Peter van der Putten (@PetervanderP) header
Peter van der Putten (@PetervanderP) profile picture

AI & Ax in art, business & science. Director AI Lab @Pega & researcher, @LIACS, @UniLeidenNews. @petervanderputt[email protected] @petervanderputten.bsky.social

Amsterdam, Nederland
Joined July 2018
Photo by Peter van der Putten (@PetervanderP)Photo by Peter van der Putten (@PetervanderP)Photo by Peter van der Putten (@PetervanderP)Photo by Peter van der Putten (@PetervanderP)Photo by Peter van der Putten (@PetervanderP)Photo by Peter van der Putten (@PetervanderP)Photo by Peter van der Putten (@PetervanderP)Photo by Peter van der Putten (@PetervanderP)Photo by Peter van der Putten (@PetervanderP)Photo by Peter van der Putten (@PetervanderP)
Letters from Nature: Climate change is killing our planet, but nature's ice caps, islands and coral reefs did not have a voice. Until we asked #AI (#GPT3) to write letters to world leaders on her behalf. Poetic collab with Jeroen van der Most @Artist_Most jeroenvandermost.com/letters…
8
58
11
107
Over six years ago, my first experiments with GPT3 ;) #llm #openai
#GPT3 by @OpenAI is a #NLP model >100x larger than #GPT2, but what can it do? It tackles a wide range of tasks, understands objectives by context, and requires few examples. Success varies, and comes with real world #bias, fascinating to explore what it can & can't do. Tx to @gdb
1
74
Benchmarks are maturing, removing saturated tasks and moving towards private evals. Kind of implementing one of the first lessons in my neural networks class over 35 years ago: don’t just evaluate your AI on the training set only ;)
Announcing Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v5, featuring 2 new benchmarks and 3 upgrades. For the first time, the majority of the Index is built on private datasets The Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index is our composite measure of model capabilities across tasks reflecting real-world usage today. v5 is our biggest upgrade since v4 launched in January. With v5, 60% of the Index is now based on evaluations with private test sets or held-out answers. Alongside Intelligence Index v5, we’re launching the Artificial Analysis Progress Index v1, which tracks model capability over time on one continuous scale. New to the Intelligence Index: ➤ FrontierCode 2.0: Cognition's newly-launched private benchmark of real-world coding tasks, graded on whether a repository maintainer would merge the agent's change ➤ Terminal-Bench-Science: 70 agentic scientific research tasks, run in a terminal environment Upgraded: ➤ HLE-Diamond (replacing Humanity's Last Exam): a refined 1,000-question version of Humanity's Last Exam, split evenly between reasoning and knowledge questions ➤ AA-Omniscience v1.1: An updated dataset with saturated and public set questions removed, new questions added, and ambiguous or erroneous questions revised ➤ CritPt v2: a private, 40-question hard subset of CritPt v2, revised by the CritPt authors and run with a code-execution tool Staying in the Index: AA-Briefcase, AutomationBench-AA, GDP.pdf and Terminal-Bench 4.0 Removed from the Index: GDPval-AA v2.1, SciCode, and AA-LCR v1.1 Key results: ➤ Claude Opus 5.5 (max) leads at 58, ahead of GPT-6 Astra (max, 57) and GPT-6.1 Sol (max, 55): Anthropic and OpenAI hold the top five models. Gemini 4 Argon (high) is next at 50 ➤ The open weights gap widens from 3 points to 12: Kimi K3.1 Pro (weights not yet released) is the top open weights model at 46. Among released weights, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (max) and GLM-5.3 (max) lead at 32 - 26 points behind the leader and below Claude Haiku 5.5 (max, 36) ➤ Cost per task varies by more than 13x among the leading models: of the 10 highest-scoring models shown, GPT-6.1 Terra (max) is the cheapest at $0.96 per Intelligence Index task and Claude Fable 5.1 (max) the most expensive at $13.04
1
42
The reported focus on performance on tools like Blender is interesting. Does it mean they are aiming at physical AI?
