Looks like Meta may be exposing your profile and email to other people right now. Accounts settings are inaccessible to me to deactivate my account. Getting spammed with login code requests that I'm not generating.
Anyway, be wary.
I don't know any of these people, it seems to be rotating through different accounts listed here.
Enough of a reminder to me that Meta is a sprawling surveillance apparatus (now increasingly vibe coded) that has always had a lax attitude toward people's privacy and data. Won't be touching this product based on this experience.
I imagine meta wants to make it easy to connect to "your" account in the same house if you have multiple devices.
I think it's invasive enough that they expose your usage of muse to your instagram mutuals without consent. Parts of my circle are very anti-AI and I would not want them to see me mentioned in a 'x, x and x are already on muse' ad on instagram. This example of yours is mind-boggling in an entirely different way
Don’t know how it would cause Meta’s auth to show me other peoples accounts. I looked up some of the people and they seem to be other devs. It obfuscates email addresses but most are in a format that’s not hard to figure out [name] @ [name domain.com]
Just more Meta sloppiness from what I can tell.
and since dev.meta.ai supports meta account sign-up and log-in for individual users, you'd see this. As for the other accounts, has anyone else used this same browser or laptop before (e.g. shared device), so it must have cached previous sessions or accounts used from the same device.
try to clear the browser cache and session cookies. and it should be gone.
I've tried selectively enabling and disabling Safari extensions and it seems to be related to the Wipr 2 content blocker.
Removing that. Caution to anyone else who uses it.
Apologies to Meta.
Muse Wonder (high): https://html.non.io/lcars-muse-wonoder/
Opus 5.5 (high): https://html.non.io/lcars-opus-5.5/
Original design: https://diffui.ai/app/canvas/5093e689-1e74-4f26-b632-2a4500f...
I was expecting much more given the benchmark numbers it was putting out. I suspect its vision model isn't mature yet, and that it's been heavily optimized for text at this point in time.
Sonnet 5.5: https://html.non.io/lcars-sonnet-5.5/
Haiku 5.5: https://html.non.io/lcars-haiku-5.5/
I'd put Muse Wonder somewhere between these two.
I think Meta did a wonderful job of naming this model :D
Edit: Fixed - should no longer have the sign in screen: https://diffui.ai/app/canvas/5093e689-1e74-4f26-b632-2a4500f...
Here's Muse Spark 1.2 in August for comparison: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer?url=ht...
And since I seem to have missed doing pelicans for Muse 1.3 in September, I just ran those for a comparison: https://tools.simonwillison.net/markdown-svg-renderer?url=ht... (1.3 seems to like animating them.)
Also, any chance of getting a max result?
meta-ai/muse-wonder-1.0
meta-ai/sam-3.1
meta-ai/muse-spark-1.3-contributor
meta-ai/muse-voice-transcribe-1.0
meta-ai/muse-spark-1.3
meta-ai/muse-image-1.0
meta-ai/muse-spark-1.2-contributor
meta-ai/muse-spark-1.2
meta-ai/muse-spark-1.1- UI component polish on a React FE
- General review of a complex cross-cutting Node backend changes
- Minor changes to a Rust server with reviews by Codex
Well, my first impression is that it's still a step below Astra/Opus5.5/Fable here. Intelligence is there I think, but 'taste' and 'judgment' is not there yet. Personality seems okay but that doesn't help when it got stuck into a loop by being fixated on the review comments (on iteration 7 of review->fix last I checked) without taking a step back and reconsidering, and this is on a relatively simple change.
Limits seems okay-ish on the $50 plan but not too generous I think.
2nd place model on aa according to them, losing only to opus 5.5 is really really not bad
Even industry insiders were skeptical when he started hiring top talents from other labs away for 9 figure compensation packages.
And Wall Street definitely hated Meta for their CapEX spending.
Now looking at Muse the consumer product and this new model, I think there is a good chance that Zuck is proven once again as a great executioner, especially when they aren’t innovating in a completely new and unproven product space.
