X:Alexandr Wang(Scale AI 创始人/Meta 首席 AI 官)
@alexandr_wang · X
切换来源
@alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分1010 @alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分22 @alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分88 @alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分1414 @alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分55 就是我们啊兄弟 https://t.co/zsjUAmxlYG
引用@EMostaque@EMostaquemeta, the frontier ai lab? https://t.co/qja6sY1y8H https://t.co/v80iglkUUD
@alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分1818 @alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分2323 
@alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分66 @alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分2828 @alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分1313 @alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分6161 引用@ArtificialAnlys@ArtificialAnlysMeta has released Muse Spark 1.3, their fourth Muse Spark model release in five months. Muse Spark 1.3 (max), which is in limited preview for Meta’s partners, scores 62 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, behind only Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Opus 5. The variant available now, Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh), scores 61 and ties with GPT-5.6 Sol (max) and Grok 4.6 (high). Both variants’ gains come primarily from improvements in agentic work and scientific capabilities Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) enters the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index at 61, up 4 points from Muse Spark 1.2 (57, August) and 8 points from Muse Spark 1.1 (53, July). It enters tied with GPT-5.6 Sol (max), Grok 4.6 (high), and Claude Opus 5 (high), and behind Claude Fable 5.1 (max, 66), Claude Opus 5 (max, 63), and Claude Fable 5 (max, 62) Muse Spark 1.3 (max), which is in a limited preview stage, lands at 62. This higher index score is enabled by gains vs. Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) in Tau3-Bench Banking (52% vs. 47%) and GDPval-AA v2 (1,754 Elo vs. 1,709). Muse Spark 1.3 (max) is second only to Claude’s Fable and Opus variants in total score Congratulations to @AIatMeta, @finkd, and @alexandr_wang on the release! Key Takeaways: ➤ Continued improvement on agentic knowledge work tasks. At the launch of Muse Spark 1.2, we noted its significant gains in agentic knowledge work performance vs. Muse Spark 1.1. The latest iteration continues this trend, with Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) demonstrating a notable 12-point gain vs. Muse Spark 1.2 in Tau3-Bench Banking (35% to 47%), a 5-point gain in Terminal-Bench 2.1 (80% to 85%), and a new GDPval-AA v2 Elo of 1709 against its predecessor’s 1615. Muse Spark 1.3 (max) improves further on Tau3-Bench Banking (52%) and GDPval-AA v2 (1,754 Elo). This Tau3-Bench Banking score is #1 among all models. Muse Spark 1.3 (max) achieves these higher agentic work scores by using more turns and total reasoning tokens, reasoning 62% more on GDPval-AA v2 and 28% more on Tau3-Bench Banking compared to Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) ➤ The lowest cost per task for any model at 59+ on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index. Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) costs $0.55 per Intelligence Index task at Meta's unchanged $1.25/$4.25 per 1M token pricing ($0.15 for cached input), with its peers GPT-5.6 Sol (max) and Grok 4.6 (high) costing $0.95 and $0.94 respectively, a 70%+ premium. This places Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) on the Pareto frontier for Intelligence vs. Cost per Task. Its cost per task is higher than Muse Spark 1.2 ($0.40 per task), driven by ~57% more input tokens per task on agentic evaluations, with output tokens up only ~8%. Pricing for Muse Spark 1.3 (max) is not yet publicly available ➤ Scientific Reasoning results rose across the board, led by CritPt. CritPt was the standout non-agentic score gain vs. Muse Spark 1.2, with a material +8 points for the xhigh variant (18% to 26%), and GPQA Diamond achieved +4 points (90% to 94%), while Humanity’s Last Exam and SciCode each gained a more modest 2-3 points (45% to 47% and 56% to 59%, respectively). Muse Spark 1.3 (max) achieved roughly similar scores to the xhigh variant, gaining 2 points in Humanity’s Last Exam, tying on GPQA Diamond, and losing a point on CritPt vs. Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) ➤ Minor regressions in only two evaluations. Both Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) and Muse Spark 1.3 (max) dropped 4 points in AA-LCR (83% to 79%) when compared to Muse Spark 1.2, and AA-Omniscience (Accuracy) fell 3 points for xhigh and 1 point for max. The drops in AA-Omniscience (Accuracy) are due to a higher abstention rate (not answering questions when unsure), which also lowered the hallucination rate for Muse Spark 1.3 (xhigh) Other model details (xhigh variant): ➤ Context window: 1M tokens, unchanged from Muse Spark 1.2 ➤ Pricing: unchanged from Muse Spark 1.2: $1.25/$4.25 per 1M input/output tokens, with cache hits discounted to $0.15 per 1M ➤ Input modalities: text, image, video ➤ Availability: Meta's first-party API and Muse Code
@alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分88 @alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分1111 @alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分6363 引用@finkd@finkdMuse Spark 1.3 is rolling out today with frontier performance almost too cheap to meter. This is the biggest jump we've made so far on coding and agentic work. Try it in Muse Code and our API. Next up 🍉 and Muse Spark open weights releases coming soon. https://t.co/XQQEDEJGD7
@alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分3939 

@alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分4646
@alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分6161 引用@ArtificialAnlys@ArtificialAnlysMeta has released Muse Voice Transcribe, taking the #1 spot for Final Transcript accuracy on AA-WER Streaming with 3.1% WER at 0.16s after end of speech Muse Voice Transcribe is the first streaming Speech to Text model developed by Meta Superintelligence Labs. Meta states that the model was trained on more than 70 languages, with 25 extensively verified, and supports audio inputs exceeding one hour without required post-processing. It processes audio in 80ms chunks and is available through the Meta Model API, Meta AI for Mac and Muse Code. Key takeaways ➤ Final Transcript: Muse Voice Transcribe achieves 3.1% WER at 0.16s after end of speech. It is more accurate and faster than Cartesia Ink-2 (semantic endpoints) at 3.4% and 0.43s, and more accurate but slower than Cartesia Ink-2 (external endpoints) at 4.0% and 0.07s. It is also more accurate, though slightly slower, than ElevenLabs Scribe v2 Realtime at 3.6% and 0.14s. ➤ First Partial Transcript: The model achieves 3.6% WER at 0.13s, just ahead of ElevenLabs Scribe v2 Realtime on accuracy and latency. It is more accurate and faster than Cartesia Ink-2 (semantic endpoints) at 4.9% and 0.17s, and more accurate but slower than Cartesia Ink-2 (external endpoints) at 4.0% and 0.07s. ➤ Price: Muse Voice Transcribe costs $0.18 per hour, or $3 per 1,000 minutes. This is below Cartesia Ink-2 at $4 and less than half the $6.50 charged for ElevenLabs Scribe v2 Realtime and Deepgram Flux. See more details below ⬇️
@alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分3838 
@alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分44 @alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分5353 

@alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分2525 

@alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分22 @alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分1717 2/ 它为复杂工作而构建:智能体可跨会话共享上下文,工作流可将一个任务拆分给多个子智能体团队来交付一个结果。https://t.co/pL73j2BYbd

@alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分1212 @alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分5656 
@alexandr_wang@alexandr_wangAI 评分3838 opencode 排名前三的模型!未来的模型还会更强 💪 https://t.co/hWcXpMvKqE
引用@opencode@opencodemeta muse spark has cracked top 3 with 11T tokens for the week https://t.co/1ffmpNLNhi


