QuickSilver Pro

Kimi K3.1 Pro launches at 4th on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index scoring 55, making large gains in agentic performance; it will be the leading open-weights model once its weights are published @Kimi_Moonshot's new reasoning model gains 11 points over Kimi K3 (max, 44). It trails only Claude Opus 5.5 (max with fallback, 58), Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max with fallback, 56), and Muse Wonder Full (max, 56) on the Intelligence Index. Once the weights for K3.1 Pro are released it will be the highest-scoring open weights model and the gap between the leading open weights and proprietary models on the Intelligence Index will narrow from 12 points to 3. Key results: ➤ Large gains in agentic performance: Kimi K3.1 Pro scores 3rd on GDPval-AA with 1,846 Elo, up 312 Elo from Kimi K3, behind only Claude Opus 5.5 (1,866 Elo) and Muse Wonder Full (1,857 Elo). Kimi K3.1 Pro also achieves the highest score of any model on Terminal-Bench 4.0. K3.1 Pro scores 67%, up from 13% for Kimi K3 and ahead of Claude Sonnet 5.5 (64%). AutomationBench-AA, which tests agentic SaaS workflows, rises from 58% to 73%. ➤ Gains in other evals are more moderate: Humanity's Last Exam rises from 47% to 52%, CritPt from 23% to 25%, and SciCode from 59% to 61%. AA-Omniscience Index rises from 20 to 30, as the hallucination rate falls from 53% to 44% and accuracy rises from 48% to 51%. ➤ Cost per Task roughly equal to Kimi K3 at $1.98 per Task: K3.1 Pro uses 55K output tokens per Intelligence Index task, 14% more than Kimi K3 at 48K, while its first-party token prices are 33% lower. Additional model details: ➤ Context window: 1M tokens. ➤ Size: 2.8T total, 104B active parameters ➤ Input modalities: Text and image ➤ Weights and license: Weights currently not published, Moonshot is expected to release the weights soon after launch ➤ Pricing: $2/$10/$0.20 per 1M input/output/cache hit tokens, 33% lower than Kimi K3 on all three rates. Congratulations to the team at @Kimi_Moonshot on the release!

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is live on QuickSilver Pro, day one. The Oct 17 snapshot of V4.1 Flash, at DeepSeek's own price: • $0.15 in / $0.60 out per 1M tokens • cached input $0.003 • 1M context, text + image input • reasoning on/off, tool calls, strict JSON schema • zero data retention One OpenAI-compatible API: model="deepseek-v4.1-flash-1017" quicksilverpro.io/models/dee…

🚀 DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is here! Stronger benchmark performance, faster task completion, and shorter outputs than the previous version—a Pareto improvement in performance and cost. Now live on our website, app, and API. 🛠️ Optimized for @DeepSeekHarness, Tencent CodeBuddy, WorkBuddy, and more. Upgrade to DeepSeek Harness v0.2.1-rc.1 or later for the best experience with the new model. 1/4