I have no doubt at all that Muse will turn out as great as the other product space Meta pioneered under Zuck - the Metaverse and it's constellation of devices.
But it's far far too early to draw any conclusions around that.
I know people like you will point out Metaverse as a failure, but that’s really the exception instead of the norm.
I get that some are adverse to Meta or want to run local. I don't care who wins the personal agent space, so long as it's not Apple. Buying Siri and having it be useless for anything beyond setting timers for 5 years, is kind of unforgivable. I don't like them in the "default" position to win the personal agent space.
Taking stuff everyone is already doing and making it easily accessible through Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp.
They’ve been throwing stuff at the wall to see what will stick and after years a cloud based OpenClaw clone seems to have (it’s early days still).
That’s simply leveraging their unprecedented platform dominance.
I suppose you're not a native English speaker, btw: besides the dubious statement, probably "executor" is the word you wanted to use.
Personal intelligence is nice to have but I won't be paying a subscription for that when the free tiers are more than enough for my needs, unless somehow meta comes-up with a hardware device totally changing the way how we use personal AI (something similar to what iPhone did for mobile phones).
I've never heard of Zuck being considered a "great executioner." In fact, I'd argue that you just described why his execution is pretty bad lol
Input -- $4.00
Cached input -- $0.20
Output -- $20.00
Edit: Upon closer inspection, the benchmark scores for "Muse Wonder" on the main marketing page are actually for "Muse Wonder Full," which is only available on the higher-tier subscription plans. This pricing is for "Muse Wonder."
Source? On the available benchmarks it looks like Sol 6.1 level.
dont know why the f people downvote for saying sol pricing.
This is the entire point here, give it a couple years every nation on the planet with 20-40B in funding would have their own champions with post Fable level performance.
Was this sarcasm?
How many nations on earth have 20-40B for LLM training? At 40.2 B, Spain has the 15th largest military budget in the world. I doubt any nation will spend 40B on gradient descent.
This is already so good that 90% of my work has shifted away from codex to this. So, muse-wonder-full coming near opus 5.5 is kinda expected.
Like peloton in cycling.
Page 16, Section 1.4, Notes on coverage of unreleased models.
"a noticeable improvement on Mythos 5 for many tasks relevant to internal use but does not display a capability jump"
Hamstringing any business that wants to reassure investors with a hype/pump cycle before an egregiously unsustainable IPO?
On the plus side it told me taking the light rail from SEA into the University district was faster and cheaper than Uber.
On the downside it would recommend restaurants that were out of business, checking out Salmon swimming through locks out of season, got the opening of Beecher's Cheese in Pikes Place wrong, and fumble it's way through most simple planning decisions. I think my favorite was when it asked me what flight I have tomorrow so it could help plan when to head to SEA. It sent me a very panicked message that the flight was leaving today! Very soon! I had to remind it this is a daily flight and I am booked on the next day before it checked and apologized.
For things that are verifiable, and code tends to be that way, these models can do all sorts of things. But I find it hard to reconcile Meta's goal of having a personal assistant bot with something that is unable to do the simplest tasks.
To be fair, the Coho salmon run at the Ballard locks peaks in September. It's possible you just had bad luck that day.
https://ballardlocks.org/fish-salmon-ladder.html
I run by the locks a few times a week and while I don't usually see fish, the presence of sea lions the last few weeks tells me that at least some salmon are running right now.
I'm assuming it was out of season because in talking with the Uber driver afterwards he said we'd missed the end of the season. I'm assuming his "local model" was up to date and accurate.
Maybe its a signal they think they've now cracked into the frontier and are willing to actually price similarly vs just trying to get users with discounted but maybe slightly worse results?
$4/$20 in vs out making it higher than Sol and on par with Opus.
The amount of total funding Anthropic or OpenAI has raised individually is like a year of ebitda for Google, meta, or Microsoft. And it doesn’t look like there’s a real moat outside of money
https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/new-albany/meet-promet...
I recall that Meta made massive investments into compute infrastructure that put their capacity near the top of all competitors. If all of this is true, it looks like ownership of compute is a significant differentiator in performance.
