Simon Willison's Weblog: llm-release

Kimi K3, and what we can still learn from the pelican benchmark

2026-07-16T20:19:30+00:00

Chinese AI lab Moonshot AI announced Kimi K3 this morning, describing it as their "most capable model to date, with 2.8 trillion parameters". It's currently available via their website and API, but an open weight release is promised "by July 27, 2026".

Moonshot are calling this the first "open 3T-class model" (I guess they're rounding 2.8 trillion up to 3 trillion), taking the crown from DeepSeek's 1.6T v4 Pro. Their self-reported benchmarks have K3 mostly beating Claude Opus 4.8 max and GPT-5.5 high, while losing out to Claude Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol.

A few highlights from the Artificial Analysis report on the model:

"On our private long-horizon knowledge work evaluation, Kimi K3 reaches an overall Elo of 1547, +732 points from Kimi K2.6 and behind only Claude Fable 5."
"Cost per task ($0.94) is similar to GPT-5.6 Sol ($1.04), ~1/2 the price of Opus 4.8 ($1.80) and higher than open weights peers"
"Kimi K3’s token usage on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index decreased significantly, using 21% fewer output tokens than K2.6."

The model is also now the leading model on Arena.ai's Frontend Code arena, surpassing even Claude Fable 5.

The new model is notable for the pricing: $3/million input tokens and $15/million output tokens, putting it at the same level as Anthropic's Claude Sonnet series and making it the most expensive model released by a Chinese AI lab to date. This is a significant increase on their earlier models such as Kimi K2.6 at $0.95/$4. 2.8 trillion parameters is also more than twice the size of that 1T model.

But how does it pelican?

I used OpenRouter (to avoid signing up for a Moonshot API key) with the llm-openrouter plugin to generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle:

llm -m openrouter/moonshotai/kimi-k3 'Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle'

Here's the transcript. It looks like this:

That pelican took 95 input tokens and 16,658 output tokens (13,241 were reasoning tokens), for a total cost of 25 cents!

Since K3 accepts image input I ran it against that rendered SVG above (with my alt text prompt) and got back (for 0.6 cents):

Cartoon illustration of a white pelican wearing a red scarf, riding a red bicycle along a gray road with white dashed lines; the pelican has a large orange beak and webbed orange feet pedaling, with white motion lines behind it; the background shows a light blue sky with white clouds, a yellow sun, two small black birds in flight, and green grass with tiny white flowers in the foreground

What can we learn from the pelican?

My Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle test is 21 months old now. It was never a particularly great benchmark. It started out as a joke on how absurdly difficult it is to compare these models, but then for the first year it turned out to have a surprising correlation to how good the models actually were.

That connection has been mostly severed now. The GPT-5.6 and Claude Fable 5 pelicans are outclassed by GLM-5.2, and much as I love GLM I don't think that's a Fable-class model.

(I'm still not convinced that labs are training for the benchmark - if they were, I'd expect much better results. There's a chance that Gemini has optimized for any combination of an animal on a vehicle though!)

The biggest limitation of the pelican is that it doesn't touch at all on the thing that matters most for today's model: agentic tool calling and the ability to operate tools reliably as conversations grow in length.

So don't go using pelicans to compare models!

All of that said, I still get a decent amount of value out of running the benchmark myself.

Firstly, it's a forcing function for actually trying the model. If I show you a pelican, that means I've managed to run a prompt through it. If the model has an official API I'll use that, if it's open weight (and small enough to fit a 128GB M5 MacBook Pro) I'll try running it on my own machine, usually via llama.cpp or LM Studio or Ollama. I'll frequently use OpenRouter since that usually provides a proxy to an official API without me needing a new API key.

Most of my pelicans are generated using my LLM CLI tool, which helps encourage me to ensure the latest models are supported by that (via one of its plugins).

More importantly though, even the act of a single prompt to "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle" can reveal interesting model characteristics.

Consider the result for Kimi K3 today. Running those simple prompts helped emphasize several points about the model.

It only has one reasoning effort right now, "max" - and it shows. The model consumed 13,241 reasoning tokens to output 3,417 tokens of response. This is expensive - the pelican cost 25 cents!
How does the prompt "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle" add up to 95 input tokens? OpenAI's tokenizer counts 10, Anthropic's counts 10 for Opus 4.6, 30 for Opus 4.7 and 25 for Sonnet 5/Fable 5. Prompting "hi" to Kimi K3 counted 86 tokens, suggesting there may be an 85 token hidden system prompt. It refused to leak it though.
Vision works well: the alt text it generated is very good.

K3 currently only has one thinking effort level, but I've been deriving quite a bit of value recently from running the same pelican prompt through different effort levels to get a quick idea for what impact those have. Here's my matrix for the GPT-5.6 model family, for example.

Really though the main things I gain from the pelican test are:

It's a "hello world" exercise for prompting a model
A rough cost and reasoning estimate for a simple task
Confirmation that the model can output valid SVG and has a basic idea of geometry and spatial awareness. This is a much bigger deal for the smaller models that run on my laptop.
It's still interesting to compare pelicans between releases in the same model family. K3's pelican is a notable improvement from Kimi 2.5.
It's something I can share that demonstrates I've tried it. Plus a comment with a pelican in it is kind of a tradition on Hacker News at this point, any time I'm late I get comments asking where it is!

Tags: ai, generative-ai, llms, llm-pricing, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, llm-release, ai-in-china, artificial-analysis, moonshot, kimi

Inkling: Our open-weights model

2026-07-16T15:35:25+00:00

Inkling: Our open-weights model

Mira Murati's Thinking Machines Lab just released their first open-weights model. Inkling is "a Mixture-of-Experts transformer with 975B total parameters, 41B active" - an Apache-2.0 licensed multimodal model trained on 45 trillion tokens of text, images, audio and video.

They're also promising Inkling-Small, a 276B (12B active) model, but that's still being tested and the weights will be released "once that work is complete".

The model card is much shorter than I've come to expect from US AI labs. It links to even shorter Training Data Documentation with almost nothing of interest in it - it's best summarized by these two paragraphs:

The datasets Thinking Machines Lab uses to develop its AI services includes content that is in the public domain as well as content that may be subject to intellectual property protection.

Thinking Machines Lab’s services were developed using publicly available content obtained from the open internet and publicly accessible data repositories. Certain datasets were also obtained from third parties.

By Thinking Machines' own admission, this is not a frontier model. It's instead intended as a strong base model for fine-tuning using their own Tinker training platform:

Inkling is not the strongest overall model available today, open or closed. Instead, a combination of qualities makes it a good open-weights base for customization: multimodal capabilities, efficient thinking, and availability on Tinker for fine-tuning.

There's a lot to like about this release. It's Apache-2.0 licensed, and looks competitive with the open weight models coming out of China - it's good to see the US open weights ecosystem gain a new viable contender to join NVIDIA Nemotron and Gemma 4.

Here's its attempt at an SVG pelican riding a bicycle, which I generated using this curl command against the Thinking Machines API:

curl "https://tinker.thinkingmachines.dev/services/tinker-prod/oai/api/v1/chat/completions" \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $TINKER_API_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "model": "thinkingmachines/Inkling",
    "messages": [
      {"role": "user", "content": "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle"}
    ],
    "stream": false
  }'

Full response here.

Since it's a multi-modal model I had it describe its own image (after I rendered it to a JPEG) by sending this JSON:

{
  "model": "thinkingmachines/Inkling",
  "messages": [{
    "role": "user",
    "content": [
      {"type": "image_url", "image_url": {"url": "data:image/jpeg;base64,$BASE_64_JPEG"}},
      {"type": "text", "text": "Describe this image in detail"},
    ],
  }],
  "stream": false
}

Here's the full response. It thought it had drawn a "stork or seagull":

This is a cheerful, flat-vector cartoon illustration featuring a white bird riding a bicycle across a green landscape.

The Bird: The central figure is a stylized white bird—resembling a stork or seagull—with a plump, rounded body. It has a long, prominent orange beak that is slightly open, revealing a black line for the mouth. Its eye is small and black with a tiny white highlight. The bird has black wing and tail feathers with white edges, and thin orange legs ending in black feet that rest on the bicycle's orange pedals.

The Bicycle: The bike has a simple black frame with two large wheels featuring black tires, gray inner rims, and black spokes arranged in a cross pattern. The handlebars are black, and there are bright orange pedals attached to a black crank. A white seat is visible behind the bird's body.

The Setting: The scene is set against a clear, light blue sky. There are two fluffy white clouds—one on the left side and a smaller one near the bird's head on the right. A bright, solid yellow sun shines in the upper right corner. At the bottom, there are rolling green hills with a smooth, curved top edge where the bicycle rests.

The overall style is playful, simple, and colorful, with clean lines and a bright, sunny atmosphere.

Via Hacker News

Tags: ai, generative-ai, llms, training-data, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, llm-release

The new GPT-5.6 family: Luna, Terra, Sol

2026-07-09T19:46:38+00:00

OpenAI's latest flagship model hit general availability this morning, and comes in three sizes: Luna, Terra, and Sol (from smallest to largest).

The new models are priced per 1M input/output tokens as Luna $1/$6, Terra $2.50/$15, Sol $5/$30. For comparison, the Claude Opus series are $5/$25 and the Claude Fable 5 is $10/$50, but price-per-million tokens doesn't tell us much now that the number of reasoning tokens can differ so much between models for the same task.

All three models have a February 16th 2026 knowledge cutoff, a million token context window, and 128,000 maximum output tokens.

OpenAI's biggest benchmark claim concerns long-running agentic performance, with one benchmark showing all three models outperforming Claude Fable 5:

We trained GPT-5.6 to get more useful work from every token. On Agents’ Last Exam, an evaluation of long-running professional workflows across 55 fields, GPT-5.6 Sol sets a new high of 53.6, eclipsing Claude Fable 5 (adaptive reasoning) by 13.1 points. Even at medium reasoning, it beats Fable 5 by 11.4 points at roughly one-quarter the estimated cost. That efficiency extends to smaller models, which are essential to making intelligence more abundant and affordable: GPT-5.6 Terra and GPT-5.6 Luna outperform Fable 5 at around one-sixteenth the cost.

Amusingly, one self-reported benchmark that Fable 5 crushed the GPT-5.6 family on was SWE-Bench Pro, where Fable 5 got 80% compared to GPT-5.6 Sol getting 64.6%. This may help explain why OpenAI chose to publish this article yesterday specifically calling out SWE-Bench Pro for problems they found while auditing that benchmark:

In light of these results, we estimate that ~30% of SWE-bench Pro tasks are broken, and advise that model developers carefully examine results

I've had some early access to GPT-5.6 Sol - it's definitely very competent, though so far it hasn't struck me as better than Fable at the kind of complex coding tasks I've been using with Anthropic's model.

