Ripple-65B Preview: U.S. Open-Weight SOTA on Agentic Coding
206 points by Philpax 6 hours ago | 74 comments

advael 5 hours ago
Category narrowing to this degree really has diluted the term "SOTA" quite a lot

You mean it's state of the art for this subset of benchmarks you're targeting? No? Well surely it's state of the art for models of a certain size category? Huh, what about models that are available for local inference? O, state of the art for open models of a certain size made in the US specifically. Uh. Neat!

reply
gpm 4 hours ago
Playing games like this also makes it very easy to accidentally say things that aren't true, like in the headline of the article...

> Introducing Ripple-65B Preview, a Frontier Open-Weight Model

It's not "frontier", it's not "frontier" even in the category of open-weight models (though usually that phrasing would mean frontier over all, and also open weight)... it's only "frontier" in the small sub-category of US made open-weight models.

reply
GuB-42 3 hours ago
It is technically frontier, if by "frontier" we mean the Pareto frontier.

Being at the Pareto frontier means that you can't get something better on one aspect without compromising on some other aspect. The trick is that it is easy to be at the Pareto frontier by having enough dimensions.

Here, we have 4: score, number of parameters, origin (US) and open-weight. You can get a better score or a lower number of parameters, but you have to compromise on at least one of the other aspects. That's a pretty weak frontier if you ask me.

reply
derefr 3 hours ago
“Origin” isn’t part of the Pareto frontier because it’s not a quantitative dimension.

(You could say that “ability to be trusted by US government/military users” is quantifiable, but I would argue that by that metric, this model falls behind non-US-originated open-weight models that have more eyes on them!)

reply
Routine8502 2 hours ago
Discrete dimensions can exist in Pareto considerations. Not that I'm too fond of this game, but given that "Origin" is definitely part of the calculus of model deployment, it makes sense to consider it in a Pareto calculation.
reply
bastawhiz 11 minutes ago
It's just a different pareto frontier because you're filtering out items that don't fit your criteria. "Model was made by Anthropic" would be an equivalent dimension. You would never plot this, you're just reducing the subset of models you're comparing.

By that logic, any model is a frontier model. My GPT-2 clone is a frontier model when you compare it against models that were trained on my homelab.

reply
getcrunk 29 minutes ago
Ahh I run into this issue all the time with ai when applying any sort of dimensional reasoning abstractly it always implicits continuous
reply
quixoticelixer- 3 hours ago
Fourth most popular comedy folk rock duo
reply
hkt 2 hours ago
..in New Zealand!
reply
yorwba 4 hours ago
AFAIK the currently biggest US open-weight model is Inkling, which they include in the comparison, so at least their claim is not limited to a size category. Still they score 0.42 percentage points higher than the second-best model on their chosen benchmark, so it's hardly a meaningful lead.
reply
frinxor 4 hours ago
The US bit got me as well.

I guess it makes sense - there is a segmentation where users may want to run on domestic "frontier LLMs."

reply
twelvechairs 2 hours ago
Why should US or China matter if its open weights? Its going to matter a whole lot more whether you are running it locally or where your provider is surely.

[Edit i think the preferred combination for those who actually want some data security at the moment and arent at the scale of self hosting llms is chinese open weight models served in germany or France where theres some better data privacy/security]

reply
visarga 5 hours ago
No, the term is well defined. It means being on the Pareto curve of performance vs size, such as: https://tinyurl.com/26sw35fw
reply
bastawhiz 9 minutes ago
Is it really on the pareto curve if you get to define arbitrary conditions for what other models are plotted on the curve?
reply
advael 4 hours ago
Irrelevant. A term can be well-defined and used correctly while also being diluted. In this case, I am pointing out that it's diluted by narrowing the category in which the claim is being made. I have no doubt that in this narrowed category, the term is being used correctly. This has no bearing on the fact that by narrowing the category in that way, this claim is made remarkably less impressive or interesting to many people hearing it, including myself
reply
O_H_E 5 hours ago
well yes but the y axis heavily depends on the benchmark you choose
reply
epolanski 4 hours ago
By...whom? An ISO standard? Highly cited scientific literature?

A tinyurl pic linked by randoms over the internet?

reply
swiftcoder 4 hours ago
For sure, but unfortunately, there's a non-zero chance the state department at some point makes the "US" part of this mandatory for a bunch of companies.
reply
cyanydeez 2 hours ago
It means ot was released recently.

It was already meaningless when US labs used it.

It means new.

reply
dev_l1x_be 4 hours ago
State of the AI-Apocalypse.
reply
stewartpark 5 hours ago
It's great to see another competitive open weight model. Congratulations!

But as is, it's probably hard to become popular amongst hobbyists and local model enthusiasts like Qwen's 27B class models or MOE models because it's a 65B dense model and inference will be prohibitively slow on consumer grade hardware, and seems like the goal/mission of the company behind this model is to automate chip design.

