[HN Gopher] Muse Spark: Scaling towards personal superintelligence
___________________________________________________________________
Muse Spark: Scaling towards personal superintelligence
https://meta.ai/
Author : chabons
Score : 229 points
Date : 2026-04-08 16:01 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ai.meta.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (ai.meta.com)
| moab wrote:
| "Muse Spark is available now, and Contemplating mode will be
| rolling out gradually in meta.ai."
|
| How does one get their hands on these models? They are not open-
| source, right? I go to meta.ai, but it's just a chat interface---
| no equivalent to codex or claud code? Can you use this through
| OpenCode? Is meta charging for model access, or is the gathering
| of chat data a sufficiently large tithe?
| monkeydust wrote:
| TBD it seems. So far the only explained usage pattern is
| through a Meta product (Whatsapp, Facebook, Instagram).
| moab wrote:
| So to verify their claims and see how strong these models
| are, the answer is "believe us"?
|
| Note: I'm expressing some skepticism here largely due to how
| recent rollouts from Meta flopped. Sincerely hoping that they
| do better this time around!
| nemomarx wrote:
| I assume the answer is try it out in the chat mode? You
| could run your usual benches through that right
| pstuart wrote:
| I appreciate that they build this stuff for their own benefit,
| but I don't want to feed even more of my private info.
| Hopefully the models will become public or lead to equivalent
| models from other sources.
| meetpateltech wrote:
| "It will be available in private preview via API to select
| partners, and we hope to open-source future versions of the
| model."
|
| from Facebook Newsroom:
| https://about.fb.com/news/2026/04/introducing-muse-spark-met...
| tempaccount420 wrote:
| I can't think of any "select partners" that would want to use
| this non-SOTA model. Just put it on OpenRouter.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| If Microsoft is a select partner, maybe they could shove it
| into Copilot for VS or something, but yeah, I'm wondering
| the same, maybe Apple could be one of their partners too?
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| That would be my question also. I like it when companies have
| easy to sign up for, pay as you go models. Being able to buy $5
| worth of tokens and get an API key - in less than a few minutes
| - is ideal.
| warthog wrote:
| Hoping the benchmarks are correct this time...
| htrp wrote:
| Anyone done vibe testing at meta ai yet?
| ddp26 wrote:
| The second paragraph starts "Muse Spark is the first step on our
| scaling ladder and the first product of a ground-up overhaul of
| our AI efforts. To support further scaling, we are making
| strategic investments..."
|
| This article is about Meta, not about the user. Who signs off on
| these? Is the intended audience other people at Meta, not the
| user?
| tjkrusinski wrote:
| The article is published primarily to signal to the market that
| Meta is serious in its efforts to compete in building frontier
| ai models.
|
| They want to 1) attract talent, 2) tell wall street they can
| play in this space as well, 3) help employees feel the company
| is moving in the right direction.
|
| A frontier LLM doesn't apply to their core consumer products.
| Lihh27 wrote:
| the blog is the product. investor deck posted as a tech
| launch
| conradkay wrote:
| Stock up 9% today, very pleasant for Zuck if you do the math on
| his net worth :)
| hungryhobbit wrote:
| I mean, kinda? It's not like Zuck is selling his stock
| tomorrow, so daily fluctuations in stock price don't really
| affect him.
| zurfer wrote:
| > Muse Spark is available today at meta.ai and the Meta AI app.
| We're opening a private API preview to select users.
| m4r1k wrote:
| So no Open-weight .. why one would choose Muse Spark instead of
| Anthropic, OpenAI, or Google models all featuring from good to
| amazing harness?
| Artgor wrote:
| I'm cautiously waiting for the feedback from the first users.
| Meta has produced a lot of great models (LLama), maybe this is a
| comeback... but I'm cautious, as the jump in the quality is
| almost too high.
|
| Also, I think people aren't used that using such models requires
| meta.ai or meta ai app.
| solenoid0937 wrote:
| My Meta friends say it's benchmaxxed af
| loeg wrote:
| We used to call this "overfitting," but I suppose everything
| has to be maxxed now. Fitmaxxed?
| conradkay wrote:
| It doesn't seem benchmaxxed, ARC AGI 2 score is quite bad
| (42.5%, GPT 5.4 is 76.1%) and coding is okay. But maybe this is
| the best Meta can do even benchmaxxing
|
| The impressive part is multimodality, very plausible since
| there's less focus there by other labs (especially Anthropic)
| dbgrman wrote:
| Given llama 4 mucked up benchmark numbers, I'd take spark
| announcement with a many grains of salt.
| khalic wrote:
| Oh good, if they built a lab, I'm sure they took the time the
| precisely define what they mean by super intelligence? Right? ...
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| If this is super intelligence, then it follows we must all be
| super-duper intelligence.
| gardnr wrote:
| It's personal...
| gallerdude wrote:
| This would have been an amazing release 6 months ago. But the
| industry moves so fast, this is a trite release. Maybe it's best
| for Meta to sell their superintelligence division. I don't think
| Zuck's vision is particularly compelling.
| gordonhart wrote:
| A new model comparable (ish) to the Claude/Gemini/GPT flagships
| is a big deal for the industry and for Meta even if it doesn't
| set the new frontier.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Their new Contemplating mode gives this model a Deep Research
| ability (akin to existing models from GPT and Gemini) that
| might make it quite comparable to the just-announced Mythos.
| solenoid0937 wrote:
| Mythos is a much bigger pre train, Contemplating is not the
| same thing.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| > Mythos is a much bigger pre train
|
| Do we have data to substantiate that claim?
| solenoid0937 wrote:
| It's pretty common knowledge. Spud is the only other PT
| comparable with Mythos.
|
| Both Spud and Mythos can also scale via inference time
| compute.
|
| Meta simply did not have enough compute online, long
| enough ago, to have a similar PT.
| temp_praneshp wrote:
| > might make it quite comparable to the just-announced
| Mythos
|
| Do we have data to substantiate that claim?
| gallerdude wrote:
| I'm not sure. If it was open source, certainly. But 4th place
| doesn't really matter if you have nothing different to add.