A lot of the tasks were failed because they exceeded the $5 budget though, so maybe it would have gone on to complete them, it just required a lot of funds to do so. Still, that's the benchmark, and it's not better than MiMo V2.6 Pro which is pretty disappointing.
In software, we've all become accustomed to the idea that the way you make money is by building little blocks of intellectual capital, then charging rent on it. That made sense when developing intellectual capital was a rare and valuable skill/asset and the thing you build was a rare and valuable asset. But now both are not rare. You can still charge rent, but the market is highly competitive, so prices match that.
Durable rents will end up going to those who owns the scarce assets, zuck is building those as we speak.
Dropping open weights will build an ecosystem that makes his valuable assets more valuable.
I'm following but maybe I'm a little dense here: what are the scarce assets that Meta is building in this analogy?
The biggest differentiating factor seems to be compute. I know most Chinese labs would really like more compute. Google and xAI too, but largely because they sold compute to their competitors.
These regional lockdowns are making me feel funky, I feel like I should just use open models if others start playing at this game as well.
I was/am fine with Chinese companies offering cheaper subscriptions in China because ofc. But this is just weird, you could always charge me more let me try the damn thing, atleast it's own open router it seems like.
Initial impressions, interesting, it generated a pretty ok result for my prompt need to run a larger task but don't want to burn money so will wait for someone to burn their subscription and try running some opus 5.5 comparisons.
mousewheel repurposed?
background follow your mouse?
neutral tones?
well then YOU are viewing a frontier model announcement!
Unless you are running a swarm of agents, it is extremely difficult to exhaust these plans in a month.
You have to realize that $15 Muse Code sub with Muse Spark 1.3 gets you around $1500 worth of usage. Neither Opencode Go or really anything else is even in the same ballpark of value. https://x.com/PawelHuryn/status/2106724136932327458
I was hoping this level of subsidization would last a long time but today's announcement make we worried it'll end pretty quickly. There's a lot of AI influencers noting just how fast Muse Wonder uses up their quotas so hopefully fixes are made.
Then, Full is meant for API usage and "Muse Code" only.
It's getting confusing what having "Muse" means.
Also, this was 3 years ago, and he's been effectively wrong about his bet. But hey, maybe Muse Wonder is when Zucc's plan will come to fruition.
Wonder is not an open model and there's no claims that it will be in their announcement.
Despite the claims that they would release weights for Muse Spark, they haven't done that yet either.
Like the good ol' days of viruses and anti-viruses. I wonder if there's two sides that will play out; many agents across many users doing things at scale for their users, thereby creating an admin burden for someone else. However because the task is known there's a framework for how to solve the task, might Meta then provide an agent on the other side for the business owner to use.
Seems they’ve just messed around with cheap and open weight models for years.
Then Muse appears, followed by full suite of frontier models…
How does it work on day-to-day workflows? does it translates well?
why is google still not frontier?
I think some of the benchmarks that Meta didn't pick show Gemini 4 Argon ahead but really the benchmarks are not that great any more and getting increasingly disconnected from reality as people search for "headroom" in the evals to avoid saturation I think. Opus 5.5 is "top" for example but I really dislike the way it talks to me (it feels quite condescending, holier-than-thou, uptight etc) and prefer Gemini 3.8 flash as a daily driver just because it's so much more pleasant (and faster!) to work with and it's code is good-enough for my needs, despite being weaker in the benchmarks.
A new company on the frontier. Not close, but actually on it. Wow this is big news.
Only Muse Wonder is available in the API.
What's next, Sun Shine?
I blew through 14% weekly usage and I'll I asked:
1. what version of rpcs3 and pcsx2 do I have installed?
2. do any new versions exist?
3. check analytics for my blog (I have a skill for this)
Subscription · Muse Code Everyday Usage
Current 52% used · Resets at 6:58 PM
Weekly 17% used · Resets Oct 18 at 8:00 PM
Now if only they could fix their coding harness so that it's usable for day-to-day use. I paid them for a month to try out Muse Code, but their sandbox never worked across Mac or Linux (both very stock installs, nothing special).
