Live data from Hacker News

Muse Spark 1.1

ai.meta.com

11–20 of 228 posts

Re: Muse Spark 1.1

#11

Their published benchmarks seem to indicate that it's pretty good at coding and multimodal, but VERY good at successful tool calls. What kind of use case would be best for that shape?

This sounds... kind of useless? Really good JSON or similar constrained decoder performance is interesting, but normal decoder > tool validator loop with good error message > tool retry is almost always able to get a tool to work second try, and input is cached so it's not expensive.

Re: Muse Spark 1.1

#13

I personally do not like Meta, but I'll say this. The more competition, the better for regular consumers. (Enterprise too) - Chinese models - Grok - Meta - Google - OpenAI - Anthropic I think this is a win. I'm building like crazy to take advantage of all these subsidized tokens while I can.

Meta's local llama models used to be the face of open source AI. The scene has really changed.

Re: Muse Spark 1.1

#15
post #4

The pricing is insane: $1.25/$4.5 for 1M tokens, and $0.15 for cached input! https://dev.meta.ai/docs/getting-started/pricing-rate-limits

Cheaper than Qwen 3.7 Max. Second indication, after Grok 4.5 ($2 in / $6 out), that the BigLabs are feeling the GLM 5.2 heat.

Re: Muse Spark 1.1

#17
post #3

Very strong pricing, cheaper than Grok 4.5, particularly the cached reads. We'll have to wait to see if it's actually worth using (it's not on OpenRouter yet).

That's what one does when its product and public perception is way behind competitors.

Re: Muse Spark 1.1

#19

I personally do not like Meta, but I'll say this. The more competition, the better for regular consumers. (Enterprise too) - Chinese models - Grok - Meta - Google - OpenAI - Anthropic I think this is a win. I'm building like crazy to take advantage of all these subsidized tokens while I can.

Yeah, I think it is definitely great. Having said that, I am still debating in my mind whether the volume of software engineers needed in the AI era is going to increase or decrease because of all of these advancements.

On the one hand, because it is easy to build products, more and more people will build. And more and more products and features will be built. However, a lot of people who are non-technical will also try to build, but they get stuck, and then they will need engineers. The sheer volume of product built by both experienced technical companies and non-technical novice startups and founders and wannabe founders is going to be massive. That is the bull case for having more software engineers needed in the near future.

On the other hand, in a year or so, people will build all these products, and most of them won't be able to market them, sell them and make money. Eventually, there won't really be a need for that many software engineers.

I think overall the bull case is probably going to win net net.

Post reply on HN