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| Fourth place means you're not reliant on any of the
| external providers for internal AI use, which is important
| for organizational health and negotiating with those other
| providers.
| rubyn00bie wrote:
| I'm not sure it's useful for negotiating, the capex to
| build it was surely orders of magnitude more than it
| would cost to just use one of the other frontier models.
|
| It's like someone negotiating by saying, "I'll waste even
| MORE money to build something worse if you don't give me
| a deal."
|
| I'm not discounting there may be other advantages to
| doing it. I just don't think negotiating is one.
| lairv wrote:
| If the model is truly on par with Opus 4.6/Gemini 3.1/GPT
| 5.4 (beyond benchmarks) this still puts MSL in the frontier
| lab category, which is no small feat given that they pretty
| much rebooted last year
|
| Many labs aren't able to keep up with the frontier, xAI,
| Mistral
| blahblaher wrote:
| Why would you use this instead of the other more proven
| models? Unless it's significantly cheaper. The general
| population mostly wants it free, and the more professional
| users are willing to pay for good/better responses.
| NitpickLawyer wrote:
| You wouldn't use this as an API. You would "use" this
| inside the meta properties. Have a shop on fb marketplace?
| Now you have copy, images, support, chat, translations,
| erp, esp, fps and all the other acronyms :) and so on for
| your mom and pop shop @200$/mo. Probably worse than say
| claude/gemini but it's right there, one button away. "Click
| here to upgrade to AI++" or something.
| gallerdude wrote:
| But rolling your own can't be that much cheaper than
| buying it from a leading lab. Especially when you
| consider the amount of spending on datacenters.
| hnav wrote:
| leading labs are going to be tightening the screws.
| Otherwise why not just run the entire company on a public
| cloud?
| gordonhart wrote:
| I won't use it, but I'm excited to see it for the same
| reason why I'm excited to see a near-frontier open-source
| release: more competition pushes prices down and reduces
| monopoly/cartel risk. I won't use Muse or Grok or GLM at
| this point but they're good for the ecosystem.
| dgellow wrote:
| I never understood why meta decided to join the race. They
| don't sell compute like Google or Microsoft. Why not let others
| do the hard work and integrate their LLMs in your systems if
| needed? I assume it's because they have Instagram, Facebook,
| WhatsApp, Thread data and feel they should be the ones using
| them for training, but it's really not obvious how having a
| frontier AI lab benefits their business
| gallerdude wrote:
| I'm sure there's more to it than this, but it feels like Zuck
| has pet interests like VR and now AI.
| alex1138 wrote:
| But no account support, that's boring
|
| Or any quality control (people missing posts)
|
| Or banning the people who should be banned while leaving
| everyone else alone
|
| This is Zuck: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4151433
| or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10791198
| yoz-y wrote:
| AI NPCs to fill in the empty Metaverse?
| awestroke wrote:
| Because Zuck has chronic FOMO, he's said as much himself
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| But then how will Zuck win the billionaire dick measuring
| contest?
| chairmansteve wrote:
| Pumps up the stock price.
| xnx wrote:
| Zuck is trying to convince himself he's good, and not just
| lucky.
| swyx wrote:
| you dont understand why zuck, who paid $1B for instagram when
| they had no revenue and 7 employees because he is paranoid
| about platform shifts, decided to join the race for (what is
| seeming highly possibly) the biggest platform shift in human
| history?
| oceansky wrote:
| He also tried and failed to buy Snapchat, and then copied
| their feature on all their big products: Instagram,
| Facebook and even WhatsApp.
| prodigycorp wrote:
| The way you put it, I understand it less. lol
| observationist wrote:
| Adtech Money. They've got GPUs, they've got the
| infrastructure, and they've got the advertisement platform,
| and the point is getting AI that can exploit the adtech and
| create a flywheel effect, maximizing return from the data
| they collect from Insta, WhatsApp, Facebook, etc.
|
| It's not just about LLMs, it's about being able to model
| consumers and markets and psychology and so on. Meta is also
| big in the manipulation side of things, any sort of cynical
| technological exploitation of humans you can imagine but that
| is _technically_ legal, they 're doing it for profit.
| bee_rider wrote:
| I think they just want to be a winner in the "next thing."
| They hit social networking, but missed mobile operating
| systems and didn't compellingly win at social media.
| Eventually an ambitious person with a bazillion dollars wants
| a clear win, right?
| eldenring wrote:
| Because there's a realistic chance this is the only important
| software technology moving forward, and commoditizes Metas's
| entire business which is software.
| dgellow wrote:
| Meta's business is human attention, human connections, and
| all derived data. They can use AIs for their systems, but
| the question is why do they feel the need to spend billions
| on training and running their own frontier model
| chermi wrote:
| You basically have to be involved if you're meta. Even if
| there's only 5% chance this AI stuff is as disruptive as the
| labs claim it is, you can't afford to miss out. Even if
| you're lagging frontier, you must develop the competency
| internally. Otherwise you ignored a 5% chance of total
| annihilation, probably even exposing you to shareholder
| lawsuits.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| A few things:
|
| 1) meta was doing this at scale before openAI
|
| 2) decent ML is critical to catagorising content at scale,
| the more accurate and fast the category, the finer the
| recommendations can be (ie instead of woman, outside as a tag
| for a video, woman, age, hair colour, location, subjects in
| view, main subject of video, video style) doing that as fast
| as possible with as little energy as possible is mission
| critical
|
| 3) The llama leak basically evaporated the moat around openAI
| who _could_ have become a competitor
|
| 4) for the AR stuff, all of these models (and visual models)
| are required to make the platform work. They also need
| complete ownership so that it can be distilled to make it run
| on tiny hardware
|
| 5) dick swinging
|
| 6) they genuinely want to become a industrial behemoth, so
| robots, hardware, etc are now all in scope.
| vinni2 wrote:
| From what I heard Meta is spending hundreds of millions each
| month in Claude credits for developers. So that's a huge
| saving if they have own models that match Opus.
| spindump8930 wrote:
| Spending tons of money on Claude and the recent token
| benchmarks came WELL after Meta's huge investments in
| compute infrastructure for AI as well as the long history
| of language model development inside science divisions at
| the company.
| addandsubtract wrote:
| To download all those torrents, obviously.
| aylmao wrote:
| First and most importantly is the fact they have a lot of
| very valuable data they wouldn't want to siphon to a
| competitor. This data is a key strategic asset in the space
| where they do business.
|
| Secondly though, I think it has to do with the fact Meta is
| big enough to worry about vertical integration and full
| control of their business.
|
| The whole reason they've been trying to make AR/VR happen for
| over a decade now is the assumption of a worst case and best
| case scenario. The worst case is Apple and Google wants them
| gone. This isn't as far fetched as it seems, Google has
| historically been Meta's biggest competitor and even tried to
| release its own social network back when Meta was threatening
| them. If either pulls Meta apps from their respective stores,
| it'd be an immense blow to Meta; their whole trillion-dollar
| business depends on competitor's platforms.
|
| Meta tried making inroads into the phone business but failed;
| it is a very crowded market after all. So they changed their
| strategy. Instead of playing catch-up, they'd invent "the
| next iPhone" and be the first to a brand new market. This is
| the best case scenario; they invent a new platform where they
| can be dominant from day 1 and stop depending on competitor's
| hardware, not only removing that risk factor for them, but
| also unlocking a new market they can control.
|
| AI ties into all this because it appears to be key for this
| next platform to happen. You will communicate with these
| smart glasses via voice, hand gestures, or subtle movements
| that a model will have to interpret. The features that could
| make them stand out as more than just a screen on your face
| are all AI related; object detection, world understanding,
| context awareness, etc. If all this were done via a 3rd party
| Meta would effectively be back on square one: a competitor
| could easily yank away its model access, or sell it to a
| competitor. Meta would be again at the mercy of others.