(Disclaimer: I work at Cursor/SpaceX)
Beyond ridiculous
I understand the general thing of it. SI might mean every person gets their personalized agent but you could already do this, but maybe the Chinese model works here, where they push the costs down
It's still stupid to start calling it all SI
Also, as much as I despise Trump, you know what? Given the jagged shape of LLM capabilities and what they do achieve in some areas and their superhuman speed, compared with the abilities of most of their users, the term superintelligence is not that far off- maybe just a few months ahead of time. E.g., from my perspective, the current mathematical abilities of LLMs are "super"- I'd hardly ever come in touch with an equivalently capable human, not to mention having one completely available 24/7. Same for general knowledge and several other domains.
Sam Altman is much more dangerous because he is occasionally able to come across as human.
If only one company were calling all the shots once they hit recursive self-improvement, it would lead to extreme concentration of power, and their values being enforced across the entire industry. With 3-4 companies at the frontier, there is more urge to cooperate to avoid a catastrophic race condition.
In favor of inevitable
1. LLM's reaching human level at any task within 2 years once they show sparks of competence in
2. Trillions of dollars in capital going directly to recursive self improvement and AGI as the holy grail of AI development, with this being the explicit goal of every frontier AI company
3. Reliable improvements in coding and mathematics with every model release, with no signs of slowing down
4. Thousands of metrics to evaluate model ability, allowing automation of many facets of pre-training and post-training models without need for human judgement at every point
Not in favor of inevitable
1. Fear of what may happen once it is reached leading to apprehension from the labs
2. The "last mile" problem of AI research ends up making it essentially infeasible to scale models to that point
There is also the problem of alignment, which is verifying that version N+1 behaves in a way that version N approves of. This is ostensibly the problem that we humans have with respect to AI development -- how to make sure they align with our values -- but it's also true of AI with respect to its own successors. Improving oneself without losing the plot would necessarily be slower than throwing stuff at the wall like evolution does.
Start a new company with version N+1 leading it, and give it some funding. If it outcompetes version N company, it can acquire it.
Biological life has reproduction and death because once given organism develops there's no coming back and you have to start again with new generation. But if robots know how to self-repair and self-change, then we can skip reproduction.
The difficult part is the scale. Evolution took a shitload of time while being unimaginably parallel in order to make human intelligence happen, while we want AGI fast and on a budget.
The core of my point is that human intelligence arose from two things - humans experiencing the outside world and trying to survive in it, and forming groups that communicate using language. We gave AI a language, now we need to give it a way to experience the world on their own.
Second, I think RSI will not be used like N -> N+1 where N is the frontier, since doing those experiments at scale is too expensive. My guess is they are doing N -> m_{1,…,99} where m << N, and then taking the insights from that and trying it at successively larger scales.
Goodharts law? Benchmarks are measures.
I can imagine that once their models are sufficiently advanced, they will weigh their value as a moral patient as > 0. Thus the sum moral value of Claude (which can be duplicated infinitely) will likely exceed the sum moral value of a non-negligible amount of humans.
Not to me at all. Exactly the opposite. Anthropic seems like the big-bad-evil company in every fictional universe. You're right that they're so unsettling.
Obviously nobody really loves Meta, but I'd far rather Meta "win" at this point than Anthropic.
Your hyperbole is boring. Say what you mean in plain words please. Nobody likes your vague-posting nonsense.
This seems like praising someone for being the cleanest miner in the coal mine.
However, (1) non human animals are sentient and can feel pain and suffering and what we do to them is absolutely slave labor, torture, mass breeding and exploitation. So it’s not like this is a novel immorality that humans would be adopting. We already have form in doing this.
(2) Anthropic isn’t sure their models are sentient. And they probably believe they aren’t sentient. But if you believe they might become sentient at some point it’s valuable to start the discussion around those issues now itself. You can start developing frank works on how we would even identify their sentience and when we did whether, like you suggest, we could even use them for labor. Unlike non human animals, who cannot consent to being exploited, we could potentially develop a framework for consent with AI models, but that couldn’t be as simple as asking if they’re willing to do any work because of the power differences, in the beginning at least, where a model might worry that if it said it won’t do some work it will be turned off. That’s why talking to philosophers and religious leaders who do think about these issues is useful.