So if I have to assume and connect the dots, this is for the companies who want to use AI in air-gapped environments for chip design so that they protect their IPs (not leaking to third party AI labs/hostile parties) and can afford lots of server grade inference hardware for a quick unlock with the big dense model.

Neat!

reply
0x00cl 2 hours ago
Maybe is a bit more niche, but I'm pretty sure there is plenty of people who have enough RAM to run dense models like this one, I don't know how slow is slow but people are willing to sacrifice speed if it means they get a good model running locally.

Look at "SC117/Qwen3.8-Flash-Next-GSQ-RCO-abliterated-GGUF" on HuggingFace, It says it has 3.5M downloads this month and its offering a model that is 2-bit and 3-bit quantized (66GB - 83.9GB).

If this gets quantized to 4-bit (Q4_0) which usually there is very little loss in intelligence compared to the base model, then the model will probably be around 40GB, and looking that people are downloading a model that is at least 20GB bigger, then it might allow even more people to run a bigger model.

But it will only be popular among hobbyist if its as good as it claims to be.

reply
sorenjan 2 hours ago
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is a mixture of experts model though. It has 6B active parameters per token, so you can cache large parts of the model in RAM and move it in and out of VRAM as needed. If you do that with a dense model it gets much slower.
reply
Tade0 7 minutes ago
Experts are not typically moved between VRAM and system RAM during inference, as it would be too slow.

What happens instead is that the "dense" parts of the model like e.g. the router are put into VRAM and the remainder of VRAM is occupied by the KV cache and whatever experts still fit.

The rest - usually just the experts - reside in RAM, but it's bo big deal.

Additionally, some models utilise an n-gram table, of which only one row is read per token, so it can actually be stored on disk without issue. Example:

https://huggingface.co/ISTA-DASLab/Qwen3.8-Flash-Next-GSQ-RC...

reply
stewartpark 2 hours ago
I hear what you're saying - there are people who will use it even at 0.1 tokens/s and run tasks over night or over multiple days if it is good. but Qwen3.8 Flash Next is a MoE model (6B active) so the memory bandwidth/compute required to calculate each token is very different from a 65B (meaning, 65B all active) dense model!
reply
59nadir 4 hours ago
Is it competitive overall or just competitive when compared to "U.S. Open-Weight models that are otherwise pretty decent at agentic coding"? The latter does not imply the former.
reply
regularfry 4 hours ago
What'll be interesting is how it performs relative to Qwen3.8 27b when quantised to the same size. Which, of course, is a comparison they don't want to do.
reply
40four 4 hours ago
Well, obviously. These newer American models aren’t competing with Qwen yet. They are competing for American businesses and organizations that can’t/won’t use Chinese models.

They are playing catch-up, but I’m happy to see new players to the game, and it will be interesting to watch how they develop

reply
wmf 5 hours ago
Congratulations I guess but it's a pretty bad look to not even mention those other open weight models.
reply
karmakaze 5 hours ago
What's funnier is that after cherry picking models for comparison, they further cherry picked Inking for size comparison instead of better and smaller Beam 1.0

The bar chart also shows Nemotron 3 Ultra instead of smaller and better Nemotron 3.5 Super.

reply
tedivm 5 hours ago
We've always been at war with eurasia.

Seriously though, it's just easier to pretend that China doesn't exist when they're stomping us this badly.

reply
stewartpark 4 hours ago
I think it's because the primary users of this model won't even look at "those other open weight models" as options. This is the right chart to present to those who would consider this model. (e.g. US Gov't agencies, chip design industry, etc etc)
reply
schleck8 4 hours ago
Because Chinese models heavily rely on distillation and regularly behave strangely in public benchmarks (where they score much better than in private evaluations), even if many world class researchers are Chinese. It's difficult to quantify to what extend labs like Moonshot would be competitive if they could not distill from OpenAI, now that Anthropic mostly blocks it

https://www.theinformation.com/articles/openais-astra-model-...

reply
flatline 5 hours ago
Right? These are not likely to be meaningful points of comparison to anyone but the authors.
reply
wmf 5 hours ago
Maybe Palantir will use it or something. There probably is a market for US models but I don't know how large it will be.
reply
Onawa 5 hours ago
US Gov won't let Chinese models be hosted on any internal infra, not even supposed to use them for local AI. So there is absolutely a market for US-made or non-Chinese models there.
reply
petcat 4 hours ago
Do those other models usually mention all the competition? I haven't noticed
reply
2001zhaozhao 5 hours ago
This model scores 80.5 on Terminal Bench 2.1

For reference Qwen 3.8 Flash Next (which is bigger than this model but probably cheaper to run due to MoE) scores 84.3, and Qwen 3.8-27B scores 73.0.