|
| Compared to other big-tech players, I think it's easy to see
| how Meta is in a riskier position. There's little Google or
| Microsoft can do to kill the iPhone. There's little Apple or
| Google can do to kill Amazon's online store. There's little
| Amazon or Apple can do to kill Microsoft's business deals.
| Google and Meta are primarily in the business of capturing
| people's data, attention, and selling ads, and both Google
| and Apple could do quite some damage to Meta. Beyond
| expanding it, it's important for them to invest in ways to
| protect their money-printing machine.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| LLMs/Chat-based systems will reach a point where Facebook,
| WhatsApp, Threads, Instagram, etc. are all unnecessary. The
| idea of opening a browser or a specific app to do a thing
| will seem antiquated. You can do it all with your chat-based
| agent. Meta wants to be part of that.
| operatingthetan wrote:
| I don't think everyone only wants to talk to machines going
| forward...?
| SoftTalker wrote:
| I don't want to do it now. But that seems to be where we
| are being headed, like lemmings running for the cliff.
| dgellow wrote:
| Sure but they have the platforms, they don't need their own
| frontier models for that
| SoftTalker wrote:
| The platforms will be irrelevant at some point. "Posting
| to Facebook" won't be a thing.
| bachmeier wrote:
| > I never understood why meta decided to join the race.
|
| I can think of at least two reasons. Price and
| customizability. If they train their own models on their own
| data, they potentially have a better model at a better price,
| and they're not at the mercy of Anthropic's decisions when
| they decide to raise prices. Additionally, if you use someone
| else's model, you use it the way they create it and permit
| you to use it. In a couple years, who has any idea how these
| models are used. Arguably, a company the size of Meta should
| be in control of their AI models.
| storus wrote:
| Only thanks to Meta we have competitive local LLMs. Without
| LLama nothing decent would have been released. Commoditize
| your complements in action.
| throwaw12 wrote:
| > I don't think Zuck's vision is particularly compelling.
|
| But he has to do it anyways, otherwise Meta can be disrupted
| easily.
|
| Google, Apple has hardware, distribution channels for their
| products
|
| Amazon has the marketplace and cloud
|
| Microsoft has enterprise and cloud
|
| Meta is always looking for ways to stay afloat
| xnx wrote:
| Meta has 3.5 billion daily active users
| throwaw12 wrote:
| and has competitors like: TikTok, SnapChat, YouTube,
| Netflix, X, HBO, Amazon Prime, all fighting for the
| attention time.
|
| They are worried something like Sora can disrupt them
| quickly
| chrsw wrote:
| So Meta is not releasing open source models anymore?
| sidcool wrote:
| Will experiment with the model. But I am scared of sharing any
| information with the Zuck ecosystem.
| toddmorey wrote:
| Question: since they've rebooted their approach to AI... have
| they given up on open models? There's no mention of open source
| or open weights or access to the models beyond their hosted
| services.
| thegeomaster wrote:
| Alexandr Wang on Twitter [0] mentioned open source plans:
|
| "this is step one. bigger models are already in development
| with infrastructure scaling to match. private api preview open
| to select partners today, with plans to open-source future
| versions. incredibly proud of the MSL team. excited for what's
| to come!"
|
| https://x.com/alexandr_wang/status/2041909388852748717
| prodigycorp wrote:
| So the answer is: no. lol. Remember Llama 4 Behemoth, and how
| we were supposed to get more great models from it?
| wmf wrote:
| This may be too large to run locally anyway. Maybe they will
| distill down some smaller open versions later.
| OsrsNeedsf2P wrote:
| The only benchmark they show against SOTA models is in bioweapons
| refusal.
|
| Edit: nvm I can't read, regular benchmarks against SOTA are there
| santiagobasulto wrote:
| This looks like a very interesting model and very promising,
| especially after llama lost so much ground recently. I hope they
| release the weights
| visioninmyblood wrote:
| https://meta.ai/ this is where you can try it seems like the API
| is not publicly accessable yet. I feel they are very late to the
| game and do not show value to customers over other models.
| p_stuart82 wrote:
| late isn't the problem. private preview api and no reason to
| switch. that's just another hosted model
| throwaw12 wrote:
| How is that Meta spent so much money for talent and hardware, but
| the model barely matches Opus 4.6?
|
| Especially, looking at these numbers after Claude Mythos, feels
| like either Anthropic has some secret sauce, or everyone else is
| dumber compared to the talent Anthropic has
| zozbot234 wrote:
| > has some secret sauce
|
| Yup, it's called test-time compute. Mythos is described as
| plenty slower than Opus, enough to seriously annoy users trying
| to use it for quick-feedback-loop agentic work. It is most
| properly compared with GPT Pro, Gemini DeepThink or this latest
| model's "Contemplating" mode. Otherwise you're just not
| comparing like for like.
| throwaw12 wrote:
| > it's called test-time compute.
|
| Why can't others easily replicate it?
| coder68 wrote:
| I have not delved into the theory yet but it seems that the
| smaller open-source models do this already to an extent.
| They have less parameters, but spend much more time/tokens
| reasoning, as a way to close the performance gap. If you
| look at "tokens per problem" on https://swe-rebench.com/ it
| seems to be the case at least.
| strulovich wrote:
| Meta did a bunch of mistakes, and look like Zuckerberg spent a
| lot of money on talent and made big swings to change it (that
| happened about a year ago)
|
| I think it's unrealistic to expect them to come back from that
| pit to the top in one year, but I wouldn't rule them out
| getting there with more time. That's a possible future. They
| have the money and Zuckerberg's drive at the helm. It can go a
| long way.
| solenoid0937 wrote:
| It's benchmaxxed.
|
| If they _actually_ matched Opus 4.6 on such a short timeline,
| it would have been mighty impressive. (Keep in mind this is a
| new lab and they are prohibited from doing distills.)
| throwaw12 wrote:
| how do you know it's benchmaxxed?
| solenoid0937 wrote:
| Friends at Meta with access to the model + personal
| experience at Meta.
|
| Meta's performance process is essentially "show good
| numbers or you're out." So guess what people do when they
| don't have good numbers? They fudge them. Happens all
| across the company.
| prodigycorp wrote:
| meta's benchmaxing tendencies are well known. llama4 was
| mega benchmaxxed, there's nothing that suggests to me that
| meta's culture has changed.
| spindump8930 wrote:
| Re: changes, there's been enormous turnover in AI
| organizations, and in theory this one was developed by a
| "new" org. Whether that means less or more benchmaxxing
| is anyone's guess.
| luma wrote:
| For one, they aren't using the latest version of many of
| the benchmarks. eg, ARC-AGI 2 and not 3, etc.
| impulser_ wrote:
| It's not even on par with Sonnet. It's on par with open source
| models and it not even open source and sit behind a private
| preview API.
|
| Might as well not release anything.
| username223 wrote:
| Facebook is working with the talent that can't find a job at
| some other company. It doesn't surprise me they ship
| mediocrity.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| Matching Opus 4.6 would be pretty good? It's the SOTA actually
| available model
| reissbaker wrote:
| Muse Spark doesn't even match GLM-5.1 on most benchmarks. And
| GLM is open source!