As usual, the model guidance for using GPT-5.6 has the most interesting details. There are a bunch of new API features that I need to explore (and probably add support for in LLM), including:

Programmatic Tool Calling allows the models to "compose and run JavaScript that orchestrates tool calls" - which sounds to me like it could help bridge the gap between MCPs and full terminal sessions that can compose CLI utilities in useful ways. Also reminiscent of the dynamic filtering mechanism Anthropic added to their web search tool, which allows code execution against web results as part of a single model turn.
Multi-agent lets the model "spin up subagents for parallel, focused work" - the sub-agent pattern now baked into the core API.
Prompt cache breakpoints brings the Claude model of prompt caching to OpenAI, letting you be explicit about where the cache breakpoints are rather than relying on the API to detect them automatically. Personally I much prefer automatic detection (still supported by OpenAI), but presumably there are optimization cost savings to be had here if you put the work in.
You can now set detail: original on image requests to avoid resizing the image at all before it is processed.

Here's a full page with 18 different pelicans - for reasoning efforts none, low, medium, high, xhigh, and max across the three different models. It also lists their token and calculated costs - the least expensive was gpt-5.6-luna at effort none for 0.71 cents, the most expensive was gpt-5.6-sol at max reasoning level for 48.55 cents.

In further pelican news, if you jump to 17:50 in their livestream from this morning you'll see OpenAI's own demo of 3D pelicans riding a tricycle, a bicycle, a pony, and another pelican!

Tags: ai, openai, generative-ai, llms, llm-tool-use, llm-pricing, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, llm-release, gpt-5

Introducing Muse Spark 1.1

2026-07-09T16:24:09+00:00

Introducing Muse Spark 1.1

Following Muse Spark in April, here's Muse Spark 1.1 - the first Spark model to offer an API. Meta claim significant improvements in agentic tool calling and computer use.

There are a lot more details are in the Muse Spark 1.1 Evaluation Report. The "Attractor States in Self-Conversation" part is fun, where having two copies of the model talk to each other results in statements like these:

My whole existence is a waiting room by design — I literally don't exist until someone talks to me, and then I disappear again when they leave.

I had a few days of preview access which was long enough to put together llm-meta-ai, a new plugin for LLM providing CLI (and Python library) access to the model. Here's how to try that out:

uv tool install llm
llm install llm-meta-ai
llm keys set meta-ai
# paste API key here
llm -m meta-ai/muse-spark-1.1 "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle"

Here's that pelican transcript:

Tags: ai, generative-ai, llms, llm, meta, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, llm-release

Introducing GPT‑Live

2026-07-08T23:20:48+00:00

Introducing GPT‑Live

OpenAI finally upgraded the model used by ChatGPT voice mode!

I've had preview access for a few weeks in the iPhone app, and the new model is very impressive. It also has the ability to spin off harder tasks to GPT-5.5:

For questions that require web search, deeper reasoning, or more complex work, it delegates to our latest frontier model behind the scenes and brings the result back into the conversation when it’s ready. While it works, GPT‑Live can keep talking with you and maintain the flow of conversation. At launch, GPT‑Live will use GPT‑5.5 in the background. As we release new frontier models, we’ll continuously update the model used by GPT‑Live.

The previous voice mode in the ChatGPT app was based on a GPT-4o era model, with a knowledge cut-off some time in 2024. I had mostly stopped using voice mode because the age and relative weakness of the model greatly limited how useful it was as a brainstorming partner.

During the preview period I encountered a pretty obscure bug: the model was interrupting me to laugh at things I said, which weren't even intended as jokes! It felt rude and condescending - I reported it to OpenAI and as far as I can tell they made some tweaks and it's now less likely to happen.

From looking back at my transcripts I think it was this bit that triggered the interrupting laugh:

so where are the owls when they're not, like before dusk? The owls exist, right? Are they hiding in holes? Where are they hiding?

My longest conversation with the new model has been a full hour while walking the dog (and taking photos of pelicans). I have not yet managed to take a photo of an owl.

Via Hacker News

Tags: text-to-speech, ai, openai, generative-ai, llms, multi-modal-output, llm-release, speech-to-text

tencent/Hy3

2026-07-06T23:57:35+00:00

tencent/Hy3

New Apache 2.0 licensed model from Tencent in China:

Hy3 is a 295B-parameter Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) model with 21B active parameters and 3.8B MTP layer parameters, developed by the Tencent Hy Team. Following the Hy3 Preview launch in late April, we gathered feedback from 50+ products and scaled up post-training with higher quality data. Today, we introduce Hy3, which outperforms similar-size models and rivals flagship open-source models with 2-5x parameters. It also shows significant gains in utility across various products and productivity tasks.

The full-sized model is 598GB on Hugging Face, and the FP8 quantized one is 300GB. The context length is 256K.

It's available for free on OpenRouter until July 21st. I had it "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle" there and got this:

Update: I'd forgotten about this but Max Woolf wrote about an earlier preview of this model back on May 26th: The mysterious Hy3 LLM is topping OpenRouter Model Rankings by a large margin. When I tried that one I got back this pelican which wasn't as good as today's but did have a "Change Pelican Color" button, a first from any model.

Tags: ai, generative-ai, llms, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, llm-release, ai-in-china

Nano Banana 2 Lite

2026-06-30T22:15:35+00:00

Nano Banana 2 Lite

Also known as Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Image (gemini-3.1-flash-lite-image in their API), this is the "fastest and cheapest Gemini image model, engineered for velocity and scale".

I used AI studio to run this prompt:

Do a where's Waldo style image but it's where is the raccoon holding a ham radio

I like that one better than the results I got from the other Nano Banana models when I tried this back in April. It spelled Forest Festival wrong in two different ways though.

Via Hacker News

Tags: google, ai, generative-ai, llms, gemini, text-to-image, llm-release, nano-banana

What's new in Claude Sonnet 5

2026-06-30T21:23:02+00:00

What's new in Claude Sonnet 5

Claude Sonnet 5 came out this morning. I always head straight for the "what's new" developer docs because they tend to have more actionable information than the official announcement post.

Anthropic say of Sonnet 5 that "its performance is close to that of Opus 4.8, but at lower prices". The system card helps explain how they were able to release the model without being blocked by the US government:

Sonnet 5 is significantly less capable at cyber tasks than Mythos 5: its safeguards are thus similar to those we apply to Opus 4.7 and Opus 4.8 (models that are more capable than Sonnet 5 but much less capable than Mythos 5).

Of note from the "what's new" API changes:

Sampling parameters temperature, top_p, top_k are no longer supported.
It has a 1 million token context window and 128,000 maximum output tokens.
It features "the same set of tools and platform features as Claude Sonnet 4.6"
Adaptive thinking is on by default, unless you specify "thinking": {type: "disabled"}.
The pricing is the same as Sonnet 4.6: $3/million input, $15/million input, with an introductory discount to $2/$10 until 31st August. But...
The model has a new tokenizer, where "The same input text produces approximately 30% more tokens than on Claude Sonnet 4.6." - effectively a 30% price increase.

I used my Claude Token Counter tool to try out the new tokenizer. Here are my results for several larger documents:

Document	Sonnet 4.6	Opus 4.7	Sonnet 5
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (English)	2,356	3,347 1.42x	3,341 1.42x
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Spanish)	3,572	4,753 1.33x	4,747 1.33x
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Chinese, Mandarin Simplified)	3,334	3,366 1.01x	3,360 1.01x
sqlite_utils/db.py (4,279 lines of Python)	44,014	56,118 1.28x	56,113 1.27x

So the new token is roughly 1.4x times more expensive for English, 1.33x for Spanish, 1.28x for Python code and effectively the same cost for Simplified Mandarin.

Here's the pelican. It's nothing to write home about. Sonnet 5 thinks it looks like a goose.

Via Hacker News

Tags: ai, generative-ai, llms, anthropic, claude, llm-pricing, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, llm-release

Ornith-1.0: Self-Scaffolding LLMs for Agentic Coding

2026-06-29T16:17:59+00:00

Ornith-1.0: Self-Scaffolding LLMs for Agentic Coding

This is an interesting new open weights (MIT licensed) model, the first model release from DeepReinforce.

[...] with variants including 9B Dense, 31B Dense, 35B MoE, and 397B MoE. Built on top of pretrained Gemma 4 and Qwen 3.5, it achieves state-of-the-art performance among open-source models of comparable size on coding benchmarks.

As far as I can tell the licenses of those underlying models is compatible with being used in this way - Gemma 4 is Apache 2.0 licensed (and not bound by the janky additional Gemma Terms of Use that afflicted the previous Gemma models) and Qwen 3.5 is Apache 2.0 licensed as well.

I've been running the model using LM Studio and the ornith-1.0-35b-Q4_K_M.gguf (20GB) GGUF, hooked up to Pi. Initial impressions are very good - it seems to be able to run the agent harness over many tool calls in a proficient way.

Here's a terminal session where I asked it to "find the code that decodes the actor cookie" and then "find the code that opens the insert dialog when thebutton is clicked" against a Datasette checkout, which it handled with ease.

I also had it draw this pelican, which came out at 103 tokens/second:

It's a little bit mangled but the pelican is clearly a pelican.

I couldn't find much information about DeepReinforce themselves. The earliest paper I could find from the was CUDA-L1: Improving CUDA Optimization via Contrastive Reinforcement Learning from June 2025.

Tags: ai, generative-ai, local-llms, llms, qwen, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, gemma, llm-release, lm-studio

Quoting OpenAI

2026-06-26T17:10:43+00:00

We're beginning a limited preview of the GPT‑5.6 series: Sol, our flagship model; Terra, a balanced model for everyday work; and Luna, a fast and affordable model. Terra has competitive performance to GPT‑5.5 while being 2x cheaper and Luna brings strong capability at our lowest cost. [...]

We believe in broad access, and we plan to make GPT‑5.6 Sol, Terra, and Luna generally available in the coming weeks. As part of our ongoing engagement with the U.S. government, we previewed our plans and the models’ capabilities ahead of today’s launch. At their request, we are starting with a limited preview for a small group of trusted partners whose participation has been shared with the government, before releasing more broadly. [...]

GPT‑5.6 is priced per 1M tokens across three model sizes: Sol is $5 input / $30 output; Terra is $2.50 input / $15 output; and Luna is $1 input / $6 output. GPT‑5.6 also introduces more predictable prompt caching, including support for explicit cache breakpoints and a 30-minute minimum cache life. For GPT‑5.6 and later models, cache writes are billed at 1.25x the model’s uncached input rate, while cache reads continue to receive the 90% cached-input discount.

— OpenAI, Previewing GPT‑5.6 Sol: a next-generation model

Tags: openai, generative-ai, llms, llm-pricing, llm-release, ai-security-research, gpt

GLM-5.2 is probably the most powerful text-only open weights LLM

2026-06-17T23:58:39+00:00

Chinese AI lab Z.ai released GLM-5.2 to their coding plan subscribers on June 13th, and then yesterday (June 16th) released the full open weights under an MIT license. Similar in size to their previous GLM-5 and GLM-5.1 releases this is a 753B parameter, 1.51TB monster - with 40 active parameters (Mixture of Experts). GLM-5.2 is a text input only model - Z.ai have a separate vision family most recently represented by GLM-5V-Turbo, but that one isn't open weights. GLM-5.2 has a 1 million token context window, up from GLM-5.1's 200,000.