I think this model could be competitive, depending on how much it was benchmaxxed compared to Qwen?

reply
bluejay2387 4 hours ago
There are several situations where some of us are explicitly prohibited from using models from companies not under the jurisdiction of the United States. It doesn't mean these models are competitive when looked at from a global view but it is also not an irrelevant differentiation.
reply
Computer0 3 hours ago
It's the same positioning Mistral makes.
reply
antoineMoPa 3 hours ago
I trained a tiny LLM earlier this year, it's fits under 10mb and it's completely useless, can I call it SOTA for my neighborhood?
reply
thesnarkitecht 4 hours ago
Speaking as someone who has High-Memory Mac Studios, it is great that there is finally a model that will run at usable speeds with high quality. In my experience, the sweet spot for Mac Clusters is around 200GB of weights, which this is far under. Congratulations to the recursive team for building an open model that will actually run!
reply
Tepix 2 hours ago
It will be slow on Macs, it's a dense model.
reply
minimaxa 4 hours ago
Agentic coding benchmarks look great.

I think we will find the market is going to move into omni multi-modal models: text, moe, agentic tasks, voice, images, and video all in one LLM.

reply
syntaxing 5 hours ago
When a post doesn’t mention Qwen for comparison, you know the performance isn’t going to be great.
reply
ethan-boneh 5 hours ago
I mean Qwen 3.8 27B hits 73% on TB2.1 and 42.2% on DeepSWE....
reply
a11r 4 hours ago
I understand the desire to look the best in some self defined category. But not showing any comparison against the actual leaders in open weight renders all of the benchmarking completely information-less for the actual end users (who care about real performance comparison against the real field).
reply
roundup 2 hours ago
reply
purplemantis 4 hours ago
These are pretty odd benchmarks to use. Terminal Bench 2.1 is old. SWE-bench was disavowed by OpenAI. DeepSWE is clearly benchmark-hacked by Gemini.
reply
dofm 5 hours ago
So we have a Recursive and a Ricursive, both making LLMs?
reply
wmf 5 hours ago
Time to start Rickursive, the lab that will never give you up and never let you down.
reply
6thbit 5 hours ago
And it should acquire the existing two
reply
neutronicus 5 hours ago
Roll them up, you might say.
reply
throwaw12 5 hours ago
we need RichUrsive
reply
xyzrt 5 hours ago
One making self-improving AI via AI-chip co-design, the other relying only on software for self-improving AI.
reply
dofm 5 hours ago
I hope they never have to call each other about anything. It could get confusing if neither knows who is the base case.
reply
giwook 5 hours ago
There seems to be some recursion going on here.
reply
walrus01 20 minutes ago
Showing a terminal bench 2.1 score at the top is very misleading when terminalbench 4.0 is the current metric as a very quick glance for anything we care about for 30B to 180B size possible to locally-host models.
reply
kylehotchkiss 22 minutes ago
Ouh this is the size of model I want to see more of (just got a 98gb m5u studio)
reply
mrinterweb 3 hours ago
Not comparing to Qwen3.8 27B gives cherry-picked benchmark comparison energy. Still, Ripple-65B outscores Qwen3.8 27B, according to the reported benchmarks.
reply
kylehotchkiss 36 minutes ago
Ouh that fits right on a base M5U Studio! Excited to try it.
reply
jszymborski 5 hours ago
Would love a 27B model. Wonder if we'll get a distillation.
reply
RGS1811 5 hours ago
The comparison chart is befuddling.
reply
soundworlds 5 hours ago
Not to be confused with https://recursive.com/
reply
cyberax 3 hours ago
So the model is "meh" at best, but the cost of the training is interesting. So we can extrapolate that in 3 years the cost will be below $5m for a model like this.

It's very well within the capabilities of any reasonable organization, maybe even crowd-funded.

reply
ltbarcly3 2 hours ago
What is this thing where model comparisons blatantly pick other crap models and show themselves at the top left (cheap and effective)? Put all the open models, or put all the cheap models, or whatever, but just cherry picking is egregious.
reply
johnnyApplePRNG 5 hours ago
[flagged]
reply
teo-mateo 3 hours ago
"get out of my feed" what a nasty attitude.
reply
6thbit 5 hours ago
I'm sorry but what is "U.S." implying here?

Is this sponsored by the us gov? did it only train on US data? does it only work on the US?

reply
conception 5 hours ago
It's a US group that made it, in the same vein that OpenAI and Anthropic have US models.
reply
signatoremo 4 hours ago
I think it’s the same as EU sovereign ones?
reply
petcat 5 hours ago
It means that it's an American AI lab behind it.
reply
mirekrusin 4 hours ago
...hiring Chinese people to do it.
reply
petcat 4 hours ago
Looks like all their engineering jobs are in Palo Alto?
reply
wmf 3 hours ago
Palo Alto is full of Chinese people.
reply