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| Anthropic has just been focused on coding/terminal work longer
| mostly, and their PRO tier model is coding focused, unlike the
| GPT and Gemini pro tier models which have been optimized for
| science.
|
| Their whole "training the LLM to be a person" technique
| probably contributes to its pleasant conversational behavior,
| and making its refusals less annoying (GPT 5.2+ got obnoxiously
| aligned), and also a bit to its greater autonomy.
|
| Overall they don't have any real moat, but they are more
| focused than their competition (and their marketing team is
| slaying).
| zozbot234 wrote:
| Autonomy for agentic workflows has nothing to do with
| "replying more like a person", you have to refine the model
| for it quite specifically. All the large players are trying
| to do that, it's not really specific to Anthropic. It may be
| true however that their higher focus on a "Constitutional
| AI"/RLAIF approach makes it a bit easier to align the model
| to desirable outcomes when acting agentically.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| You think it has nothing to do with it. Even they only have
| a loose understanding of exactly the final results of
| trying to treat Claude like a real being in terms of how
| the model acts.
|
| For example, Claude has a "turn evil in response to
| reinforced reward hacking" behavior which is a fairly
| uniquely Claude thing (as far as I've seen anyhow), and
| very likely the result of that attempt to imbue personhood.
| rvz wrote:
| Until you actually try the model itself, assume any benchmark
| presented to you as being part of the marketing material of the
| model, as it is not independently verified and completely biased.
|
| The same is true with any other model, unless otherwise stated.
|
| In the next few days, we'll see who Meta has paid to promote this
| model on social media.
| daft_pink wrote:
| This really reinforces the idea that the AI race and the Railroad
| Mania of the 19th century are very similar.
|
| So many different companies are going to have similarly powerful
| ai that there will be no moat around it and it will be cheap.
| They will never earn their investment back.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| The moat is in the compute and the energy access.
|
| And further down the line in chips, which is why Elon is
| building a fab now.
|
| There are plenty of capable models on HuggingFace, yet I have
| no way of running them.
| khalic wrote:
| Give it a few years, or month. Tiny models are getting
| outrageously good
| mobattah wrote:
| Exactly. We'll see the cost of AI continue to drop.
|
| I was saying this for years about Tesla's FSD - they
| finally had to give in and drop the price to stay
| competitive.
| dbt00 wrote:
| FSD still sucks ass compared to Waymo.
| spprashant wrote:
| I wonder if this is why the tech cartel is buying up all
| the hardware?
|
| If the average user gets convinced they could run LLMs for
| cheap at home, you cannot trap users in your walled garden
| anymore.
| QQ00 wrote:
| They actually need it because the demand is higher than
| expected from consumers. And because they need a moat
| since every big corporation trying to capture that market
| too, they need the moat for the biggest compute and
| energy they can get.
|
| Also businesses is were the money at, not regular
| consumers (especially tech-savvy folk who run models
| locally).
| cedws wrote:
| That fab will never be delivered. In five years you might see
| the manufacturing equivalent of a person dancing in spandex.
| QQ00 wrote:
| The only company that musk own and actually achieve
| something is spacex. so I believe you. He likes to hype
| things beyond what is actually possible.
|
| spacex is engineering masterpiece with how they
| revolutionize the space industry.
| nutjob2 wrote:
| > which is why Elon is building a fab now
|
| At least he says he's doing that. It doesn't really make
| sense since you're not going to achieve an advanced node from
| a standing start in a practical time frame and cost.
|
| Sounds like more Musk flavored vapor.
| re-thc wrote:
| > It doesn't really make sense since you're not going to
| achieve an advanced node from a standing start in a
| practical time frame and cost.
|
| They already announced a partnership with Intel.
| nutjob2 wrote:
| Oh the irony.
| cheriot wrote:
| I suspect this is the real reason behind Anthropic limiting
| subscriptions to their own products and keeping API prices
| several times higher than comparable models. Applications more
| sticky than API users and less technical users more sticky than
| programmers (ie Cowork more sticky than Code).
| netcan wrote:
| Anthropic generally seem more into living within market
| discipline and market signals of some sort. Products with
| margins, even if it's sort of irrelevant considering R&D
| costs and capital inflow.
|
| That said, there's nothing like the real thing.
|
| The risk is something like the railroad bubble _and_ the
| dotcom. Over-investement, circular revenue _and_ a timeline
| that doesn 't work.
|
| Or, maybe it'll work out.
| holoduke wrote:
| Nah. Everybody is talking about ai. Everybody is using it. It's
| by far the most popular new tool human beings are using
| currently. As popular as mobile phones or spoons. And maybe as
| disruptive as the steam engines. AI companies are becoming the
| largest software companies on the planet. Everything points
| into that direction. Trillions of dollars are waiting in the
| market to be collected.
| Eufrat wrote:
| Based on what? A lot of this is vibes and FOMO; just like any
| economic bubble.
|
| There is no objective evidence of anything you've said. It
| isn't even clear if AI has contributed positively to global
| economic growth. It reminds me a lot of the late 90s and the
| dot-com mania. Slapping a domain on a commercial would make
| your stock go up even if there was no substance to any of it.
|
| The real shame is this mania drowns out serious, practical
| use cases because when the bubble collapses, the market will
| throw the baby out with the bathwater.
| olelele wrote:
| You can do anything at zombo.com!
| atleastoptimal wrote:
| How can you look at Anthropic's revenue chart and claim
| it's just vibes
| Eufrat wrote:
| 1. Revenue is not profit; you can make $10 billion by
| spending $20 billion.
|
| 2. It is not clear how they are getting their numbers.
| mirekrusin wrote:
| What people seem to miss is that they don't need to get the
| investment back from people, they will get it from machines.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Could you explain how you think that's going to work? Because
| to me it seems that until machines have bank accounts,
| there's no money for them to get.
| girvo wrote:
| People are the one with money, though, at the end of the day.
| creddit wrote:
| Ran some of my internal benchmarks against this and I'm very
| unimpressed. I don't think this moves them into the OAI v
| Anthropic v Gemini conversation at all.
|
| Major analytical errors in their response to multiple of my
| technical questions.
| creddit wrote:
| Playing with this some more and it's actively not good. Just
| basic mathematical errors riddling responses. Did some basic
| adversarial testing where its responses are analyzed by Gemini
| and Gemini is finding basic math errors across every relatively
| (relative to Opus, Gemini or GPT can handle) simple ask I make.
| Yikes.
| smlacy wrote:
| Post actual results, make a blog post. Don't just say "this
| sucks" without tangible evidence.
|
| Otherwise you're doomed to "sample size of one" level of
| relevance.
| thorum wrote:
| I have the opposite experience: random HN/Reddit comments
| saying "this sucks" or "whoa this is a huge improvement"
| are the only benchmark that means anything. Standard
| benchmarks are all gamed and don't capture the complexity
| of the real world.
| mliker wrote:
| It's quite good for multimodal cases that 3 billion people
| would use it for though it lags in scientific areas
| oliver236 wrote:
| so glad its beating all the others on bioweapons refusal. this is
| what i most wanted out of the latest SOTA model
| wmf wrote:
| Zuck has a lot more experience being summoned before Congress
| than you.
| chankstein38 wrote:
| Personal Superintelligence made me think this was an open-source
| model being released and I was excited. Then I continued reading
| and I'll just wait until the model comes out.
| gardnr wrote:
| I was really excited until I realised that "personal" meant
| "owned by meta".
|
| I'm trying to decide is I find the doublespeak a bit offensive
| or not.
| dbgrman wrote:
| I wonder if Zuck will ever internalize that the words
| 'personal' and 'meta' will not be taken seriously together for
| another decade (if they don't make another gaff).
| ComputerGuru wrote:
| So does this confirm the end of llama?