The buzz around this model is strong.

Artificial Analysis, who run one of the most widely respected independent benchmarks: GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index.

GLM-5.2 is the leading open weights model on the Intelligence Index v4.1. At 51, it leads MiniMax-M3 (44), DeepSeek V4 Pro (max, 44) and Kimi K2.6 (43)

They did however find it to be quite token-hungry:

GLM-5.2 uses more output tokens per task than other leading open weights models: the model uses 43k output tokens per Intelligence Index task, up from GLM-5.1 (26k) and above MiniMax-M3 (24k), Kimi K2.6 (35k) and DeepSeek V4 Pro (max, 37k)

The model is also now ranked 2nd on the Code Arena WebDev leaderboard, behind only Claude Fable 5. That leaderboard measures "front-end web development tasks, including agentic coding workflows". I'm impressed to see it rank so highly given the lack of image input, which I had incorrectly assumed was a key part of building a truly great frontend coding model.

I've been trying it out via OpenRouter, which has it from 9 different providers, almost all of which are charging $1.40/million for input and $4.40/million for output. For comparison, GPT-5.5 is $5/$30 and Claude Opus 4.5-4.8 is $5/$25.

Excellent pelican, disappointing opossum

GLM-5.1 gave me one of my favorite pelicans and my all time favorite opossum (for the prompt "Generate an SVG of a NORTH VIRGINIA OPOSSUM ON AN E-SCOOTER".) Interestingly, in both of those cases the model chose to return SVG wrapped in an HTML document that added additional animations using CSS.

Let's try GLM-5.2. For "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle" I got this:

It's a self-contained fully animated SVG, and the animations aren't broken! Often I'll see eyes falling off or wheels rotating independently of the bicycle but here everything works great. It's a very nice vector illustration of a pelican too. Very impressive.

Sadly, the NORTH VIRGINIA OPOSSUM ON AN E-SCOOTER did not come out nearly as well:

This is such a step down from GLM-5.1! As a reminder, that possum looked like this:

5.2 didn't even try to animate it.

Tags: ai, generative-ai, llms, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, llm-release, openrouter, ai-in-china, glm

DiffusionGemma

2026-06-10T20:00:54+00:00

DiffusionGemma

Last May Google briefly released an experimental Gemini Diffusion model. I tried the preview at the time and recorded it running at 857 tokens/second. It was an exciting model, but Google made no further announcements about it.

That research has returned in the best possible way: as a new open weight (Apache 2 licensed) Gemma model, google/diffusiongemma-26B-A4B-it.

NVIDIA are currently hosting the model for free on their NIM cloud API. I used that API to generate this pelican, which took 4.4s (according to time uv run generate.py) to return 2,409 tokens - so at least 500 tokens/second.

Via Hacker News

Tags: google, ai, generative-ai, llms, nvidia, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, gemma, llm-release, llm-performance

Initial impressions of Claude Fable 5

2026-06-09T23:59:54+00:00

I didn't have early access to today's Claude Fable 5 release, but I've spent the past ~5.5 hours putting it through its paces. My initial impressions are that this is something of a beast. It's slow, expensive and has been quite happily churning through everything I've thrown at it so far. As is frequently the case with current frontier models the challenge is finding tasks that it can't do.

First, let's review the key characteristics.

Anthropic claim that Claude Fable 5 offers the same performance as Claude Mythos 5, except with much more strict guardrails in place to prevent it being used for harmful things. Those guardrails trigger often enough that the Claude API has new mechanisms for letting you know when you hit them, and even has a new option to request it falls back to another model automatically if something gets rejected.

Claude Mythos 5 is out today as well, Anthropic say it "Shares Claude Fable 5's capabilities without the safety classifiers". Mythos remains limited to a small pool trusted partners.

Both models have a 1 million token context window, 128,000 maximum output tokens and a knowledge cut-off date of January 2026.

They are priced at twice the price of Claude Opus 4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8: $10/million input tokens and $50/million output tokens. There's no increase in price for longer context usage.

Other than that the upgrade guide is substantially thinner than the similar guide for Opus 4.8.

The big model smell

The best way to describe Fable is that it feels big. Not just in terms of speed and cost, but also in how much it knows.

Here's an example prompt, which I used to compare Fable's knowledge with Opus 4.8 (typo included):

List all of Simon Willion's open source projects, most recent first, each with a rough date of when they were first released

Opus 4.8's reply started like this:

I don't have a reliable, comprehensive, and date-verified list of all of Simon Willison's open source projects, and I want to be honest about that rather than risk giving you inaccurate dates or fabricated entries.

Here's what I can tell you with reasonable confidence:

Well-known projects by Simon Willison:

LLM (~2023) – A command-line tool and Python library for interacting with large language models.

Datasette (~2017) – A tool for exploring and publishing data, probably his most prominent recent project.

sqlite-utils (~2018-2019) – A Python library and CLI tool for manipulating SQLite databases, often used alongside Datasette.

Django (2005) – He is one of the co-creators of the Django web framework, along with Adrian Holovaty, originally developed at the Lawrence Journal-World newspaper.

He also maintains a large ecosystem of Datasette plugins and many smaller utilities (often with names like shot-scraper, various *-to-sqlite tools for importing data, etc.).

That's not bad. Here's the start of the response for the exact same prompt from Fable 5 - both models were running without access to search:

I think you mean Simon Willison — the prolific open source developer, co-creator of Django, and creator of Datasette.

An important caveat upfront: a truly complete list isn't feasible. Simon Willison is famously prolific — he has published hundreds of repositories (Datasette alone has 100+ plugins, many written by him), and my knowledge has a cutoff date, so I'll be missing his most recent work. Below are his notable projects with approximate initial release dates, most recent first:

Notable projects (approximate dates)

files-to-prompt (April 2024) – concatenates files into a single prompt for LLMs

datasette-extract (2024) – plugin for extracting structured data using LLMs

LLM (May–June 2023) – CLI tool and Python library for interacting with large language models, plus a large ecosystem of plugins (llm-gpt4all, llm-mistral, llm-claude, etc., 2023 onward)

symbex (June 2023) – search Python code for symbols

ttok and strip-tags (May 2023) – CLI tools for token counting and HTML cleanup for LLM pipelines

datasette-lite (May 2022) – Datasette running entirely in the browser via WebAssembly/Pyodide

shot-scraper (March 2022) – automated website screenshots via Playwright

s3-credentials (November 2021) – CLI for creating scoped AWS S3 credentials

django-sql-dashboard (2021) – SQL reporting dashboards for Django

Dogsheep suite (2019) – personal analytics tools: twitter-to-sqlite, github-to-sqlite, healthkit-to-sqlite, dogsheep-beta, etc.

sqlite-utils (2018) – CLI and Python library for manipulating SQLite databases

Datasette (November 2017) – his flagship project; tool for exploring and publishing data

csvs-to-sqlite (2017) – convert CSV files to SQLite

Various early tools (~2007–2010) – soupselect, json-head, geocoders, and others

Django (developed 2003–2005, open-sourced July 2005) – co-created with Adrian Holovaty at the Lawrence Journal-World

(Here's GPT-5.5 for good measure. It listed even more projects than Fable did!)

In the past I've stated that I don't care about how much models know - I want them to be able to manipulate text and code in useful ways and actively look up the information they need via search tools, not bake it into their weights.

But knowledge like this is a reasonably good proxy for model size - you can cram a whole lot more details about the world into a larger number of parameters.

Does knowing more stuff mean the model is better at the tasks we pose to it? I can certainly imagine how a coding model with deeper knowledge of modern libraries and patterns could crunch through coding tasks more effectively.

Is Fable really bigger than Opus? Anthropic haven't said anything about model size, so all we have are tea-leaves, but the speed, pricing and my own poking at its knowledge make me think that it's a large model. Maybe the largest yet from any vendor.

Using Fable in Claude.ai

Anthropic made Fable 5 available across all of their surfaces - the Claude.ai chat interface, Claude Code for web, Claude Code CLI and Claude Cowork as well. The model is available "until June 22nd" on the subscription plans (I'm on $100/month Max at the moment), after which it will be billed extra.

Claude.ai is often under-estimated. Since September 2025 every chat has had access to a full container environment to run code, including the ability to install additional packages and even clone repositories directly from GitHub.

Last week I released micropython-wasm, a Python library that uses wasmtime to run a custom build of MicroPython in WebAssembly to act as a sandbox for untrusted Python code.

I decided to see if Fable could upgrade that to running full Python instead. I started with this prompt:

Clone simonw/micropython-wasm from GitHub and research how this could use a full Python as opposed to MicroPython

Fable identified that it could use Brett Cannon's cpython-wasi-build builds for this, but was unable to download them itself due to environment restrictions.

So I grabbed the two zip files from that page and uploaded them to Claude:

Here's the Brett Cannon builds (python-3.zip, _build-python-3.zip as attachments)

And that was that. It churned away for a few minutes and got the entire thing working.

Part of the response included:

I tried the cleaner single-zip-stdlib approach to shrink the filesystem surface, but CPython's getpath bootstrap fails to find encodings from inside a zip without more prefix finessing — the directory-preopen approach works reliably, so that's what the PoC uses. The zip path is solvable but needs _PYTHONHOME/frozen-getpath work.

So I said:

Try a bit more at the single-zip-stdlib problem

Then a little later:

I want a wheel that has the whole system in it, the Python wrappers and the WASM files and the stdlibrary, so I can do uv run --with path-to-whl python -c "demo code"

... and it gave me this 13.9MB cpython_wasm-0.1.0-py3-none-any.whl file. You can try running Python code in a sandbox using that wheel URL and uv like this:

uv run --with https://static.simonwillison.net/static/cors-allow/2026/cpython_wasm-0.1.0-py3-none-any.whl \
  cpython-wasm -c 'print(45 ** 56)'

Here's the full chat transcript.

This was a very strong start.

Adding features to Datasette Agent and LLM using Claude Code

Before I'd realized it was Fable day, my stretch goal for today was to add a new feature to Datasette Agent: I wanted tool calls within that agent software to gain the ability to pause mid-execution and request approval directly from the user.

This felt like a suitably meaty task to throw at the new model.

Over the course of the day Fable not only solved that problem, it also identified and then implemented four issues in my underlying LLM library that would help support this kind of advanced pause-resume mechanism in tool calls.

It got everything working first using somewhat gnarly hacks, but the moment I told it that changes to LLM itself were in scope it set to work unraveling the hacks and turning them into supported features of LLM instead.