Introducing Kimi K3.1 Pro: our most capable 3T-class open-weight model. 🔹 1M-token context, 2.8T total / 104B active params (MoE), Multimodal. 🔹 Full-project coding: games in Unreal, Unity & Godot. 🔹 Excels at parametric 3D modeling in Blender & CAD. 🔹 More reliable at finance work: Accurate modeling with hallucination down by 65%. 🔹 Matching the strongest proprietary models across coding, agentic and knowledge benchmarks. Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed (2–3× faster) are now live on Kimi.ai, Kimi Work, Kimi Code, and the Kimi API. Open weights by Nov 4, 2026. 🔗 API: platform.kimi.ai 🔗 Tech blog: kimi.ai/blog/kimi-k3-1-pro
33
Peter van der Putten retweeted
BREAKING: OpenAI’s solution to Navier–Stokes does not match its Lean verification. The most important article to read today is not one of OpenAI’s 700 AI-generated math papers. It is this other paper, making a deep and worrying point: A Lean-verified proof does not automatically validate the proof written in natural language, nor does it mean that the formal statement captures the intended theorem. During translation, an AI can change an assumption, weaken a statement, or replace the argument entirely. It can hallucinate another theorem. Lean correctly verifies the result. But the proved result may no longer be what the paper claims. This is a general problem. Things get spicy when the authors examine OpenAI’s proposed Navier–Stokes solution. They identify at least two mismatches between the written intermediate results and their Lean counterparts: One estimate claims that four additional input derivatives suffice. The Lean version requires five: a weaker result. A pressure-flux estimate is obtained through a different bound, and proved through a different argument. It is not clear whether these mismatches invalidate the entire proof. But they raise an important issue. OpenAI is flooding us with claimed revolutionary breakthroughs. Yet nobody knows whether the proofs are correct or whether they prove what they claim to be proving. Epistemia at scale. * Paper in the first reply
229
918
313
5,365
636,760
Peter van der Putten retweeted
results for all claudes
84
251
110
3,676
1,503,363
Peter van der Putten retweeted
Introducing Griffin, the first model to pass the video Turing test. 48% of people who talked to it live thought it was a real human. Previous systems have had a pass rate <3%. It is #1 on NVIDIA's benchmark for full-duplex AI video. It’s the first Human Interaction Model (HIM).
Readers added context they thought people might want to know
The 48% figure and "video Turing test" claim are from Tavus's own study of 54 one-minute calls, not independently verified or using a standard protocol. Griffin-Lite leads NVIDIA's VideoFDB benchmark on their public leaderboard. cellcog.ai/blog/tavus-gri… research.nvidia.com/labs/amri/proj… tech-ish.com/2026/10/02/tav…
3,435
4,262
5,643
39,100
21,278,084
Peter van der Putten retweeted
Lots of discussion out there about our next model(!), so I wanted to give an early look as soon as possible. Introducing Gemini 4 Argon! It shows frontier performance in complex workflows, cyber defense and software engineering. Teams are using it extensively at Google, from coding to quantum computing, great feedback. Here’s a look at the benchmarks:
1,381
2,292
1,223
25,799
3,931,288
Peter van der Putten retweeted
GPT-6.1 Sol replaces GPT-6 Sol after just 7 days. It scores 1 point below GPT-6 Astra in the Intelligence Index at less than one quarter of the Cost per Task Pricing matches GPT-6 Sol at $2/$10 per million input/output tokens, except that the cache read discount rises from 90% to 95%. GPT-6.1 Sol’s overall blended price for agentic workloads is therefore slightly lower than GPT-6 Sol. This represents an additional price cut, following GPT-6 Sol’s original 50% discount from GPT-5.6 Sol. Key takeaways: ➤ Achieves near-Astra Intelligence: GPT-6.1 Sol gains 4 points in the Intelligence Index vs GPT-6 Sol, and 5 points vs GPT-5.6 Sol - landing 1 point below GPT-6 Astra. It makes significant gains in agentic knowledge work, improving 4 points and 5 points in AA-Briefcase v1.1 and GDPval-AA v2.1 respectively. Other notable gains include a 12 point jump in Terminal-Bench 4.0, a 5 point jump in Humanity’s Last Exam, a 6 point jump in GDP.pdf, and an 8 point jump in AA-Omniscience Accuracy coupled with hallucination rate falling from 60% to 54%. ➤ Pushes cost efficiency frontier: At max effort, GPT-6.1 Sol costs less than a quarter of GPT-6 Astra per Intelligence Index task ($0.72 vs $3.26). It also costs 31% less per task than GPT-6 Sol ($1.05) and 64% less than GPT-5.6 Sol ($1.99). All effort levels of GPT-6.1 Sol push out the cost efficiency Pareto frontier: for a given level of intelligence, there is no cheaper model. ➤ Pushes token efficiency frontier, but uses slightly more output tokens than GPT-6 Sol: GPT-6.1 Sol uses ~10-30% more output tokens than GPT-6 Sol across effort levels. However, due to the increase in Intelligence Index score, its low and medium effort levels are Pareto optimal for token efficiency. ➤ Gains in Coding Agent Index: GPT-6.1 Sol gains 3 points on GPT-6 Sol at max effort in the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index, and sits 2 points below GPT-6 Astra. Congratulations @OpenAI and @sama on the launch!