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Associated Meta news post with consumer-friendly takes:
| https://about.fb.com/news/2026/04/introducing-muse-spark-met...
| ehutch79 wrote:
| How's the metaverse doing? It was the next big thing and how
| we're all going to be working inside it in... was it like 3
| months ago?
|
| Maybe they need to mine more libra coin first? or is it diem now?
| is that even still part of meta?
|
| I'm sure this new AI is super intelligent and super awesome and
| will be writing all the code, making all the blog posts, and
| generating all our youtube shorts in 6 months.
| captn3m0 wrote:
| Libra/Diem got sold to the bank they were partnering with
| (Silvergate) for $200M, which then filed for Bankruptcy.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diem_(digital_currency)
| serf wrote:
| what's with the negativity?
|
| yeah, the metaverse got abandoned. Also: Meta was the only one
| to try the concept for the past X-umpteen years even though
| everyone in the industry ga-gas over virtual reality worlds and
| workplaces at every opportunity. It's literally Meta and Linden
| Labs (which has been on life support for 10+ years.)
|
| The alternative is : no one does it and nothing gets abandoned,
| which the industry has shown itself to be _exceedingly good at_
| w.r.t VR for the past 40+ years.
|
| To be clear: I have no faith in meta as a company; my problem
| lies in kicking an entity because they attempted something
| different.. I don't think that's productive, and it produces
| stuff like the past AI winters because groups get afraid of
| touching experimental concepts ever again lest they incur the
| wrath of the shareholder.
| ehutch79 wrote:
| It's not the failure here or there, it's a pattern. It's not
| even the failing, it's the excessive hype cycle.
|
| We keep seeing things being overhyped, with not much thought
| behind it. Meta is particularly bad about it. They changed
| their name for the hype of their VR product, when VR was
| still niche and had a long way to go, and still does. They
| couldn't even figure out legs for launch.
|
| Now they have a 'superintellegence'? Yeah, that sounds like
| just the latest in a line of bullshit. Why would this be
| different.
| sva_ wrote:
| > Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other
| people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| ehutch79 wrote:
| Establishing a pattern of over hyping of projects that then
| disappear isn't a shallow dismissal.
| jansport123 wrote:
| did they just copy the chatgpt ui?
| sidcool wrote:
| Meta.ai has muse spark
| tty456 wrote:
| I don't get the comments trashing this. If it slightly beats or
| even matches Opus 4.6, it means Meta is capable of building a
| model competitive with the leading AI company. Sure, they spent a
| lot of money and will have on-going costs. But how much more work
| would it take to turn that into a coding agent people are willing
| to try (and pay for) along side their usage of a collection of
| agents (Claude, Codex, etc)? Also means Meta doesn't have to pay
| another company to use a SATA model across all their products
| (including IG and WhatsApp, vr) which will matter to their
| balance sheet long term (despite the constant r&d spend).
| prodigycorp wrote:
| Comments trashing this are rightly correct skeptics who
| remember the benchmaxxing of llama 4. This model was out in the
| woods as early as like a couple months ago but they didn't
| release it because it was at gemini 2.5 pro levels.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| The llama4 series was one of the earliest large MoE's to be
| made publically available. People just ignored it because
| they were focused on running smaller and denser models at the
| time, we should know better these days.
| prodigycorp wrote:
| the models were objectively horrible
| NitpickLawyer wrote:
| They really weren't horrible. They were ~gpt4o, with the
| added benefit that you could run them on premise. Just
| "regular" models, non "thinking". Inefficient
| architecture (number of active out of total) but
| otherwise "decent" models. They got trashed online by
| bots and chinese shills (I was online that weekend when
| it happened, it's something to behold). Just because they
| were non-thinking when thinking was clearly the future
| doesn't make them horrible. Not SotA by any means, but
| still.
| prodigycorp wrote:
| Nah I remember how disgusted I felt trying llama 4
| maverick and scout. They were both DOA.. couldn't even
| beat much smaller local models.
| refulgentis wrote:
| I'll cosign what you said, simultaneously, yr
| interlocutor's point is also well-founded and it
| depresses me it's not better known and sounds
| so...off...due to conventional wisdom x God King Zuck's
| misunderstanding his own company and resulting
| overreaction.
|
| They beat Gemini 2.5 Flash and Pro _handily_ on my
| benchmark suite. (tl;dr: tool calling and agentic
| coding).
|
| Llama 4 on Groq was ~GPT 4.1 on the benchmark at ~50% the
| cost.
|
| They shouldn't have released it on a Saturday.
|
| They should have spent a month with it in private
| prerelease, working with providers.[1]
|
| The rushed launch and ensuing quality issues got rolled
| into the hypebeast narrative of "DeepSeek will take over
| the world"
|
| I bet it was super fucking annoying to talk to due to
| LMArena maxxing.
|
| [1] my understanding is longest heads up was single-digit
| days, if any. Most modellers have arrived at 2+ weeks
| now, there's a _lot_ between spitting out logits and
| parsing and delivering a response.
| alex1138 wrote:
| Your comments seem to imply the engineers made a great
| product but Zuck intervened so now it's shit
| refulgentis wrote:
| I don't know how Zuck intervening could change float32s
| in a trained model, so I don't think I think that, but
| maybe I'm parsing your words incorrectly.
| pixel_popping wrote:
| failing non-stop at tool calls on top of that.
| refulgentis wrote:
| Wrote longer comment steel-manning this, posted it to a
| reply, then realized you might like to know they had a
| reasoning model on deck ready for release in the next 2-4
| weeks.
|
| Got shitcanned due to bad PR & Zuck God-King terraforming
| the org, so there'd be a year delay to next release.
|
| Real tragi-comedy, and you have no idea how happy it
| makes me to see someone in the wild saying this. It
| sounds so bizarre to people given the conventional
| wisdom, but, it's what happened.
| dilap wrote:
| Deepseek R1 was a publically-available, MoE model that was
| getting a ton of attention before llama4. Llama4 didn't get
| much attention because it wasn't good.
| redox99 wrote:
| > If it slightly beats or even matches Opus 4.6
|
| It doesn't though
| ryeguy_24 wrote:
| Curious on why you think this. Any data points that led you
| to this?
| howdareme wrote:
| The benchmarks they released
| johnfn wrote:
| What do you mean? In most cases, the benchmarks show a
| larger number for Muse and a smaller number for Opus.