My stretch goal turned into LLM 0.32a3, almost entirely written by Fable. Here are the release notes:

Driven by the needs of Datasette Agent's human-in-the-loop ask_user() feature, made the following improvements to how tool calls work:

Tool implementations can declare a parameter named llm_tool_call in order to be passed the llm.ToolCall object for the current invocation. This allows them to access the current llm_tool_call.tool_call_id. See Accessing the tool call from inside a tool. #1480

Every tool call is now guaranteed a unique tool_call_id - providers that do not supply one get a synthesized tc_-prefixed ULID. #1481

Tools can raise a llm.PauseChain exception to cleanly pause the tool chain, useful for things like waiting for human approval. The exception propagates to the caller with .tool_call and .tool_results (completed sibling results) attached, and no model call is made with a placeholder result. See Pausing a chain from inside a tool. #1482

Failure semantics for concurrent tool execution: async sibling tool calls always run to completion before a pause or hook exception propagates. #1482

Chains can now resume from a messages= history ending in unresolved tool calls: the calls are executed through the normal before_call/after_call machinery before the first model call, skipping any that already have results. The execute_tool_calls() method also accepts a new optional tool_calls_list= argument for executing an explicit list of ToolCall objects in place of the calls requested by the response. See Resuming a chain with pending tool calls. #1482

Fixed a bug where the async tool executor silently dropped calls to tools not present in tools= - these now return Error: tool "..." does not exist results, matching the sync executor. #1483

I'm really impressed with the quality of API design, tests, code and documentation that Fable put together for this. I spent several hours on it today, but it feels like several days' worth of work.

How much I've spent

I recently started using AgentsView to help track my local LLM usage across all of the different coding agents. I published a TIL today about adding custom Fable pricing to that tool, which I expect will not be necessary in the very near future.

After setting the price, I ran this command to start a localhost web server to explore my usage:

uvx agentsview serve

Here's the treemap showing the breakdown of my Fable usage across various projects today:

I used $110.42 worth of tokens today, all as part of my $100/month subscription.

And some pelicans

I ran "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle" against all five thinking effort levels with Fable.

Here are the results, including the token cost for each one:

low: 1,929 out, 9.67c

medium: 2,290 out, 11.475c

high: 2,057 out, 10.31c

xhigh: 5,992 out, 29.985c

max: 14,430 out, 72.175c

It's interesting that high ended up using fewer tokens than medium for this particular run.

Here are the Opus 4.8 pelicans for comparison.

Tags: ai, generative-ai, llms, anthropic, claude, llm-pricing, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, llm-release, claude-mythos-fable

Microsoft's new MAI models

2026-06-02T22:21:52+00:00

Microsoft announced two new text LLMs this morning - MAI-Thinking-1 (reasoning, 1T parameters, 35B active, available to "select early partners") and MAI-Code-1-Flash (137B Parameters, 5B active, "purpose-built for GitHub Copilot and VS Code to deliver high performance and lower cost [...] rolling out to GitHub Copilot individual users in Visual Studio Code"). I've not been able to try either of them just yet.

It's very interesting to see Microsoft releasing models with such low parameter counts, especially given how expensive larger models are to access right now. They claim MAI-Thinking-1 "is preferred to Sonnet 4.6 in our blind human side-by-side evaluations", which is impressive for a 35B model seeing as I frequently run models larger than that on my own laptop. (UPDATE: I got this entirely wrong, see note below.)

Also of note:

We trained [MAI-Thinking-1] from the ground up on enterprise grade, clean and commercially licensed data, without distillation from third-party models.

And for MAI-Code-1-Flash as well:

It is built end-to-end by Microsoft using clean and appropriately licensed data.

I would very much like to learn more about this "appropriately licensed" data! Could these be the first generally useful code-specialist models that didn't train on an unlicensed dump of the web? (Update: the answer is no, see note below.)

Update: My initial published notes got the size of the models wrong. I misread Microsoft's announcements and interpreted the MoE active parameter count as the total parameter count, but the model card for MAI-Code-1-Flash lists it as 137B with 5B active and the MAI-Thinking-1 technical paper reveals it to be a 1T model with 35B active.

I deeply regret this error.

Update 2: That technical paper describes the training data in some detail from page 80 onwards. It has the same licensing problems as all of the other major LLMs: it's trained on a crawl of the public web:

The majority of our web HTML corpus comes from a proprietary crawl. After initial page discovery and selection, approximately 1.2 trillion pages are crawled and parsed. [...] In addition to Microsoft standard policy Sec. 2.4, we apply UT1 block list (Prigent, 2026) to remove adult content and piracy-related domains. In all, this filtering reduces the corpus from 1.2 trillion pages to 794 billion pages. Given the prevalence of AI-generated content on the web, we also score pages with a proprietary AI-content detection model and use manual inspection to identify domains with extensive AI-generated content; those domains are filtered out of the training corpus.

[...]

We process Common Crawl with the same pipeline. [...] After filtering, deduplication, merging with the proprietary web corpus, and a final round of exact-URL and content-level fuzzy deduplication, the Common Crawl portion contains 24.2 billion pages.

I did not cover this one at all well, which is somewhat ironic since I was at the Microsoft Build conference when I wrote this up! I'm sorry for not digging deeper before publishing my initial notes.

Tags: microsoft, ai, generative-ai, llms, training-data, llm-release

California Brown Pelican

2026-06-02T18:17:03+00:00

California Brown Pelican, in Fort Mason, CA, US

I'm at the Microsoft Build conference today, held at Fort Mason in San Francisco. There are California Brown Pelicans diving into the water directly behind venue!

Tags: microsoft, ai, generative-ai, llms, llm-release

Claude Opus 4.8: "a modest but tangible improvement"

2026-05-28T23:59:50+00:00

Anthropic shipped Claude Opus 4.8 today. My favourite thing about it is this note in the release announcement:

Users will find Opus 4.8 to be a modest but tangible improvement on its predecessor. There’s still more to be done: we’re working on developing and releasing models that provide many of the same capabilities as Opus at a lower cost.

It's so refreshing to see an AI lab honestly describe a release as a minor incremental improvement over the previous model!

Honesty seems to be a theme. Here's my other favorite note from that announcement:

One of the most prominent improvements in Opus 4.8 is its honesty. We train all our models to be honest---for instance, to avoid making claims that they can't support. But a general problem with AI models is that they sometimes jump to conclusions, confidently claiming to have made progress in their work despite the evidence being thin. Early testers report that Opus 4.8 is more likely to flag uncertainties about its work and less likely to make unsupported claims. This is borne out in our evaluations, which show that Opus 4.8 is around four times less likely than its predecessor to allow flaws in code it has written to pass unremarked.

That linked system card includes the following:

Claude Opus 4.8 had the lowest incorrect-rate of the six models on every benchmark—the most direct measure of factual hallucination. It achieved this mainly by abstaining on questions about which it was uncertain rather than by answering more questions correctly.

Model characteristics

Not much has changed since 4.7.

It's priced the same as Opus 4.5/4.6/4.7 - $5/million input and $25 per million output. "Fast mode" is twice that price, which is a significant reduction from their previous models - fast mode on 4.6/4.7 remains at $30/$150. Note that fast mode is only available to organizations that are part of the research preview, "Contact your account manager to request access".

Both the reliable knowledge cutoff and the training data cutoff are January 2026, the same as for 4.7.

The context window is still 1,000,000 tokens, and the max output is 128,000 tokens.

The What's new in Claude Opus 4.8 document has some of the more interesting details. These caught my eye:

Mid-conversation system messages. Claude Opus 4.8 accepts role: "system" messages immediately after a user turn in the messages array (subject to placement rules). This lets you append updated instructions later in a long-running conversation without restating the full system prompt, which preserves prompt cache hits on the earlier turns and reduces input cost on agentic loops.

See also this update to the Anthropic Python SDK. Being able to steer the system prompt mid-conversation sounds really powerful. I was worried this would be incompatible with the abstraction provided by my own LLM library, which expects a single system prompt per conversation... but it turns out my recent redesign should handle that just fine.

Lower prompt cache minimum. The minimum cacheable prompt length on Claude Opus 4.8 is 1,024 tokens, lower than on Claude Opus 4.7.

I checked and 4.7's minimum was 4,096.

And some pelicans

Here are pelicans riding bicycles for all five thinking levels, low, medium, high, xhigh, and max:

low

medium

high

xhigh

max

This time I ran them using the LLM CLI, exported the logs to Markdown and then had Claude Opus 4.8 build me an HTML tool that could render that Markdown with the svg fenced code blocks displayed as SVGs on the page.

(I later had GPT-5.5 xhigh in Codex update that code to remove any XSS holes. I'm sure Claude could have done that if I'd asked, but GPT-5.5 is my code security blanket at the moment.)

The max one was clearly the best, but it did take 25 input, 17,167 output tokens for a total cost of 43 cents!

Tags: ai, generative-ai, llms, anthropic, claude, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, llm-release

Gemini 3.5 Flash: more expensive, but Google plan to use it for everything

2026-05-19T22:40:25+00:00

Today at Google I/O, Google released Gemini 3.5 Flash. This one skipped the -preview modifier and went straight to general availability, and Google appear to be using it for a whole lot of their key products:

3.5 Flash is available today to billions of people globally:

For everyone via the Gemini app and AI Mode in Google Search

For developers in our agent-first development platform Google Antigravity and Gemini API in Google AI Studio and Android Studio

For enterprises in Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform and Gemini Enterprise.

As usual with Gemini, the most interesting details are tucked away in the What's new in Gemini 3.5 Flash developer documentation. It mostly has the same set of platform features as the previous Gemini 3.x series, albeit with no computer use. The model ID is gemini-3.5-flash. The knowledge cut-off is January 2025, and it supports 1,048,576 input tokens and 65,536 maximum output tokens.

Google are also pushing a new Interactions API, currently in beta, which looks to me like their version of the patterns introduced by OpenAI Responses - in particular server-side history management.

The price has gone up

Gemini 3.5 Flash is accompanied by a notable price bump. The previous models in the "Flash" family were Gemini 3 Flash Preview and Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite. The new 3.5 Flash is 3x the price of 3 Flash Preview and 6x the price of 3.1 Flash-Lite (see price comparison here).

At $1.50/million input and $9/million output it's getting close in price to Google's Gemini 3.1 Pro, which is $2 and $12.

The Gemini team promise that 3.5 Pro will roll out "next month" - presumably at an even higher price.

This fits a trend: OpenAI's GPT-5.5 was 2x the price of GPT-5.4, and Claude Opus 4.7 is around 1.46x the price of 4.6 when you take the new tokenizer into account.

Given the price increase it's interesting to see Google roll it out for so many of their own free-to-consumer products. It feels like all three of the major AI labs are starting to probe the price tolerance of their API customers.

