X：Kim

Meta 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

Gemini 3.8 Flash benchmarks. And holy cow! Flash outperforms 5.6 sol and opus 5 on terminal bench 2.1, HLE and much more. Google is back! https://t.co/Vn9roSApoS

Grok 4.7 comes out in 10 days https://t.co/ZSXmzVFqB1

🚀Qwen3.8-Max just got upgraded. Meet Qwen3.8-Max-0902! 2.4T parameters. 1M context tokens. Built for real world complexity. Further post trained on Coding & Cowork, Qwen3.8-Max-0902 now delivers stronger performance across complex enterprise tasks, scientific research, and long horizon workflows. 💰Pricing per 1M tokens: $2 input, $6 output. $0.17 explicit cache hit, $0.25 implicit cache hit. Now live via API on QwenCloud. Come try it! 🙌 API: https://t.co/dq3WgMk980

Literally unusable. The rate limits are absurd. Oh, and by the way, Fable’s automatic continuation is bugged and doesn’t even work. I honestly don’t know why I still bother using Claude at this point. 5.6 is simply better overall anyway. Give me GPT-Astra and im fine. its so frustrating. seriously. oh, and btw. For subscription users, Anthropic has not announced lower prices or higher usage limits regarding Fable 5.1s efficency gains; the savings explicitly apply “wherever usage is billed by token,” so greater efficiency within Pro or Max subscriptions possible not gonna happen.

OpenAI’s unreleased Astra model found two V8 zero-days during testing, and used them in an exploit chain with little human help. In their new blogpost, OpenAI wrote that in separate expert assessments, Astra compromised a hardened browser, escaped its sandbox and executed commands on the host. It also chained several operating-system vulnerabilities to move from an unprivileged account to root. OpenAI has classified Astra as “Critical” for cybersecurity, the first of its models to reach that threshold. OpenAI paused parts of Astra’s training after the Hugging Face incident, but restarted the main frontier RL run on August 28 under stricter controls.