| spprashant wrote:
| In Multimodal yes, but Opus is definitely edging out in
| Text/Reasoning and Agentic benchmarks.
|
| I think the general skepticism is because they are late
| to race, and they are releasing a Opus-4.6-equivalent
| model now, when Anthropic is teasing Mythos.
| ChipopLeMoral wrote:
| > I don't get the comments trashing this.
|
| People like to hate on Meta regardless of anything, and
| regardless of whether it's justified or not. Not saying it
| isn't, just that it's many people's default bias.
| modeless wrote:
| It's a decent model if the benchmarks are to be believed, but
| it won't be close to Opus in usefulness for programming. None
| of these benchmarks completely capture what makes a model
| useful for day-to-day coding tasks, unfortunately. It will take
| time for them to catch up, and Opus will keep improving in the
| meantime. But it's good to have more competition.
| blazespin wrote:
| Because bots and trillion dollar ipos and even bigger stakes.
| People need to better appreciate the level of manipulation
| going on. Social media has an outsized impact. Bots and even
| people are getting paid to post and upvote/downvote narratives.
| asdfman123 wrote:
| > people are getting paid to post and upvote/downvote
| narratives
|
| This problem will be solved shortly with better AI (if it
| hasn't essentially been solved already).
|
| No more humans in the loop, much lower costs for social media
| manipulation. Welcome to the future!
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| I can remember when AOL was an unstoppable giant. Except it
| wasn't. People eventually realized they could get a better,
| cheaper, faster experience with ISPs and search engines. The same
| path is unfolding before Meta. People have much better options,
| and plethora of Meta users will slowly leave until the big moat
| is drained. Zuck, go retire to your NZ bunker before Meta is
| forced to merge with another media company.
| hackrmn wrote:
| The hero image on the linked page, which consists of a muted teal
| background with the words "Introducing Muse Spark", weighs in at
| 3,5MB. I don't even...
| Invictus0 wrote:
| complaining about sand on the beach
| hackrmn wrote:
| I am simply offended. By Meta's lack of sensibilities (or
| ability) towards use of images on the Web while touting their
| new flavour of artificial intelligence as a product.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| old man shouts at cloud
| hackrmn wrote:
| more like old man shouts at someone else's computer
| fooqux wrote:
| It's not sand on the beach, it's garbage on the beach.
| hungryhobbit wrote:
| Someday our robot overlords will be intelligent enough to ...
| optimize images!
|
| (But today is not that day.)
| ruszki wrote:
| The proper optimization in this case is to not use images at
| all.
| zfol_510 wrote:
| And it doesn't even look high-res.
| Overpower0416 wrote:
| lol it literally took me 2s to google search "optimize image
| for website" and 10s to upload and get a smaller sized image.
|
| The result for that specific image is: 500kb. 85% decrease in
| size
| sofixa wrote:
| You can even automatically do that on your CDN/delivery/web
| server layer. Or as part of your web deployment pipeline.
| Overpower0416 wrote:
| Yes, but it might be a little too advance for Meta ;)
| re-thc wrote:
| But they have personal superintelligence?
| BugsJustFindMe wrote:
| An indistinguishable JPG is 170KB. An SVG would be 20KB.
| levocardia wrote:
| CSS with a linear gradient background would be even smaller
| :)
| KerrickStaley wrote:
| "Please don't complain about tangential annoyances--e.g.
| article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button
| breakage. They're too common to be interesting."
|
| - Hacker News Guidelines
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| yawnxyz wrote:
| I think this speaks to the product release iself
| gobdovan wrote:
| It's at least Meta-relevant. Compression Represents
| Intelligence Linearly (Y Huang, 2024)
| sumedh wrote:
| Such complaints are valid for AI model releases, that tells
| us that they are not using their own models to test their own
| release pages.
| fleabitdev wrote:
| Good catch - looks like it's a PNG image, with an alpha channel
| for the rounded corners, and a subtle gradient in the
| background. The gradient is rendered with dithering, to prevent
| colour banding. The dither pattern is random, which introduces
| lots of noise. Since noise can't be losslessly compressed, the
| PNG is an enormous 6.2 bits per pixel.
|
| While working on a web-based graphics editor, I've noticed that
| users upload a lot of PNG assets with this problem. I've never
| tracked down the cause... is there a popular raster image
| editor which recently switched to dithered rendering of
| gradients?
| girvo wrote:
| _My_ reasoning is because once upon a time, I was using
| Macromedia Fireworks, and PNGs gave far far better results
| than JPGs did at the time, at least in terms of output
| quality. Nearly certainly because I didn 't understand JPG
| compression, but for web work in the mid 2000s PNGs became my
| favourite. Not to mention proper alpha channels!
|
| ...and so it's stuck, two decades on haha
| kzrdude wrote:
| For me it's 213 kB. Did they replace it?
| eranation wrote:
| So this is why Anthropic rushed the weirdest "pre-responsible-
| disclosure-totally-not-for-marketing" announcement yesterday? To
| make sure Spark doesn't steal their thunder? (Spark beats Opus
| 4.6 on some benchmarks...). Or did I become a bitter cynical old
| man.
| hnav wrote:
| It's giving "OpenAI says its new model GPT-2 is too dangerous
| to release (2019)"
| reducesuffering wrote:
| [because it would start an arms race]. The very arms race
| we're in... They were right
| signatoremo wrote:
| 13 days ago.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47538795
| spindump8930 wrote:
| Yes, it's far more certain that meta released this, which is
| less convincing on evals, as a result of the mythos previews.
| levocardia wrote:
| Anthropic had their mythos post (and model) basically ready a
| few weeks ago, as evidenced by the blog content leaks. Also I
| highly doubt they just threw together a 250-page PDF model card
| in a "rush."
| dbgrman wrote:
| Last i checked with friends at meta they are pretty deeply
| invested in using claude for coding etc. anthropic has nothing
| to be scared of at MSL.
|
| If spark beats opus 4.6, why is meta wasting money on opus
| internally?
| bguberfain wrote:
| We all know it... but I think they were very bold in this warning
| about using your private messages to train public models. _Your
| messages with AIs will be used to improve AI at Meta. Don't share
| information, including sensitive topics, about others or yourself
| that you don't want the AI to retain and use_
| discopicante wrote:
| meta doesn't exactly instill confidence on using personal data
| responsibly. hard pass
| Kuyawa wrote:
| > Meta AI isn't available yet in your country
|
| Not my loss, will keep using DeepSeek then. Wake me up when my
| country is no longer in the wrong/right side of history.
| vinni2 wrote:
| I have to create meta account to access. No thanks.
| gritspants wrote:
| I would like someone to tell me how stupid I am. If I were
| Meta/Zuck I'd open source a great model the moment my company
| developed it. This just looks like a pitch to investors,
| otherwise.
| jamiequint wrote:
| "This just looks like a pitch to investors"
|
| The goal of public companies is generally to generate profit
| for their investors.