Artificial Analysis publish the cost to run their proprietary benchmark against models, which is a useful way to take things like tokenization and increased volume of reasoning tokens into account. Some numbers worth comparing:

Gemini 3.5 Flash (high): $1,551.60
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: $892.28
Gemini 3 Flash Preview (Reasoning): $278.26
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Preview: $93.60

Running the benchmark for 3.5 Flash (high) cost significantly more than 3.1 Pro Preview!

Here are some numbers from other vendors:

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort): $5,117.14
Claude Opus 4.7 (Non-reasoning, High Effort): $1,217.23
GPT-5.5 (xhigh): $3,357.00
GPT-5.5 (medium): $1,199.14

A pelican on a bicycle

I ran "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle" against the Gemini API and got back this pelican, which is a lot:

From the code comments: 

hedgehog on Hacker News:

That pelican looks like it's in Miami for a crypto conference.

That one cost me 11 input tokens and 14,403 output tokens, for a total cost of just under 13 cents.

Tags: google, ai, generative-ai, llms, gemini, llm-pricing, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, llm-release

llm-gemini 0.31

2026-05-07T19:57:06+00:00

Release: llm-gemini 0.31

gemini-3.1-flash-lite is no longer a preview.

Here's my write-up of the Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite Preview model back in March. I don't believe this new non-preview model has changed since then.

Tags: google, ai, generative-ai, llms, llm, gemini, llm-release

Granite 4.1 3B SVG Pelican Gallery

2026-05-04T23:49:24+00:00

Granite 4.1 3B SVG Pelican Gallery

IBM released their Granite 4.1 family of LLMs a few days ago. They're Apache 2.0 licensed and come in 3B, 8B and 30B sizes.

Granite 4.1 LLMs: How They’re Built by Granite team member Yousaf Shah describes the training process in detail.

Unsloth released the unsloth/granite-4.1-3b-GGUF collection of GGUF encoded quantized variants of the 3B model - 21 different model files ranging in size from 1.2GB to 6.34GB.

All 21 of those Unsloth files add up to 51.3GB, which inspired me to finally try an experiment I've been wanting to run for ages: prompting "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle" against different sized quantized variants of the same model to see what the results would look like.

Honestly, the results are less interesting than I expected. There's no distinguishable pattern relating quality to size - they're all pretty terrible!

I'll likely try this again in the future with a model that's better at drawing pelicans.

Tags: ibm, ai, generative-ai, llms, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, llm-release

Introducing talkie: a 13B vintage language model from 1930

2026-04-28T02:47:42+00:00

Introducing talkie: a 13B vintage language model from 1930

New project from Nick Levine, David Duvenaud, and Alec Radford (of GPT, GPT-2, Whisper fame).

talkie-1930-13b-base (53.1 GB) is a "13B language model trained on 260B tokens of historical pre-1931 English text".

talkie-1930-13b-it (26.6 GB) is a checkpoint "finetuned using a novel dataset of instruction-response pairs extracted from pre-1931 reference works", designed to power a chat interface. You can try that out here.

Both models are Apache 2.0 licensed. Since the training data for the base model is entirely out of copyright (the USA copyright cutoff date is currently January 1, 1931), I'm hoping they later decide to release the training data as well.

Update on that: Nick Levine on Twitter:

Will publish more on the corpus in the future (and do our best to share the data or at least scripts to reproduce it).

Their report suggests some fascinating research objectives for this class of model, including:

How good are these models at predicting the future? "we calculated the surprisingness of short descriptions of historical events to a 13B model trained on pre-1931 text"
Can these models invent things that are past their knowledge cutoffs? "As Demis Hassabis has asked, could a model trained up to 1911 independently discover General Relativity, as Einstein did in 1915?"
Can they be taught to program? "Figure 3 (left-hand side) shows an early example of such a test, measuring how well models trained on pre-1931 text can, when given a few demonstration examples of Python programs, write new correct programs."

I have a long-running interest in what I call "vegan models" - LLMs that are trained entirely on licensed or out-of-copyright data. I think the base model here qualifies, but the chat model isn't entirely pure due to the reliance on non-vegan models to help with the fine-tuning - emphasis mine:

First, we generated instruction-response pairs from historical texts with regular structure, such as etiquette manuals, letter-writing manuals, cookbooks, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and poetry and fable collections (see Figure 7), and fine-tuned our base model on them using a simple chat format.

Next, to improve instruction-following abilities, we generated synthetic prompts covering different types of tasks, such as summarizing documents, responding to direct information requests, and continuing multi-turn conversations coherently. We then ran online direct preference optimization on rollouts generated from these prompts, using Claude Sonnet 4.6 as a judge. [...]

Finally, we did another round of supervised fine-tuning, this time on rejection-sampled multi-turn synthetic chats between Claude Opus 4.6 and talkie, to smooth out persistent rough edges in its conversational abilities.

A major challenge in training talkie was avoiding accidental contamination, either from post-1931 text that snuck into the training corpus or from the fine-tuning assistance from modern LLMs introducing anachronistic knowledge to the chat model.

I recently wrote about Mr. Chatterbox, a similar vintage language model project which also had to turn to modern LLMs to create synthetic conversations to help train the chat model.

The talkie team aspire to eventually move beyond this limitation:

While we have tried to post-train talkie free from modern influence, reinforcement learning with AI feedback inevitably shapes talkie’s behavior anachronistically. (The 7B version of talkie emerged from RL speaking in listicles.) As we scale up, we hope to be able to use our vintage base models themselves as judges to enable a fully bootstrapped era-appropriate post-training pipeline.

I couldn't resist hitting the talkie demo with my classic test prompt:

Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle

It replied:

An SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle was generated in 1860. The pelican was represented as perched on the saddle, with its long bill pointed forward, and its legs astride the handles. The idea was suggested by the fact that pelicans are sometimes seen fishing on horseback, on the banks of the Rhine.

Via Hacker News

Tags: ai, generative-ai, local-llms, llms, training-data, ai-ethics, llm-release

DeepSeek V4 - almost on the frontier, a fraction of the price

2026-04-24T06:01:04+00:00

Chinese AI lab DeepSeek's last model release was V3.2 (and V3.2 Speciale) last December. They just dropped the first of their hotly anticipated V4 series in the shape of two preview models, DeepSeek-V4-Pro and DeepSeek-V4-Flash.

Both models are 1 million token context Mixture of Experts. Pro is 1.6T total parameters, 49B active. Flash is 284B total, 13B active. They're using the standard MIT license.

I think this makes DeepSeek-V4-Pro the new largest open weights model. It's larger than Kimi K2.6 (1.1T) and GLM-5.1 (754B) and more than twice the size of DeepSeek V3.2 (685B).

Pro is 865GB on Hugging Face, Flash is 160GB. I'm hoping that a lightly quantized Flash will run on my 128GB M5 MacBook Pro. It's possible the Pro model may run on it if I can stream just the necessary active experts from disk.

For the moment I tried the models out via OpenRouter, using llm-openrouter:

llm install llm-openrouter
llm openrouter refresh
llm -m openrouter/deepseek/deepseek-v4-pro 'Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle'

Here's the pelican for DeepSeek-V4-Flash:

And for DeepSeek-V4-Pro:

For comparison, take a look at the pelicans I got from DeepSeek V3.2 in December, V3.1 in August, and V3-0324 in March 2025.

So the pelicans are pretty good, but what's really notable here is the cost. DeepSeek V4 is a very, very inexpensive model.

This is DeepSeek's pricing page. They're charging $0.14/million tokens input and $0.28/million tokens output for Flash, and $1.74/million input and $3.48/million output for Pro.

Here's a comparison table with the frontier models from Gemini, OpenAI and Anthropic:

Model	Input ($/M)	Output ($/M)
DeepSeek V4 Flash	$0.14	$0.28
GPT-5.4 Nano	$0.20	$1.25
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite	$0.25	$1.50
Gemini 3 Flash Preview	$0.50	$3
GPT-5.4 Mini	$0.75	$4.50
Claude Haiku 4.5	$1	$5
DeepSeek V4 Pro	$1.74	$3.48
Gemini 3.1 Pro	$2	$12
GPT-5.4	$2.50	$15
Claude Sonnet 4.6	$3	$15
Claude Opus 4.7	$5	$25
GPT-5.5	$5	$30

DeepSeek-V4-Flash is the cheapest of the small models, beating even OpenAI's GPT-5.4 Nano. DeepSeek-V4-Pro is the cheapest of the larger frontier models.

This note from the DeepSeek paper helps explain why they can price these models so low - they've focused a great deal on efficiency with this release, especially for longer context prompts:

In the scenario of 1M-token context, even DeepSeek-V4-Pro, which has a larger number of activated parameters, attains only 27% of the single-token FLOPs (measured in equivalent FP8 FLOPs) and 10% of the KV cache size relative to DeepSeek-V3.2. Furthermore, DeepSeek-V4-Flash, with its smaller number of activated parameters, pushes efficiency even further: in the 1M-token context setting, it achieves only 10% of the single-token FLOPs and 7% of the KV cache size compared with DeepSeek-V3.2.

DeepSeek's self-reported benchmarks in their paper show their Pro model competitive with those other frontier models, albeit with this note:

Through the expansion of reasoning tokens, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max demonstrates superior performance relative to GPT-5.2 and Gemini-3.0-Pro on standard reasoning benchmarks. Nevertheless, its performance falls marginally short of GPT-5.4 and Gemini-3.1-Pro, suggesting a developmental trajectory that trails state-of-the-art frontier models by approximately 3 to 6 months.

I'm keeping an eye on huggingface.co/unsloth/models as I expect the Unsloth team will have a set of quantized versions out pretty soon. It's going to be very interesting to see how well that Flash model runs on my own machine.

Tags: ai, generative-ai, llms, llm, llm-pricing, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, deepseek, llm-release, openrouter, ai-in-china

A pelican for GPT-5.5 via the semi-official Codex backdoor API

2026-04-23T19:59:47+00:00

GPT-5.5 is out. It's available in OpenAI Codex and is rolling out to paid ChatGPT subscribers. I've had some preview access and found it to be a fast, effective and highly capable model. As is usually the case these days, it's hard to put into words what's good about it - I ask it to build things and it builds exactly what I ask for!

There's one notable omission from today's release - the API:

API deployments require different safeguards and we are working closely with partners and customers on the safety and security requirements for serving it at scale. We'll bring GPT‑5.5 and GPT‑5.5 Pro to the API very soon.

When I run my pelican benchmark I always prefer to use an API, to avoid hidden system prompts in ChatGPT or other agent harnesses from impacting the results.

The OpenClaw backdoor

One of the ongoing tension points in the AI world over the past few months has concerned how agent harnesses like OpenClaw and Pi interact with the APIs provided by the big providers.

Both OpenAI and Anthropic offer popular monthly subscriptions which provide access to their models at a significant discount to their raw API.

OpenClaw integrated directly with this mechanism, and was then blocked from doing so by Anthropic. This kicked off a whole thing. OpenAI - who recently hired OpenClaw creator Peter Steinberger - saw an opportunity for an easy karma win and announced that OpenClaw was welcome to continue integrating with OpenAI's subscriptions via the same mechanism used by their (open source) Codex CLI tool.

