuable assets more valuable.
I'm following but maybe I'm a little dense here: what are the scarce assets that Meta is building in this analogy?
The biggest differentiating factor seems to be compute. I know most Chinese labs would really like more compute. Google and xAI too, but largely because they sold compute to their competitors.
Unless you are running a swarm of agents, it is extremely difficult to exhaust these plans in a month.
You have to realize that $15 Muse Code sub with Muse Spark 1.3 gets you around $1500 worth of usage. Neither Opencode Go or really anything else is even in the same ballpark of value. https://x.com/PawelHuryn/status/2106724136932327458
I was hoping this level of subsidization would last a long time but today's announcement make we worried it'll end pretty quickly. There's a lot of AI influencers noting just how fast Muse Wonder uses up their quotas so hopefully fixes are made.
Thanks to competition from open models, there is a limit to how much prices can be increased though.
Subscriptions like these make money by relying on the fact that most people do not try to (or have the time to) extract every last dime out of their plan. The eighty people who do not use up their quota cover for the twenty that do.
That and deals with providers to use spare capacity I guess.
Like the good ol' days of viruses and anti-viruses. I wonder if there's two sides that will play out; many agents across many users doing things at scale for their users, thereby creating an admin burden for someone else. However because the task is known there's a framework for how to solve the task, might Meta then provide an agent on the other side for the business owner to use.
How does it work on day-to-day workflows? does it translates well?
mousewheel repurposed?
background follow your mouse?
neutral tones?
well then YOU are viewing a frontier model announcement!
Seems they’ve just messed around with cheap and open weight models for years.
Then Muse appears, followed by full suite of frontier models…
Then, Full is meant for API usage and "Muse Code" only.
It's getting confusing what having "Muse" means.
1) This is a blatant copy of the game Overcooked. They just copied the whole concept + all the mechanics.
2) It it buggy, at least in Firefox it does not work. You cannot pick up a dirty plate. Somehow I picked it up, but couldn't see it. Then I could pick up a tomato, but when placing it on an empty plate it glitched into the cabinet. Then when picking a clean plate, my plate appeared again. Then it was over. ???
So from that we learn what AI can do: 0 creativity, just steal from real peoples work and do a shit job at it. As long as it looks good on first look.
[0] https://youtu.be/-qRc7qou6XY?is=hWofxO0G6X3JjST5
Also, this was 3 years ago, and he's been effectively wrong about his bet. But hey, maybe Muse Wonder is when Zucc's plan will come to fruition.
[0]: https://aibenchy.com/compare/meta-muse-wonder-max/openai-gpt...
why is google still not frontier?
It's a reasonable niche they're carving out, but I think too conservative. Very strange from Google. The other labs are racing to RSI and Google appears to have given up the race.
I think some of the benchmarks that Meta didn't pick show Gemini 4 Argon ahead but really the benchmarks are not that great any more and getting increasingly disconnected from reality as people search for "headroom" in the evals to avoid saturation I think. Opus 5.5 is "top" for example but I really dislike the way it talks to me (it feels quite condescending, holier-than-thou, uptight etc) and prefer Gemini 3.8 flash as a daily driver just because it's so much more pleasant (and faster!) to work with and it's code is good-enough for my needs, despite being weaker in the benchmarks.
Wonder is not an open model and there's no claims that it will be in their announcement.
Despite the claims that they would release weights for Muse Spark, they haven't done that yet either.
I guess what I'm saying is performance is fine... but what I really want to see is performance/dollar.
A new company on the frontier. Not close, but actually on it. Wow this is big news.
Only Muse Wonder is available in the API.
I blew through 14% weekly usage and I'll I asked:
Beware...What's next, Sun Shine?
Now if only they could fix their coding harness so that it's usable for day-to-day use. I paid them for a month to try out Muse Code, but their sandbox never worked across Mac or Linux (both very stock installs, nothing special).
(Disclaimer: I work at Cursor/SpaceX)
Had to use Algolia search to find this buried post.
Which is sad.
Beyond ridiculous
They used it for their goal before, not for describing their current muse models
>not a single mention of AI in their report
Trivially easy to see that this claim is also false. And that's not even mentioning the "AI Research" and "AI Developers" links in big bold letters, the model card, or how Wang is introduced as the Chief AI Officer.
Pretty big coup from Zuck to convince Trump to use it haha
I understand the general thing of it. SI might mean every person gets their personalized agent but you could already do this, but maybe the Chinese model works here, where they push the costs down
It's still stupid to start calling it all SI
Also, as much as I despise Trump, you know what? Given the jagged shape of LLM capabilities and what they do achieve in some areas and their superhuman speed, compared with the abilities of most of their users, the term superintelligence is not that far off- maybe just a few months ahead of time. E.g., from my perspective, the current mathematical abilities of LLMs are "super"- I'd hardly ever come in touch with an equivalently capable human, not to mention having one completely available 24/7. Same for general knowledge and several other domains.
that was all before Trump's "edict"
Sam Altman is much more dangerous because he is occasionally able to come across as human.