| samrus wrote:
| Im beginning to think thats the mantra we'll keep reciting as
| this whole country slowly falls apart
| SoftTalker wrote:
| This is also the goal of private companies.
| gritspants wrote:
| Thank you for telling me how stupid I am.
| kzrdude wrote:
| pitch to investors sounds like working for the opposite goal
| though - to convince investors to give more money to the
| company.
| ge96 wrote:
| funny how websites do that thing where it looks like you can use
| the product but soon as you hit enter, nope login first
| edwcross wrote:
| What is the "BioTIER-refuse" thing mentioned in the "Bioweapons
| Refusal" graph?
|
| I Googled it and found absolutely nothing.
|
| Well, to be honest, I got 100% of websites containing the French
| word "boitier" (box) with a typo.
|
| Even on Google Scholar, the closest match is "BioTiER (Biological
| Training in Education and Research) Scholars Program", which is
| at least 10 years old and has nothing to do with that.
|
| Is that an AI-generated image with an AI-generated name that has
| no physical existence?
| EnderWT wrote:
| https://securebio.org/biotier/
| nharada wrote:
| Saying nothing about the actual performance of this model, it
| does strike me how .... minimal(?) this announcement is. Their
| safety section is like 2 paragraphs about bioweapons. Go look at
| the reports for OpenAI and Anthropic's model releases. It's like
| 50+ pages of tests, examples, reports, and benchmarks across a
| bunch of safety and wellfare metrics.
|
| If Meta wants to be seen as a cutting edge massive lab they need
| to come across as one instead of looking like a school project
| version of a frontier model.
| WarmWash wrote:
| Rumor on the ground is that they expected a much stronger model
| than this one.
| nubg wrote:
| Can you elaborate?
| WarmWash wrote:
| That's it. It's just a rumor. A model, which I don't even
| know of it's this one specifically, fell short of
| expectations. This rumor came up around mid March.
| htrp wrote:
| llama4 behemoth problems?
| levocardia wrote:
| Funny contrast with Anthropic. Ant does a "hero run," gets a
| model much more powerful than they expect. Meta does a hero
| run, gets a model much more mediocre than they expect. Read
| into this what you will, I guess?
| binaryturtle wrote:
| Looks like it needs a meta account? As soon you hit enter it
| wants to log-in. I guess I won't try this any time soon. :)
| khurdula wrote:
| "we hope to open-source future versions of the model."
|
| Love to see it. Cheers!
| tekacs wrote:
| https://meta.ai/share/pe4HxOfv2Bp
|
| Finding a little bit tricky to evaluate because the harness is
| unfortunately very, very bad (e.g. search is awful). Can't wait
| to try this in some real external services where we can see how
| it performs for real.
|
| Definitely getting ordinary high-quality results, overall. But
| hard to test agentic behavior and hard to test prose quality,
| even, when just working off of the default chat interface.
|
| One thing that stands out is that _for_ the quality it feels
| very, very fast. Perhaps it's just only very lightly loaded right
| now, but irrespective it's lovely to feel.
|
| I'm quite impressed with the tone overall. It definitely feels
| much more like Opus than it does, like, GPT or Grok in the sense
| that the style is conversational, natural and enjoyable.
| glerk wrote:
| Personal as in Meta gets your personal data so they can sell you
| more ads.
| CrzyLngPwd wrote:
| If I'm a claw, then they can send me as many ads as they like.
| napolux wrote:
| I can't login. It sends me always the same code and it's not
| correct for them
| nubg wrote:
| NOTHING about this is personal! No weights were released!
| hvass wrote:
| Genuine question: Why release this the day after Mythos? It does
| not appear SOTA (just based on benchmarks). OpenAI will likely
| release Spud tomorrow.
| eranation wrote:
| That's a really good question, my sarcastic mind thinks that
| Anthropic rushed the Mythos announcement of fears of Meta
| stealing their thunder... (I guess someone leaked that, a LOT
| of anthropic folks are ex meta... so, you know)
|
| Just a speculation, I have no real knowledge about it.
| MattRix wrote:
| I think Anthropic did the mythos announcement to undercut
| OpenAI's upcoming next model announcement, not Meta's.
| MattRix wrote:
| Why not? Not everything has to be SOTA to be interesting.
| paxys wrote:
| Mythos is a news article. This is an actual model you can use.
| syntaxing wrote:
| Kinda crazy, it really felt like Meta had the lead in LLMs,
| especially during the early LLaMa days. What happened for them to
| fall so far behind? I don't get how LLaMa 4 was such a big train
| wreck and they couldn't correct the course like Google.
| plombe wrote:
| Looks like a lightweight article. But memory usage went from
| 316MB -> 502 MB when I hit refresh. Not sure why? Any one have
| any ideas? Why does it need half a gig of ram in the first place?
| GalaxyNova wrote:
| It is unfortunate that they decided to stop doing open-weight
| releases.
|
| What could have been interesting has been reduced to simply
| another subpar LLM release.
| dhruvyads wrote:
| Sad to see it's not going to be open source.
| eranation wrote:
| Sarcasm aside, tried it (with instant mode), it's an impressive
| model.
|
| It nailed all the ChatGPT meme gotchas (walk to the carwash,
| Alice 50 brothers, upside down cup, R's in strawberry, which
| number is bigger, 9.11 or 9.9?)
|
| I guess all that money poaching OpenAI / Anthropic talent went
| somewhere...
|
| Now, would I use "Meta Muse Code" or "Muse CoWork" if I have to
| have a facebook account to all of my developers? Maybe not.
|
| Would I use it via an API key? I might, depends on the pricing!
| turtlesdown11 wrote:
| so since they hard programmed all of the meme gotchas, they
| built a good model?
| nh23423fefe wrote:
| lazy snark < playing around with it
| yalogin wrote:
| Meta is in a weird spot. They caught up late to the game and
| instead of releasing llama as a chat bot they open sourced it,
| precisely because they lost the mind share. They thought chatbot
| is not their product and I am sure they are regretting it now.
| Mark is obsessed with becoming the android of something and he
| poured billions into the metaverse thinking he is first and
| failed. He then open sourced llama and wanted to be the android
| of llms. He ended up enabling groq but it didn't benefit meta
| directly at all. They have no revenue or mind share path from
| llms but continue to pour billions into it. The only 1-1 mapping
| is with the glasses but that is a tough fit for the company given
| they are extremely allergic to privqcy and security.
|
| Not sure what this is now.
| gardnr wrote:
| The llama weights were leaked. It open sourced itself.
|
| You are right though. Meta could have been in lockstep
| releasing ChatGPT features into some chat bot on Facebook.com
| but instead it seemed like their FAIR arm was hell bent on
| commoditising this stuff by publishing their research models
| before the Chinese companies took the lead in that.
|
| It's hard for me to be mad at FAIR even though I general
| disagree with the outcomes that Meta produce for their users.
| IceWreck wrote:
| > He then open sourced llama and wanted to be the android of
| llms.
|
| Well the original llama did kick off the era of open source
| LLMs. Most original open source LLMs were based on the llama
| architecture. And look where we are now OSS modles are very
| close to frontier.