Meta has released Muse Spark Open, an 816B (42B active) open-weights model that scores 39 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, making it the #1 US open-weights model Muse Spark Open (xhigh) scores 22 points above Muse Glimmer (high, 17), Meta's 30B dense open-weights model from August. It is also ahead of NVIDIA's Nemotron 3.5 Super VL (26), the next highest-scoring US open-weights model, which launched today @AIatMeta shared access with us ahead of public release for benchmarking. Congratulations to @AIatMeta, @finkd, and @alexandr_wang on the release! Key Takeaways: ➤ Open weights at the level of Meta's August flagship. Muse Spark Open scores within a point of Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh, 40). It is stronger on AutomationBench-AA and has a lower hallucination rate, but weaker on GDPval-AA v2.1, CritPt and AA-Omniscience accuracy. Within Meta's current lineup, it sits 13 points behind Muse Wonder (max, 52) and 17 points behind Muse Wonder Full (max, 56) ➤ Token-efficient, at a moderate cost per task. Muse Spark Open uses 40k output tokens per Intelligence Index task, the fewest among the nine highest-scoring open-weights models: e.g. 16% fewer than Muse Spark 1.2 (xhigh, 48k) and 43% fewer than GLM-5.3 (max, 71k), its closest Chinese peer by size. Together AI, Fireworks and Baseten offer it at launch for $1.25/$4.25 per 1M input/output tokens ($0.15 cached input). At that pricing it costs $0.84 per Intelligence Index task. That is less than Muse Spark 1.2 ($0.97) at the same per-token prices and less than half of GLM-5.3 (max, $2.01), but about three times DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max, $0.27) ➤ A relative weakness in agentic work compared to Chinese open-weights leaders. Among the nine highest-scoring open-weights models, Muse Spark Open ranks last on the four agentic evaluations in the index but fourth on the other six combined, and it leads all open-weights models on AA-Omniscience (25). GLM-5.3 (max), the closest Chinese model by size, owes all of its 6-point lead to the agentic evaluations ➤ Self-hostable on a single node, or two Mac Studios. BF16 weights are ~1.6TB. Meta's NVFP4 checkpoint quantizes only the 256 experts, cutting the weights to ~530GB. Meta says this runs on four Blackwell Ultra GPUs or eight H200s, or on two 512GB M5 Ultra Mac Studios using MLX. The architecture uses 62 layers with grouped-query attention (16 KV heads), 8 of 256 experts active per token, and a 1.8B-parameter Perception Encoder for vision Other model details: ➤ Parameters: 816B total, 42B active (MoE) ➤ Context window: 1M tokens ➤ License: Muse Model License, a custom license that requires "Built with Muse Spark Open" attribution and a separate agreement with Meta for Model-as-a-Service businesses with over $20M in annual revenue ➤ Input modalities: text, image, video and audio. Output: text ➤ Availability: weights on Hugging Face (BF16 and NVFP4), with API access via Baseten, Fireworks AI, Groq, Modal, Nebius, OpenRouter and Together AI

Trio-Spark v1.3 is live ⚡ The SOTA System-1 decision model for autonomous agents. Most agent pipelines burn compute generating text just to pick an action. Spark turns action selection into a single forward pass: zero generated tokens, perfectly calibrated confidence. 🏆 SOTA Performance Across 13 Benchmarks: • 90.9% on the ten-task panel (+7.8% over v1.0, overtaking Jev 1.13 and level with Clef) • #1 among all 7 models on PubMedQA, RTE, TweetEval, and SNLI • Calibration error crushed to 0.019 (vs 0.234 in v1.0) — true confidence you can actually threshold Upgrade is drop-in: same API, identical limits, text & multimodal vision support. Just point to "model": "trio-spark-v1.3". ⚡ Get 100 free decisions: platform.machinefi.com/spark 📖 Full benchmark report & transparency note: machinefi.com/blog/trio-spar…

Gemini 4 Argon is now GA. Argon ranks equal to GPT-6 Astra on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index at 60% of the Cost per Task with discounted prices until Nov 30 Key takeaways: - Google is back to having a frontier model released to the public: This is Google's first proprietary model above the Flash class in over 7 months - Pricing temporarily discounted to 50% until November 30: Gemini 4 Argon has a Cost per Task of $1.99 with discounted prices, a ~40% reduction compared to GPT-6 Astra (max) for a comparable level of Intelligence. It is currently priced at $2/$10 per 1M input/output tokens with a 95% discount for cache reads (up from 90% from previous Gemini models). Prices will increase to $4/$20 after November 30 - Large improvements in agentic performance: Gemini 4 Argon shows substantial improvements in agentic evaluations such as AA-Briefcase, AutomationBench-AA, Terminal Bench 4. This is an area in which Google's models have historically underperformed compared to leading peers Lowest hallucination rate among leading models: On AA-Omniscience, Gemini 4 Argon has a 15% hallucination rate, the lowest of any model scoring 45+ on the Intelligence Index

Introducing Muse Wonder, our new family of frontier models with state of the art performance for personal and professional agentic work.

Qwen 4 is coming & Beats GPT-6, Fable 5. - 27B variants land first. - leak say the first samples are already approaching Fable /Opus-level quality. - Target window: this week might be - Open-source in October gets very interesting, after long time silent. - The gap is closing,