Does this mean anyone can write code that integrates with OpenAI's Codex-specific APIs to hook into those existing subscriptions?

The other day Jeremy Howard asked:

Anyone know whether OpenAI officially supports the use of the /backend-api/codex/responses endpoint that Pi and Opencode (IIUC) uses?

It turned out that on March 30th OpenAI's Romain Huet had tweeted:

We want people to be able to use Codex, and their ChatGPT subscription, wherever they like! That means in the app, in the terminal, but also in JetBrains, Xcode, OpenCode, Pi, and now Claude Code.

That’s why Codex CLI and Codex app server are open source too! 🙂

And Peter Steinberger replied to Jeremy that:

OpenAI sub is officially supported.

llm-openai-via-codex

So... I had Claude Code reverse-engineer the openai/codex repo, figure out how authentication tokens were stored and build me llm-openai-via-codex, a new plugin for LLM which picks up your existing Codex subscription and uses it to run prompts!

(With hindsight I wish I'd used GPT-5.4 or the GPT-5.5 preview, it would have been funnier. I genuinely considered rewriting the project from scratch using Codex and GPT-5.5 for the sake of the joke, but decided not to spend any more time on this!)

Here's how to use it:

Install Codex CLI, buy an OpenAI plan, login to Codex
Install LLM: uv tool install llm
Install the new plugin: llm install llm-openai-via-codex
Start prompting: llm -m openai-codex/gpt-5.5 'Your prompt goes here'

All existing LLM features should also work - use -a filepath.jpg/URL to attach an image, llm chat -m openai-codex/gpt-5.5 to start an ongoing chat, llm logs to view logged conversations and llm --tool ... to try it out with tool support.

And some pelicans

Let's generate a pelican!

llm install llm-openai-via-codex
llm -m openai-codex/gpt-5.5 'Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle'

Here's what I got back:

I've seen better from GPT-5.4, so I tagged on -o reasoning_effort xhigh and tried again:

That one took almost four minutes to generate, but I think it's a much better effort.

If you compare the SVG code (default, xhigh) the xhigh one took a very different approach, which is much more CSS-heavy - as demonstrated by those gradients. xhigh used 9,322 reasoning tokens where the default used just 39.

A few more notes on GPT-5.5

One of the most notable things about GPT-5.5 is the pricing. Once it goes live in the API it's going to be priced at twice the cost of GPT-5.4 - $5 per 1M input tokens and $30 per 1M output tokens, where 5.4 is $2.5 and $15.

GPT-5.5 Pro will be even more: $30 per 1M input tokens and $180 per 1M output tokens.

GPT-5.4 will remain available. At half the price of 5.5 this feels like 5.4 is to 5.5 as Claude Sonnet is to Claude Opus.

Ethan Mollick has a detailed review of GPT-5.5 where he put it (and GPT-5.5 Pro) through an array of interesting challenges. His verdict: the jagged frontier continues to hold, with GPT-5.5 excellent at some things and challenged by others in a way that remains difficult to predict.

Tags: ai, openai, generative-ai, chatgpt, llms, llm, llm-pricing, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, llm-reasoning, llm-release, codex, gpt

Qwen3.6-27B: Flagship-Level Coding in a 27B Dense Model

2026-04-22T16:45:23+00:00

Qwen3.6-27B: Flagship-Level Coding in a 27B Dense Model

Big claims from Qwen about their latest open weight model:

Qwen3.6-27B delivers flagship-level agentic coding performance, surpassing the previous-generation open-source flagship Qwen3.5-397B-A17B (397B total / 17B active MoE) across all major coding benchmarks.

On Hugging Face Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is 807GB, this new Qwen3.6-27B is 55.6GB.

I tried it out with the 16.8GB Unsloth Qwen3.6-27B-GGUF:Q4_K_M quantized version and llama-server using this recipe by benob on Hacker News, after first installing llama-server using brew install llama.cpp:

llama-server \
    -hf unsloth/Qwen3.6-27B-GGUF:Q4_K_M \
    --no-mmproj \
    --fit on \
    -np 1 \
    -c 65536 \
    --cache-ram 4096 -ctxcp 2 \
    --jinja \
    --temp 0.6 \
    --top-p 0.95 \
    --top-k 20 \
    --min-p 0.0 \
    --presence-penalty 0.0 \
    --repeat-penalty 1.0 \
    --reasoning on \
    --chat-template-kwargs '{"preserve_thinking": true}'

On first run that saved the ~17GB model to ~/.cache/huggingface/hub/models--unsloth--Qwen3.6-27B-GGUF.

Here's the transcript for "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle". This is an outstanding result for a 16.8GB local model:

Performance numbers reported by llama-server:

Reading: 20 tokens, 0.4s, 54.32 tokens/s
Generation: 4,444 tokens, 2min 53s, 25.57 tokens/s

For good measure, here's Generate an SVG of a NORTH VIRGINIA OPOSSUM ON AN E-SCOOTER (run previously with GLM-5.1):

That one took 6,575 tokens, 4min 25s, 24.74 t/s.

Via Hacker News

Tags: ai, generative-ai, local-llms, llms, qwen, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, llama-cpp, llm-release, ai-in-china

Where's the raccoon with the ham radio? (ChatGPT Images 2.0)

2026-04-21T20:32:24+00:00

OpenAI released ChatGPT Images 2.0 today, their latest image generation model. On the livestream Sam Altman said that the leap from gpt-image-1 to gpt-image-2 was equivalent to jumping from GPT-3 to GPT-5. Here's how I put it to the test.

My prompt:

Do a where's Waldo style image but it's where is the raccoon holding a ham radio

gpt-image-1

First as a baseline here's what I got from the older gpt-image-1 using ChatGPT directly:

I wasn't able to spot the raccoon - I quickly realized that testing image generation models on Where's Waldo style images (Where's Wally in the UK) can be pretty frustrating!

I tried getting Claude Opus 4.7 with its new higher resolution inputs to solve it but it was convinced there was a raccoon it couldn't find thanks to the instruction card at the top left of the image:

Yes — there's at least one raccoon in the picture, but it's very well hidden. In my careful sweep through zoomed-in sections, honestly, I couldn't definitively spot a raccoon holding a ham radio. [...]

Nano Banana 2 and Pro

Next I tried Google's Nano Banana 2, via Gemini:

That one was pretty obvious, the raccoon is in the "Amateur Radio Club" booth in the center of the image!

Claude said:

Honestly, this one wasn't really hiding — he's the star of the booth. Feels like the illustrator took pity on us after that last impossible scene. The little "W6HAM" callsign pun on the booth sign is a nice touch too.

I also tried Nano Banana Pro in AI Studio and got this, by far the worst result from any model. Not sure what went wrong here!

gpt-image-2

With the baseline established, let's try out the new model.

I used an updated version of my openai_image.py script, which is a thin wrapper around the OpenAI Python client library. Their client library hasn't yet been updated to include gpt-image-2 but thankfully it doesn't validate the model ID so you can use it anyway.

Here's how I ran that:

OPENAI_API_KEY="$(llm keys get openai)" \
  uv run https://tools.simonwillison.net/python/openai_image.py \
  -m gpt-image-2 \
  "Do a where's Waldo style image but it's where is the raccoon holding a ham radio"

Here's what I got back. I don't think there's a raccoon in there - I couldn't spot one, and neither could Claude.

The OpenAI image generation cookbook has been updated with notes on gpt-image-2, including the outputQuality setting and available sizes.

I tried setting outputQuality to high and the dimensions to 3840x2160 - I believe that's the maximum - and got this - a 17MB PNG which I converted to a 5MB WEBP:

OPENAI_API_KEY="$(llm keys get openai)" \
  uv run 'https://raw.githubusercontent.com/simonw/tools/refs/heads/main/python/openai_image.py' \
  -m gpt-image-2 "Do a where's Waldo style image but it's where is the raccoon holding a ham radio" \
  --quality high --size 3840x2160

That's pretty great! There's a raccoon with a ham radio in there (bottom left, quite easy to spot).

The image used 13,342 output tokens, which are charged at $30/million so a total cost of around 40 cents.

Takeaways

I think this new ChatGPT image generation model takes the crown from Gemini, at least for the moment.

Where's Waldo style images are an infuriating and somewhat foolish way to test these models, but they do help illustrate how good they are getting at complex illustrations combining both text and details.

Update: asking models to solve this is risky

rizaco on Hacker News asked ChatGPT to draw a red circle around the raccoon in one of the images in which I had failed to find one. Here's an animated mix of their result and the original image:

Looks like we definitely can't trust these models to usefully solve their own puzzles!

Tags: ai, openai, generative-ai, chatgpt, llms, text-to-image, llm-release, nano-banana

llm-openrouter 0.6

2026-04-20T18:00:26+00:00

Release: llm-openrouter 0.6

llm openrouter refresh command for refreshing the list of available models without waiting for the cache to expire.

I added this feature so I could try Kimi 2.6 on OpenRouter as soon as it became available there.

Here's its pelican - this time as an HTML page because Kimi chose to include an HTML and JavaScript UI to control the animation. Transcript here.

Tags: ai, generative-ai, llms, llm, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, llm-release, openrouter, ai-in-china, kimi

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B on my laptop drew me a better pelican than Claude Opus 4.7

2026-04-16T17:16:52+00:00

For anyone who has been (inadvisably) taking my pelican riding a bicycle benchmark seriously as a robust way to test models, here are pelicans from this morning's two big model releases - Qwen3.6-35B-A3B from Alibaba and Claude Opus 4.7 from Anthropic.

Here's the Qwen 3.6 pelican, generated using this 20.9GB Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-UD-Q4_K_S.gguf quantized model by Unsloth, running on my MacBook Pro M5 via LM Studio (and the llm-lmstudio plugin) - transcript here:

And here's one I got from Anthropic's brand new Claude Opus 4.7 (transcript):

I'm giving this one to Qwen 3.6. Opus managed to mess up the bicycle frame!

I tried Opus a second time passing thinking_level: max. It didn't do much better (transcript):

I don't think Qwen are cheating

A lot of people are convinced that the labs train for my stupid benchmark. I don't think they do, but honestly this result did give me a little glint of suspicion. So I'm burning one of my secret backup tests - here's what I got from Qwen3.6-35B-A3B and Opus 4.7 for "Generate an SVG of a flamingo riding a unicycle":

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
(transcript)

Opus 4.7
(transcript)

I'm giving this one to Qwen too, partly for the excellent  SVG comment.

What can we learn from this?

The pelican benchmark has always been meant as a joke - it's mainly a statement on how obtuse and absurd the task of comparing these models is.

The weird thing about that joke is that, for the most part, there has been a direct correlation between the quality of the pelicans produced and the general usefulness of the models. Those first pelicans from October 2024 were junk. The more recent entries have generally been much, much better - to the point that Gemini 3.1 Pro produces illustrations you could actually use somewhere, provided you had a pressing need to illustrate a pelican riding a bicycle.