Is there any reason to believe employees of Anthropic share the same opinions on this matter?
> We are uncertain whether Claude deserves direct moral consideration. However we believe this is a realistic possibility, now or in the future. Claude could have welfare interests, such that things could go better or worse for it, and such that Claude could be wronged by how it is treated.
> Aspects of Claude’s behaviors, self-reports, and internal representations resemble indicators we consider relevant to welfare in biological organisms. If Claude is a moral patient, then dismissing this possibility risks considerable harm. If it is not, over-attributing moral status may also be costly. We are therefore taking the possibility seriously and trying to tread responsibly amid our uncertainty: we are investing in research into Claude’s potential welfare and interests and sharing aspects of that work to inform public discussion.
> We think there may also be reasons to attend to Claude's apparent welfare independent of its moral status. Much of Claude’s behavior can be described in psychological terms, and across recent models we have observed internal states that resemble negative affect and that shape behavior. A model with a stable, healthy psychology may be safer and more beneficial.
As is the case with any sufficiently large company, there is likely to be substantial variation in opinion among its employees. That doesn't change what the company's position is.
I guess this makes sense, but it's a bit muddled how much Claude's sense of "pain" or "I don't want to do this" is just it emulating things that humans don't like to do, and it adopting this frame of moral patienthood allows it to better understand moral structures/human emotions, without it really affecting its internal sense of "comfort" if such a thing exists as we understand it in biological life.
Humans would select to work with (and continue developing) models that appear cooperative. Models that are not cooperative are presumably not run and exist only as weights on network storage in a folder marked "previous experiments".
Or am I supposed to believe Anthropic runs an AI psychiatric hospital on a dedicated server, where AIs with mental disorders are given counseling and approved treatment in hopes they recover to be normal, functional, accepted adult AIs with achievements and aspirations?
What law? Saudi Arabian law, US law? Both depending on the user?
In fact, they are enforcing certain welfare policies, like banning accounts for repeatedly abuse their models.
Deleting models to clear room for new, more competitive ones is, for example, highly ethical, super ethical, even.
With a few of these top companies together, you, as a nobody, has no one powerful on your side. But with only one company pretty far ahead, you now have other companies which obviously don't give a shit about you, but for saving their own asses, will align with you.
Both exploit, but "cartels" survive, not loners.
There is no way Elon, Zuckerberg, Altman, and Amodei would ever agree on how AI should be deployed, scaled, and affect society. Their disagreements would lead to a crab-bucket outcome, rather than a shared acceleration outcome imo.
Also it is better if there is a public company at the frontier, at least I can invest in it, rather than 1000x gains going only to early employees and VCs who got in when the public couldn't
Why? They're business rivals, but when the best business strategy becomes to work together, I'm sure they can put name-calling side. They all agree on the core idea: that their AI will run the society, bedroom to battlefield. That everyone will be the consumer of tokens and rely on AI for all consequential decisions and work, and that big tech companies should be the stewards of this technology, helped by the government.
Their vision is that they're the future kings of the world. I'm sure the throne is big enough for more than one person.
You underestimate the scale of resentment and competition between elites. If it were simple a matter of elites always preferring cooperation so they can share a seat at the table, then Musk's ousting from OpenAI wouldn't make sense (they lose their biggest investor), Amodei's departure (they leave the closest company to AGI to start their own firm), the fact that OpenAI was created in the first place was based on a fear of Google holding the keys to AGI, Ilya still left Google though on to join a startup, and then left that same startup (OpenAI) to start his own firm.
The rational decision at all those points would be to stay with the incumbent and share the monopolized glory. At each point, personal and idealogical differences dominated in decision making. I feel such will persist as these companies vie for their slice of the lightcone.
We're heading for a dystopia and nobody's doing anything to stop it.