|
| It may not have benefitted Meta but it commoditizatised LLMs.
| solarkraft wrote:
| Hell, most of us are still using llama.cpp for inference in
| some form
| btown wrote:
| > ended up enabling groq
|
| For those reading fast, this isn't a reference to SpaceX's
| Grok, this is Groq.com - with its custom inference chip, and
| offerings like https://groq.com/blog/introducing-llama-3-groq-
| tool-use-mode... and https://console.groq.com/landing/llama-api
| sunaookami wrote:
| Really liked Groq due to its speed but it seems like after
| Nvidia bought it it has been discontinued...
| BugsJustFindMe wrote:
| I'm struck by all these independent announcements saying "look at
| our new model that we only spent $N Billion in acquisitions and
| hardware time to build and operate that's just like those other
| ones but this one is ours." Because if any of these companies
| would simply pool resources and work together, and if the
| government actively participated in providing funds, they'd be
| able to accelerate AI so much faster. It all feels incredibly
| wasteful. But I guess that's communism or something.
| victorbjorklund wrote:
| Competition often foster innovation. Why are they innovating so
| fast and spending so much money? Because they don't wanna get
| behind. If there was no competition at all then there would be
| much less reason to innovate and spend resources.
| BugsJustFindMe wrote:
| > _Competition often foster innovation._
|
| So does cooperation in any framework that values public good
| over pure obedience to an inherently-abusive late stage
| capitalism. I know that's passe in a world where the US
| government no longer believes in funding science, and yet.
|
| Competition is also inherently wasteful. And if you're
| talking about wasting a few K or a few Mil here or there,
| fine, whatever. But here we're talking about waste on the
| order of trillions of dollars at the end of the day.
| nathan_compton wrote:
| Their product could literally teleport gold into my hands and I
| wouldn't use it.
| cvhc wrote:
| Can't login. No error message in the UI. But the URL changes to
| "https://www.meta.ai/?error=Token%20exchange%20failed".
| cvhc wrote:
| I switched to Chrome (from Firefox) and tried again. Now it's
| "https://www.meta.ai/?error=Invalid%20CSRF%20token" :facepalm:
| nh23423fefe wrote:
| same. closed tab and will forget to ever use it now
| spprashant wrote:
| Sounds like a good effort. They are choosing to focus on multi-
| modality - perhaps they are taking a different route here to
| Anthropic.
|
| I don't like that I need to login to my FB/Instagram account to
| access this.
| spearman wrote:
| Uploading images requires logging in. Logging in is broken. It
| redirects to https://meta.ai/?error=Token%20exchange%20failed and
| doesn't show any error message. Impressive.
| brianmcnulty wrote:
| It has been up and down today, specifically with authentication
| breaking. I also saw an error message with backend SQL in it
| (in my 6 years of Meta bug bounty security research, I have
| never once seen backend SQL before).
|
| I suspect it is because they also refactored Meta AI entirely
| to use Next.js instead of their normal stack they use for
| literally everything else. Not sure why they would do this, but
| I guess it works (...or maybe not) for them.
| btown wrote:
| Benchmarks are meaningless until the pelican benchmark comes out:
| https://simonwillison.net/
| dbgrman wrote:
| Litmus test: what % of meta engineers are using muse vs Claude
| code? Last i heard it was mostly claude code. Tell you everything
| you need to know about how serious these benchmarks are.
| upmind wrote:
| Sure it's not as good as Claude right now but for their first
| model in years it's certainly not bad. I hope they continue to
| develop models, having another competitor in the space would be
| nice.
| granzymes wrote:
| Comes impressively close to GPT 5.4 / Gemini 3.1 Pro / Opus 4.6!
| Mostly behind OpenAI on coding/agentic benchmarks, behind Google
| on text reasoning, behind Anthropic on Humanity's Last Exam with
| tools (surprisingly the only benchmark where Anthropic leads
| currently).
|
| Meta hasn't fully caught up, but they came close and I think can
| solidly claim to be a frontier lab again. I'd call it a 3.5 horse
| race right now, and hopefully their next model improves. More
| model competition is good!
|
| Poor Grok 4.2 should probably be dropped from the table.
| fancy_pantser wrote:
| It's looking rather low on reasoning and long-range problems
| with the approach described. For example, even with 16 agents
| and compaction, the HLE score is significantly below
| Anthropic's Mythos. Like you, I can see the release as a net
| Good Thing, but apples-to-apples for each org's latest models
| do have Meta holding steady in the middle pack.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| HLE encompasses very hard problems where the larger
| pretraining of Mythos probably matters quite a bit. I'm not
| saying that Mythos is not showing some amount of genuine
| improvement compared to e.g. the latest Opus; just that if
| you're going to compare models, you should at least make sure
| that the overall test-time workload is in the same ballpark
| given how high it seems to be for Mythos.
| redlewel wrote:
| I am already somewhat concerned with companies like Anthropic and
| especially OpenAI having personal data via chats. Typing that
| sort of information into a Meta AI product feels completely
| irresponsible. You could make some very sophisticated ads/psyop
| attacks with data from daily ai chats.
|
| I doubt its better than Opus and even if it was its not worth the
| privacy concerns.
| LZ_Khan wrote:
| One word: distillation
| pixel_popping wrote:
| Meta back in the commercial race is actually exciting, despite
| not being a fan of the company.
| leumon wrote:
| pelican riding a bicycle (svg):
| https://files.catbox.moe/u5yc0x.png
| TobTobXX wrote:
| > Muse Spark is a natively multimodal reasoning model with
| support for [...] visual chain of thought [...].
|
| Do they mean "the chain of thought is visible to the user" (ie.
| not hidden like ChatGPT), or "the medium of the chain of thought
| is not text, but visuals" (ie. thinking in images).
|
| I'd guess the former, since it wouldn't be economical to generate
| transient images, just for thinking. But I'm not sure why they'd
| highight that in that case. If it were the second thing, that'd
| be extremely interesting. The first model not to think in text.
| KoolKat23 wrote:
| Perhaps I'm wrong, but definitely seems to be SOTA. Although
| looking at it's ARC-AGI-2 score it's reasoning isn't very good. I
| suspect it's got the benefits of scale but lacks that human added
| element, understandable considering they claim to be building it
| from the ground up. This should come in time if they have a good
| team. In real life, I'd imagine one would worry about overfitting
| when using it.
|
| (I'm not using it as I'm not agreeing to their ad terms).
| adt wrote:
| Congrats to the Meta team on being model #800 on the Models
| Table, I suppose.
|
| https://lifearchitect.ai/models-table/
| 2001zhaozhao wrote:
| The "AIME Evolution" graph seems interesting. I wonder if other
| labs are doing this too to improve the reasoning performance of
| their models.
|
| > Think longer to solve harder problems > Compress > Think longer
| again
| try-working wrote:
| Looks alright for a "first" but there's no reason for anyone to
| really use until they open source it.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| [delayed]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-04-08 23:00 UTC)