211–220 of 392 posts
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.
I’m trying to decide is I find the doublespeak a bit offensive or not.
Oh good, if they built a lab, I’m sure they took the time the precisely define what they mean by super intelligence? Right? …
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...
"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
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…
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.
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…
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.
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
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).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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%…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The benchmarks they released
What do you mean? In most cases, the benchmarks show a larger number for Muse and a smaller number for Opus.
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.