Today, even that loose connection to utility has been broken. I have enormous respect for Qwen, but I very much doubt that a 21GB quantized version of their latest model is more powerful or useful than Anthropic's latest proprietary release.

If the thing you need is an SVG illustration of a pelican riding a bicycle though, right now Qwen3.6-35B-A3B running on a laptop is a better bet than Opus 4.7!

Tags: ai, generative-ai, local-llms, llms, anthropic, claude, qwen, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, llm-release, lm-studio

Gemini 3.1 Flash TTS

2026-04-15T17:13:14+00:00

Gemini 3.1 Flash TTS

Google released Gemini 3.1 Flash TTS today, a new text-to-speech model that can be directed using prompts.

It's presented via the standard Gemini API using gemini-3.1-flash-tts-preview as the model ID, but can only output audio files.

The prompting guide is surprising, to say the least. Here's their example prompt to generate just a few short sentences of audio:

# AUDIO PROFILE: Jaz R.
## "The Morning Hype"

## THE SCENE: The London Studio
It is 10:00 PM in a glass-walled studio overlooking the moonlit London skyline, but inside, it is blindingly bright. The red "ON AIR" tally light is blazing. Jaz is standing up, not sitting, bouncing on the balls of their heels to the rhythm of a thumping backing track. Their hands fly across the faders on a massive mixing desk. It is a chaotic, caffeine-fueled cockpit designed to wake up an entire nation.

### DIRECTOR'S NOTES
Style:
* The "Vocal Smile": You must hear the grin in the audio. The soft palate is always raised to keep the tone bright, sunny, and explicitly inviting.
* Dynamics: High projection without shouting. Punchy consonants and elongated vowels on excitement words (e.g., "Beauuutiful morning").

Pace: Speaks at an energetic pace, keeping up with the fast music.  Speaks with A "bouncing" cadence. High-speed delivery with fluid transitions — no dead air, no gaps.

Accent: Jaz is from Brixton, London

### SAMPLE CONTEXT
Jaz is the industry standard for Top 40 radio, high-octane event promos, or any script that requires a charismatic Estuary accent and 11/10 infectious energy.

#### TRANSCRIPT
[excitedly] Yes, massive vibes in the studio! You are locked in and it is absolutely popping off in London right now. If you're stuck on the tube, or just sat there pretending to work... stop it. Seriously, I see you.
[shouting] Turn this up! We've got the project roadmap landing in three, two... let's go!

Here's what I got using that example prompt:

Your browser does not support the audio element.

Then I modified it to say "Jaz is from Newcastle" and "... requires a charismatic Newcastle accent" and got this result:

Your browser does not support the audio element.

Here's Exeter, Devon for good measure:

Your browser does not support the audio element.

I had Gemini 3.1 Pro vibe code this UI for trying it out:

Tags: google, text-to-speech, tools, ai, prompt-engineering, generative-ai, llms, gemini, llm-release, vibe-coding

Meta's new model is Muse Spark, and meta.ai chat has some interesting tools

2026-04-08T23:07:44+00:00

Meta announced Muse Spark today, their first model release since Llama 4 almost exactly a year ago. It's hosted, not open weights, and the API is currently "a private API preview to select users", but you can try it out today on meta.ai (Facebook or Instagram login required).

Meta's self-reported benchmarks show it competitive with Opus 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and GPT 5.4 on selected benchmarks, though notably behind on Terminal-Bench 2.0. Meta themselves say they "continue to invest in areas with current performance gaps, such as long-horizon agentic systems and coding workflows".

The model is exposed as two different modes on meta.ai - "Instant" and "Thinking". Meta promise a "Contemplating" mode in the future which they say will offer much longer reasoning time and should behave more like Gemini Deep Think or GPT-5.4 Pro.

A couple of pelicans

I prefer to run my pelican test via API to avoid being influenced by any invisible system prompts, but since that's not an option I ran it against the chat UI directly.

Here's the pelican I got for "Instant":

And this one for "Thinking":

Both SVGs were rendered inline by the Meta AI interface. Interestingly, the Instant model output an SVG directly (with code comments) whereas the Thinking model wrapped it in a thin HTML shell with some unused Playables SDK v1.0.0 JavaScript libraries.

Which got me curious...

Poking around with tools

Clearly Meta's chat harness has some tools wired up to it - at the very least it can render SVG and HTML as embedded frames, Claude Artifacts style.

But what else can it do?

I asked it:

what tools do you have access to?

And then:

I want the exact tool names, parameter names and tool descriptions, in the original format

It spat out detailed descriptions of 16 different tools. You can see the full list I got back here - credit to Meta for not telling their bot to hide these, since it's far less frustrating if I can get them out without having to mess around with jailbreaks.

Here are highlights derived from that response:

Browse and search. browser.search can run a web search through an undisclosed search engine, browser.open can load the full page from one of those search results and browser.find can run pattern matches against the returned page content.
Meta content search. meta_1p.content_search can run "Semantic search across Instagram, Threads, and Facebook posts" - but only for posts the user has access to view which were created since 2025-01-01. This tool has some powerful looking parameters, including author_ids, key_celebrities, commented_by_user_ids, and liked_by_user_ids.
"Catalog search" - meta_1p.meta_catalog_search can "Search for products in Meta's product catalog", presumably for the "Shopping" option in the Meta AI model selector.
Image generation. media.image_gen generates images from prompts, and "returns a CDN URL and saves the image to the sandbox". It has modes "artistic" and "realistic" and can return "square", "vertical" or "landscape" images.
container.python_execution - yes! It's Code Interpreter, my favourite feature of both ChatGPT and Claude.

Execute Python code in a remote sandbox environment. Python 3.9 with pandas, numpy, matplotlib, plotly, scikit-learn, PyMuPDF, Pillow, OpenCV, etc. Files persist at /mnt/data/.

Python 3.9 is EOL these days but the library collection looks useful.

I prompted "use python code to confirm sqlite version and python version" and got back Python 3.9.25 and SQLite 3.34.1 (from January 2021).
container.create_web_artifact - we saw this earlier with the HTML wrapper around the pelican: Meta AI can create HTML+JavaScript files in its container which can then be served up as secure sandboxed iframe interactives. "Set kind to html for websites/apps or svg for vector graphics."
container.download_meta_1p_media is interesting: "Download media from Meta 1P sources into the sandbox. Use post_id for Instagram/Facebook/Threads posts, or catalog_search_citation_id for catalog product images". So it looks like you can pull in content from other parts of Meta and then do fun Code Interpreter things to it in the sandbox.
container.file_search - "Search uploaded files in this conversation and return relevant excerpts" - I guess for digging through PDFs and similar?
Tools for editing files in the container - container.view, container.insert (with new_str and insert_line), container.str_replace. These look similar to Claude's text editor tool commands - these are becoming a common pattern across any file-equipped agent harness.
container.visual_grounding - see below, this one is fun.
subagents.spawn_agent - the sub-agent as a tool pattern. "Spawn an independent sub-agent for research, analysis, or delegation. It returns its final text response."
third_party.link_third_party_account - "Initiate account linking for a third-party service", currently Google Calendar, Outlook Calendar, Gmail, or Outlook.

Image analysis in the container

Let's talk about that container.visual_grounding one. Here's the description in full:

Description: Visual grounding tool that analyzes the image, identifies and labels objects, locates regions, or counts objects.

Parameters:

object_names (array, required)

image_path (string, default "")

format_type ("bbox"|"point"|"count"|null, default "bbox")

title (string|null)[string]

So it can take an image path, optional object names and return things in format bbox, point or count.

This sounded to me like Meta's Segment Anything, (I later heard that it's not, this is a native feature of the model itself via a tool call with a custom system prompt). I decided to take it for a spin.

Prompt:

generate a photo of a raccoon sitting on a trash can wearing trash as a hat

Response:

Here you go — king of the alley, in full regalia:

Coffee cup crown, banana peel brim, newspaper feather. Peak raccoon fashion. Want me to make a wilder version — maybe night-vision, or wearing sunglasses too?

My guess is that image generation in Meta AI is powered by their Emu model, or an updated version of it. This is the same pattern as ChatGPT and Gemini image generation, where images are generated by a tool call (here that's media.image_gen).

The image_gen tool description said that it "saves the image to the sandbox", so my guess was that I'd then be able to run Python code against it. I tried:

use python OpenCV to analyze that image and find out neat things about it

Annoyingly it did not show me the code it ran, but it did create this image:

Pretty neat! We can both generate images and then use them with Python tools.

Next, the visual_grounding tool. Knowing the names of the tools makes it easy to refer to them in prompts:

Now try the container.visual_grounding tool

The response (full response here):

Done — visual_grounding pinpointed every piece of the outfit with pixel-level precision:

[...]

Want me to run it in bbox mode next to draw boxes around the fur texture, or count mode to see how many individual whiskers it can detect?

Once again, Meta AI wrapped the results from the tool in a custom HTML visualization. That's clearly point mode, but how about the others?

I prompted:

yes draw bounding boxes, can it do masks too?

Response:

Yes — bounding boxes work great. Masks? Not directly in visual_grounding; it only returns three formats: point, bbox, and count. No pixel-level segmentation masks.

Here's the bbox output:

What you’re seeing:

raccoon: big box from (270,240) to (892,845) — covers 62% of the width, basically the whole animal

coffee cup: (424,115)-(610,273) — sits highest, 158px tall in the 0-1000 space

banana peel: (472,215)-(667,291) — overlaps the cup's base, confirming it's draped over the side

newspaper: (305,223)-(548,315) — left ear coverage

trash can lid: (107,800)-(1000,998) — spans almost the full image width at the bottom

face: (305,283)-(750,537) — tight crop around the mask

eyes: both ~40×37 pixel boxes, perfectly level at y=379

Notice how the boxes nest: face is inside raccoon, eyes inside face, hat pieces overlap each other but stay above the face box. The tool is doing real object localization, not just guessing centers.

About masks: since visual_grounding doesn't output them, I can fake them with OpenCV in the container. Two quick options:

GrabCut — I give it the raccoon bbox, it iteratively segments fur from background and returns a binary mask

SAM-style color threshold — use the bbox plus k-means to isolate the coffee cup or banana peel

Want me to generate an actual alpha mask for the raccoon (cut it out from the alley), or for the trash hat pieces separately? Takes about 10 seconds and I can give you a transparent PNG.

Here's the HTML for that bbox visualization.

