Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Muse Spark 1.3

developer.meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 475 posts

Re: Muse Spark 1.3

#101

Post by winstonp »

2001zhaozhao wrote: post #59
jumploops wrote: post #52

The "contributor" pricing is the standout here at a ~20x discount, if you allow training on your data. The model seems on par with Sol and Opus 5 on paper (admittedly on some older/saturated benchmarks, but very competitive for $). Stats: 1M context, $0.10 input/$0.002 cached, $0.20 output (Mtok)

I have a feeling that Meta is not gonna like what people actually use the contributor model for lol. (It's probably going to be a bunch of repetitive batch jobs like web search that have no training value)

It's the perfect model for open-source work because it's gonna end up in the training data anyway

Re: Muse Spark 1.3

#102

Post by drob518 »

simonw wrote: post #3

llm -m meta-ai/muse-spark-1.3 "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle" https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer?url=ht... 4.2266 cents, 38 seconds. For comparison here's Muse Spark 1.2, which animated it without me asking it to: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer?url=ht... The 1.3 one is definitely better - better bicycle frame, better wing, better pelican hat. UPDATE: Here's an…

Simon, at this point I really wonder if teams aren’t gaming this. You should pick a random animal doing a random thing every time.

Re: Muse Spark 1.3

#103

Post by IshKebab »

finnjohnsen2 wrote: post #12

So one model is "Not used to improve our products" and is 10-20 times more expensive to the "Used to improve our products"-model. Given this is Meta, my immediate assumptions that one is cheap because it lets me "be the product". I know I'm rushing to conclusions but there is zero trust here. The brain will do its thing. And the wording here is giving the brains a lot of wiggle room.

I think it's more that the "not used to improve our models" is expensive because companies need that. It's simple price differentiation.

In other words, it's not that Meta really wants your data and they're willing to pay top dollar for it. It's that companies really don't want Meta to have their data and they're willing to pay top dollar for that.

Re: Muse Spark 1.3

#104

Post by whateveracct »

drob518 wrote: post #70
tyre wrote: post #47

Meta is one of those companies where, if there is anything remotely comparable, I'm happy to pay more to not use them. They've had a profoundly negative impact on society and Zuckerberg is not who I want controlling the future at the top of AI. I feel the same about Grok w/ Elon. I will pay extra to use someone else. I'm not an Amodei stan, but of all of these people he seems to have the most ethical focus. Again, no…

Gotta be honest that I’m tired of the “I hate Zuck and Meta so much” comments every time Meta does anything. Ditto Elon/X. Fine, I get it. I don’t like Zuck either. But the post is about Muse Spark 1.3. What do you think about that? If you don’t like it because Meta made it, then maybe just don’t use it and stay silent.

Zuck's bad PR is to blame here. Not the commenters. He should fix that.

Anduril makes this same complaint whenever their job posts get dumped on. Same idea. Fix your bad PR, buddies :)

Re: Muse Spark 1.3

#105

Post by applfanboysbgon »

a2ff6eeb0 wrote: post #91
redox99 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can ask 100 people and they'll all give you a different list. It's subjective. I think a less personal ranking would be, as a business owner, which of those providers is more dependable? As in, you don't care about evil, just your stuff working. I think maybe OpenAI?

Google. They have experience operating at scale, and AI is a big enough focus that they won't wind it down. All the big providers are kinda crappy, but if you want reliability, Google is the best option.

Google has experience working for themselves at scale. Your business should never rely on Google more than it is forced to. Even if it's not something they'll wind down, providing acceptable service to anyone is not on their agenda. GCP speaks for itself...

Re: Muse Spark 1.3

#106

Post by refulgentis »

schopra909 wrote: post #27
scotty79 wrote: post #8

Is the fact that everybody almost catches up with the frontier a sign that we are entering a new region of sigmoid curve?

Progress is iterative. Everyone is always riffing on other’s ideas and can execute on them given enough support (eg $$). The person to get to an idea first is just 5% away, so it’s possible to catch up. Moreover,I think it’s impossible to know if you’re hitting a portion of the sigmoid, because there will often be an idea that changes the trajectory altogether. In 2024, there was a ton of talk about the plateau. Reas…

I don’t know why people think DeepSeek did reasoning models / RLVR before OpenAI, there was a gap of months.

Re: Muse Spark 1.3

#107

Post by noduerme »

drob518 wrote: post #70
tyre wrote: post #47

Meta is one of those companies where, if there is anything remotely comparable, I'm happy to pay more to not use them. They've had a profoundly negative impact on society and Zuckerberg is not who I want controlling the future at the top of AI. I feel the same about Grok w/ Elon. I will pay extra to use someone else. I'm not an Amodei stan, but of all of these people he seems to have the most ethical focus. Again, no…

Gotta be honest that I’m tired of the “I hate Zuck and Meta so much” comments every time Meta does anything. Ditto Elon/X. Fine, I get it. I don’t like Zuck either. But the post is about Muse Spark 1.3. What do you think about that? If you don’t like it because Meta made it, then maybe just don’t use it and stay silent.

What I'm tired of is the top story (or five) on HN every day announcing Spark Opus Fable Grok Gemini v4.1i3-F. Like, who actually cares? Are people excited for the new benchmarks? Is it interesting to read the model cards? And look, part of my job is to use these things and part of my job is to pick EC2 servers, too. The front page of HN is increasingly resembling one of those endless AWS pricing lists.

And yeah, I don't like any of the people or companies building LLMs either. At least the griping is somewhat interesting by comparison. The model isn't news. The news on Hacker News is that other professionals feel the same way.

Re: Muse Spark 1.3

#108

Post by ralusek »

a2ff6eeb0 wrote: post #91
redox99 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can ask 100 people and they'll all give you a different list. It's subjective. I think a less personal ranking would be, as a business owner, which of those providers is more dependable? As in, you don't care about evil, just your stuff working. I think maybe OpenAI?

Google. They have experience operating at scale, and AI is a big enough focus that they won't wind it down. All the big providers are kinda crappy, but if you want reliability, Google is the best option.

Google, famous for not winding things down.

Re: Muse Spark 1.3

#109

Post by MangoCoffee »

superfrank wrote: post #28

I started using Spark 1.2 for development because if you're willing to let Meta train on your data it was dirt cheap and was actually really pleasantly surprised with it. It's not a frontier model by any means, but for work that didn't require a top of the line model, I really enjoyed using it. I'm anthropomorphizing it a bit, but it felt like it knew its weaknesses and didn't try to impose it's opinions on me. What…

>I started using Spark 1.2 for development because if you're willing to let Meta train on your data it was dirt cheap

its free on opencode and i use it for personal projects. most of my personal projects are AI generated since its personal projects. nothing important are on them. it is hilarious if Meta is training their AI model with AI generated code.

Re: Muse Spark 1.3

#110

Post by redox99 »

a2ff6eeb0 wrote: post #91
redox99 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can ask 100 people and they'll all give you a different list. It's subjective. I think a less personal ranking would be, as a business owner, which of those providers is more dependable? As in, you don't care about evil, just your stuff working. I think maybe OpenAI?

Google. They have experience operating at scale, and AI is a big enough focus that they won't wind it down. All the big providers are kinda crappy, but if you want reliability, Google is the best option.

Definitely not Google, countless horror stories and infamous for killing stuff. OpenAI is still serving GPT 3.5 turbo as far as I remember.
Post reply on HN