79
149
62
1,964
166,520
Peter van der Putten retweeted
Please welcome GPT-6 Sol and GPT-6 Luna to the GPT-6 universe. GPT-6 Sol and Luna build on the advances behind GPT-6 Astra, bringing much of its strengths into faster and more affordable models to support work at scale. We’ve also made caching and inference more efficient, and we’re passing the savings directly to you: 50% lower API prices for Sol and Luna compared with GPT‑5.6 promotional pricing.
2,220
5,240
3,052
53,108
10,223,068
Peter van der Putten retweeted
Claude Opus 5.5 takes the top spot on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, along with a 20% price cut and larger cache hit discount Claude Opus 5.5 brings Anthropic to parity with GPT-6 Astra on evaluations like Terminal-Bench 4.0 and AutomationBench-AA, while extending Anthropic’s lead in agentic knowledge work. At max effort it scores 58 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, the highest score we have measured by several points. Anthropic has cut Opus pricing to $4/$20 per 1M input/output tokens (Opus 5: $5/$25) and cache reads from $0.50 to $0.20. Key takeaways: ➤ Consistent strong performance, with leading scores on six of the ten Intelligence Index evaluations: Humanity's Last Exam 61.4% (previous best 59.1%, Claude Fable 5.1), SciCode 66.9% (63.1%, Fable 5.1), GDPval-AA v2.1, AA-Briefcase v1.1, AA-Omniscience and AutomationBench-AA. On Terminal-Bench 4.0 it scores 59.6%, level with the leader GPT-6 Astra (xhigh) and +11 points over Opus 5. It remains slightly behind on CritPt, AA-LCR, and GDP.pdf ➤ Leads in agentic knowledge work: On AA-Briefcase, our private frontier knowledge work evaluation, it reaches an Elo of 1822. This is +143 over Fable 5.1, ahead on both analytical quality and presentation, and is the first time Anthropic has reached presentation quality surpassing GPT-5.6 Sol. This evaluation tests whether models can produce accurate and well-presented professional outputs using our open source reference agent harness, Stirrup ➤ Level with Opus 5 on cost per task despite 1.6x the output tokens: Opus 5.5 (max) uses ~119k output tokens per Intelligence Index task, against ~73k for Opus 5 (max), ~78k for Fable 5.1 (max) and ~27k for GPT-6 Astra (max) ➤ Four of five effort levels sit on the Intelligence vs Cost per Task frontier: Opus 5.5 max, xhigh, high, and medium all sit on the Pareto frontier, costing less or outperforming other models scoring 50+ (GPT-6 Astra, Claude Fable 5.1, and Claude Opus 5) Other model details: ➤ Context window: 1 million token context with image and text input support, unchanged from Opus 5 ➤ Pricing: $4/$20 per 1M input/output tokens, down 20% from $5/$25 for Opus 5. Cache writes $5 per 1M tokens for the 5 minute TTL, down from $6.25. Cache reads have been further discounted to $0.20 per 1M tokens, down 60% from Opus 5’s $0.50. This is a 95% discount compared to uncached input pricing, up from 90% on previous Opus models ➤ Effort settings: Five effort settings (low, medium, high, xhigh, and max). Intelligence Index evaluations were run at all five with Anthropic's default fallback enabled
126
287
167
3,020
414,156
Peter van der Putten retweeted
Pega has been named a Leader in The 2026 Gartner® Magic Quadrant™ for Business Orchestration and Automation Technologies (BOAT) – with ranking highest in the Adaptive Work Use Case. Read the full report: pe.ga/4y7RF16
2
7
650
Peter van der Putten retweeted
Appreciate you, but this isn’t a good take. It appears to conflate AI agents with LLMs; how AI could evolve with what Anthropic is doing specifically; and cause and effect. Larger discussion beyond what could work on social media, but I touched on some relevant points here. medium.com/@margarmitchell/n…
2
10
3
118
11,755
Peter van der Putten retweeted
Introducing Benchmark Reviews: our new initiative to audit AI benchmarks. We are launching with 15 benchmarks: 4 Verified, 9 Flawed, and 2 with not enough information for a review.
116
199
172
1,973
657,752
Peter van der Putten retweeted
Die größte Gefahr geht aktuell von „künstlicher Unintelligenz“ aus dlvr.it/TVWZBC #Kommentar #News
1
1
30
Peter van der Putten retweeted
The #PegaWorld 2027 call for presentations is now officially open! Submit your stage-worthy story before 5:00 PM EST on October 21 and let your AI success become someone else’s blueprint. Become a speaker: pe.ga/4d3cm5O
2
2
512
Peter van der Putten retweeted
Wrote up my thoughts on the whole OpenAI Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem story, and how it highlights the still confusing question of what using my data "to improve model performance" actually means simonwillison.net/2026/Sep/8…
89
108
14
948
125,118