OpenAI’s GPT Images 2.5 takes the top two spots on the Artificial Analysis Image Arena, generating higher quality images in less than half the time, while keeping the same price as GPT Image 2 Nearly five months after GPT Image 2’s release, OpenAI has released GPT Image 2.5 Flare and Sunburst. OpenAI positions Flare as the model choice for most applications, designed for everyday image generation at lower latency than GPT Image 2. Sunburst is positioned by OpenAI as offering higher quality for detailed creative work and tighter control across edits, but taking longer to generate images. Both models handle Text to Image and Image Editing. Flare and Sunburst take the top two spots on both Artificial Analysis image leaderboards, with Flare #1 in Text to Image and Sunburst #1 in Image Editing. Our evaluation of both models was performed at “max” quality. The largest gains were in Image Editing, with the biggest improvements over GPT Image 2 in: ➤ Composition & Framing: camera changes, zoom-outs and layout changes that must keep the scene intact, where Sunburst now holds the widest lead of any editing action. ➤ Text or Symbol Edits: changes to words, numbers, logos and symbols within an existing image, where Sunburst's gain over GPT Image 2 is second only to Composition & Framing. These gains come at the same estimated output price as GPT Image 2 (high) for 1024 × 1024 images at the evaluated quality settings. Both models are available through the OpenAI API. OpenAI has also released ChatGPT Images 2.5 in ChatGPT, ChatGPT Work, and Codex. Congratulations to @OpenAI on the release! See below for our analysis and example outputs of GPT Image 2.5 Flare and Sunburst in the Artificial Analysis Image Arena 🧵

Anthropic has released Claude Haiku 5.5, scoring 43 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index - up 26 points one year after the last Haiku release Haiku 5.5 is the first Haiku model with Anthropic’s effort settings and adaptive thinking, and Anthropic has introduced tiered pricing. Haiku 5.5 is cheaper than its predecessor - it costs $0.10/$0.50 per 1M input/output tokens for prompts up to 100k tokens (the same as GPT-6 Luna and 10% of the previous Haiku model). However, this pricing rises 5x to $0.50/$2.50 above 100k. The site does not yet reflect tiered pricing, so provisional cost figures for Haiku 5.5 do not include the step up cost. We are working on support and will follow up with Cost per Task coverage soon. Key takeaways: ➤ Leading small-class model performance: At max effort Haiku 5.5 sits slightly ahead of models such as GLM-5.3 Flash (42), Gemini 3.8 Flash (41) and GPT-6 Luna (38). Its score is comparable to Kimi K3 (44), a 2.8T parameter open weights model, and trails Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max, 56) by 13 points ➤ Heavy token use compared to GPT-6 Luna: Haiku 5.5 (max) uses ~162k output tokens per Intelligence Index task, ~3x GPT-6 Luna (max, ~50k). Moving from xhigh to max adds 2 points for ~1.8x the tokens. At similar intelligence it also uses more tokens than GPT-6 Luna: Haiku 5.5 (high) scores 38 with ~55k tokens per task against 38 with ~50k for Luna (max), and the gap widens at lower effort settings ➤ Highly capable at agentic knowledge work: on AA-Briefcase, our private evaluation for realistic knowledge work tasks, Haiku 5.5 (max) reaches 1578 Elo, ahead of models including Kimi K3 and GLM-5.3, and comparable to Muse Spark 1.3 (max) ➤ Improvements on terminal use: on Terminal-Bench 4.0 it scores 33%, up from 0% for Haiku 4.5. This is level with GLM-5.3 Flash, and ahead of Gemini 3.8 Flash (20%) and GPT-6 Luna (13%) ➤ Lower factual knowledge, but relatively low hallucinations: as expected for a smaller-class model, Haiku 5.5 has lower factual knowledge than its siblings. AA-Omniscience accuracy is 36%, against 55% for Gemini 3.8 Flash and 44% for GPT-6 Luna, but this is partly driven by more willingness to admit when it doesn’t know - its hallucination rate is lower, at 40% against 55% and 77% ➤ AutomationBench-AA result likely understated: Haiku 5.5 scores 35%, against 53–60% for GPT-6 Luna, Gemini 3.8 Flash and GLM-5.3 Flash. During pre-release testing, a safety refusal issue caused the model to over-refuse. Anthropic is working on resolving this - we will re-run this evaluation with the fix, and expect this score to rise Other model details: ➤ Context window: 1 million tokens, up from 200k for Claude 4.5 Haiku ➤ Pricing: $0.10/$0.50 per 1M input/output tokens up to 100k tokens, $0.50/$2.50 above. Cache reads $0.01 ($0.05 above 100k), 5 minute cache writes $0.125 ($0.625 above 100k) ➤ Multimodality: Text and image input, with text output