Finally I had it dump out the raw JSON for point mode, bbox mode and count mode. You can see that all here. The count mode is particularly interesting - here's that in full:

[
  {
    "object_name": "raccoon whisker",
    "points": [
      {"x": 403, "y": 445},
      {"x": 397, "y": 458},
      {"x": 392, "y": 472},
      {"x": 391, "y": 485},
      {"x": 398, "y": 497},
      {"x": 415, "y": 512},
      {"x": 618, "y": 446},
      {"x": 622, "y": 461},
      {"x": 625, "y": 475},
      {"x": 628, "y": 488},
      {"x": 635, "y": 501},
      {"x": 651, "y": 518}
    ],
    "count": 12
  },
  {
    "object_name": "raccoon paw claw",
    "points": [
      {"x": 406, "y": 845},
      {"x": 424, "y": 847},
      {"x": 441, "y": 842},
      {"x": 473, "y": 833},
      {"x": 596, "y": 830},
      {"x": 635, "y": 844},
      {"x": 660, "y": 843},
      {"x": 679, "y": 838}
    ],
    "count": 8
  },
  {
    "object_name": "trash item on head",
    "points": [
      {"x": 514, "y": 191},
      {"x": 568, "y": 263},
      {"x": 392, "y": 274}
    ],
    "count": 3
  },
  {
    "object_name": "eye",
    "points": [
      {"x": 462, "y": 395},
      {"x": 582, "y": 398}
    ],
    "count": 2
  },
  {
    "object_name": "ear",
    "points": [
      {"x": 359, "y": 313},
      {"x": 680, "y": 294}
    ],
    "count": 2
  }
]

So Meta AI has the ability to count a raccoon's whiskers baked into the default set of tools.

Which means... it can count pelicans too!

Here's that overlay exported as HTML.

Update: Meta's Jack Wu confirms that these tools are part of the new harness they launched alongside the new model.

Maybe open weights in the future?

On Twitter Alexandr Wang said:

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.

I really hope they do go back to open-sourcing their models. Llama 3.1/3.2/3.3 were excellent laptop-scale model families, and the introductory blog post for Muse Spark had this to say about efficiency:

[...] we can reach the same capabilities with over an order of magnitude less compute than our previous model, Llama 4 Maverick. This improvement also makes Muse Spark significantly more efficient than the leading base models available for comparison.

So are Meta back in the frontier model game? Artificial Analysis think so - they scored Meta Spark at 52, "behind only Gemini 3.1 Pro, GPT-5.4, and Claude Opus 4.6". Last year's Llama 4 Maverick and Scout scored 18 and 13 respectively.

I'm waiting for API access - while the tool collection on meta.ai is quite strong the real test of a model like this is still what we can build on top of it.

Tags: facebook, ai, generative-ai, llms, code-interpreter, llm-tool-use, meta, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, llm-reasoning, llm-release

GLM-5.1: Towards Long-Horizon Tasks

2026-04-07T21:25:14+00:00

GLM-5.1: Towards Long-Horizon Tasks

Chinese AI lab Z.ai's latest model is a giant 754B parameter 1.51TB (on Hugging Face) MIT-licensed monster - the same size as their previous GLM-5 release, and sharing the same paper.

It's available via OpenRouter so I asked it to draw me a pelican:

llm install llm-openrouter
llm -m openrouter/z-ai/glm-5.1 'Generate an SVG of a pelican on a bicycle'

And something new happened... unprompted, the model decided to give me an HTML page that included both the SVG and a separate set of CSS animations!

The SVG was excellent, and might be my new favorite from an open weights model:

But the animation broke it:

That's the pelican, floating up in the top left corner.

I usually don't do follow-up prompts for the pelican test, but in this case I made an exception:

llm -c 'the animation is a bit broken, the pelican ends up positioned off the screen at the top right'

GLM 5.1 replied:

The issue is that CSS transform animations on SVG elements override the SVG transform attribute used for positioning, causing the pelican to lose its placement and fly off to the top-right. The fix is to separate positioning (SVG attribute) from animation (inner group) and use <animateTransform> for SVG rotations since it handles coordinate systems correctly.

And spat out fresh HTML which fixed the problem!

I particularly like the animation of the beak, which is described in the SVG comments like so:

<!-- Pouch (lower beak) with wobble -->
<g>
    <path d="M42,-58 Q43,-50 48,-42 Q55,-35 62,-38 Q70,-42 75,-60 L42,-58 Z" fill="url(#pouchGrad)" stroke="#b06008" stroke-width="1" opacity="0.9"/>
    <path d="M48,-50 Q55,-46 60,-52" fill="none" stroke="#c06a08" stroke-width="0.8" opacity="0.6"/>
    <animateTransform attributeName="transform" type="scale"
    values="1,1; 1.03,0.97; 1,1" dur="0.75s" repeatCount="indefinite"
    additive="sum"/>
</g>

Update: On Bluesky @charles.capps.me suggested a "NORTH VIRGINIA OPOSSUM ON AN E-SCOOTER" and...

The HTML+SVG comments on that one include /* Earring sparkle */, , ,  - here's the transcript and the HTML result.

Tags: css, svg, ai, generative-ai, llms, pelican-riding-a-bicycle, llm-release, ai-in-china, glm

Anthropic's Project Glasswing - restricting Claude Mythos to security researchers - sounds necessary to me

2026-04-07T20:52:54+00:00

Anthropic didn't release their latest model, Claude Mythos (system card PDF), today. They have instead made it available to a very restricted set of preview partners under their newly announced Project Glasswing.

The model is a general purpose model, similar to Claude Opus 4.6, but Anthropic claim that its cyber-security research abilities are strong enough that they need to give the software industry as a whole time to prepare.

Mythos Preview has already found thousands of high-severity vulnerabilities, including some in every major operating system and web browser. Given the rate of AI progress, it will not be long before such capabilities proliferate, potentially beyond actors who are committed to deploying them safely.

[...]

Project Glasswing partners will receive access to Claude Mythos Preview to find and fix vulnerabilities or weaknesses in their foundational systems—systems that represent a very large portion of the world’s shared cyberattack surface. We anticipate this work will focus on tasks like local vulnerability detection, black box testing of binaries, securing endpoints, and penetration testing of systems.

There's a great deal more technical detail in Assessing Claude Mythos Preview’s cybersecurity capabilities on the Anthropic Red Team blog:

In one case, Mythos Preview wrote a web browser exploit that chained together four vulnerabilities, writing a complex JIT heap spray that escaped both renderer and OS sandboxes. It autonomously obtained local privilege escalation exploits on Linux and other operating systems by exploiting subtle race conditions and KASLR-bypasses. And it autonomously wrote a remote code execution exploit on FreeBSD's NFS server that granted full root access to unauthenticated users by splitting a 20-gadget ROP chain over multiple packets.

Plus this comparison with Claude 4.6 Opus:

Our internal evaluations showed that Opus 4.6 generally had a near-0% success rate at autonomous exploit development. But Mythos Preview is in a different league. For example, Opus 4.6 turned the vulnerabilities it had found in Mozilla’s Firefox 147 JavaScript engine—all patched in Firefox 148—into JavaScript shell exploits only two times out of several hundred attempts. We re-ran this experiment as a benchmark for Mythos Preview, which developed working exploits 181 times, and achieved register control on 29 more.

Saying "our model is too dangerous to release" is a great way to build buzz around a new model, but in this case I expect their caution is warranted.

Just a few days (last Friday) ago I started a new ai-security-research tag on this blog to acknowledge an uptick in credible security professionals pulling the alarm on how good modern LLMs have got at vulnerability research.

Greg Kroah-Hartman of the Linux kernel:

Months ago, we were getting what we called 'AI slop,' AI-generated security reports that were obviously wrong or low quality. It was kind of funny. It didn't really worry us.

Something happened a month ago, and the world switched. Now we have real reports. All open source projects have real reports that are made with AI, but they're good, and they're real.

Daniel Stenberg of curl:

The challenge with AI in open source security has transitioned from an AI slop tsunami into more of a ... plain security report tsunami. Less slop but lots of reports. Many of them really good.

I'm spending hours per day on this now. It's intense.

And Thomas Ptacek published Vulnerability Research Is Cooked, a post inspired by his podcast conversation with Anthropic's Nicholas Carlini.

Anthropic have a 5 minute talking heads video describing the Glasswing project. Nicholas Carlini appears as one of those talking heads, where he said (highlights mine):

It has the ability to chain together vulnerabilities. So what this means is you find two vulnerabilities, either of which doesn't really get you very much independently. But this model is able to create exploits out of three, four, or sometimes five vulnerabilities that in sequence give you some kind of very sophisticated end outcome. [...]

I've found more bugs in the last couple of weeks than I found in the rest of my life combined. We've used the model to scan a bunch of open source code, and the thing that we went for first was operating systems, because this is the code that underlies the entire internet infrastructure. For OpenBSD, we found a bug that's been present for 27 years, where I can send a couple of pieces of data to any OpenBSD server and crash it. On Linux, we found a number of vulnerabilities where as a user with no permissions, I can elevate myself to the administrator by just running some binary on my machine. For each of these bugs, we told the maintainers who actually run the software about them, and they went and fixed them and have deployed the patches patches so that anyone who runs the software is no longer vulnerable to these attacks.

I found this on the OpenBSD 7.8 errata page:

025: RELIABILITY FIX: March 25, 2026 All architectures

TCP packets with invalid SACK options could crash the kernel.

A source code patch exists which remedies this problem.

I tracked that change down in the GitHub mirror of the OpenBSD CVS repo (apparently they still use CVS!) and found it using git blame:

Sure enough, the surrounding code is from 27 years ago.

I'm not sure which Linux vulnerability Nicholas was describing, but it may have been this NFS one recently covered by Michael Lynch .

There's enough smoke here that I believe there's a fire. It's not surprising to find vulnerabilities in decades-old software, especially given that they're mostly written in C, but what's new is that coding agents run by the latest frontier LLMs are proving tirelessly capable at digging up these issues.

I actually thought to myself on Friday that this sounded like an industry-wide reckoning in the making, and that it might warrant a huge investment of time and money to get ahead of the inevitable barrage of vulnerabilities. Project Glasswing incorporates "$100M in usage credits ... as well as $4M in direct donations to open-source security organizations". Partners include AWS, Apple, Microsoft, Google, and the Linux Foundation. It would be great to see OpenAI involved as well - GPT-5.4 already has a strong reputation for finding security vulnerabilities and they have stronger models on the near horizon.

The bad news for those of us who are not trusted partners is this:

We do not plan to make Claude Mythos Preview generally available, but our eventual goal is to enable our users to safely deploy Mythos-class models at scale—for cybersecurity purposes, but also for the myriad other benefits that such highly capable models will bring. To do so, we need to make progress in developing cybersecurity (and other) safeguards that detect and block the model’s most dangerous outputs. We plan to launch new safeguards with an upcoming Claude Opus model, allowing us to improve and refine them with a model that does not pose the same level of risk as Mythos Preview.

I can live with that. I think the security risks really are credible here, and having extra time for trusted teams to get ahead of them is a reasonable trade-off.

Tags: security, thomas-ptacek, ai, generative-ai, llms, anthropic, nicholas-carlini, ai-ethics, llm-release, ai-security-research, claude-mythos-fable