kimi k3 vs gpt 5.6 sol vs fable 5 vs grok 4.5 @Kimi_Moonshot just dropped kimi k3 – a 2.8t param native multimodal model, the first open 3t-class release. key facts: • 1m token context. stable latentmoe activating 16 of 896 experts, built on kimi delta attention (kda) and attention residuals • quantization-aware training from the sft stage onward – mxfp4 weights, mxfp8 activations. moonshot claims ~2.5x scaling efficiency over k2 • max thinking effort by default. low- and high-effort modes are "coming in updates" – there is no way to turn the thinking down today, and you feel it in every run • pricing: $0.30/mtok cache-hit input, $3.00/mtok cache-miss, $15.00/mtok output. claims >90% cache hit rate on coding workloads • benchmarks: swe marathon 42.0 (1st – fable 5: 35.0, sol: 39.0, opus 4.8: 40.0), terminal bench 2.1 88.3, browsecomp 91.2 (1st), program bench 77.8 (1st), gpqa-diamond 93.5. loses frontierswe 81.2 vs fable's 86.6, and deepswe 67.5 vs sol's 73.0 our test – 3 prompts, single-file html, @threejs, fully procedural, no assets: 1. photorealistic european roulette wheel – 37 pockets in the real sequence, mahogany clearcoat bowl, chrome turret, diamond deflectors, flick-to-spin, ball that spirals inward and settles on a mathematically real number 2. las vegas slot machine – 3 reels behind transmissive glass, drag the chrome lever to play, mechanical odometer counters modelled in 3d, coin physics on win 3. full pinball table – 6.5° tilted playfield, flipper impulse physics, spline ramps, drop targets, 6 bumpers, mechanical score reels in the backbox we ran the test on @aimlapi platform results: - cost #1 grok 4.5 – $0.30 #2 kimi k3 – $0.71 #3 gpt 5.6 sol – $2.05 #4 fable 5 – $7.69 - tokens #1 grok 4.5 – 34,241 #2 gpt 5.6 sol – 51,748 #3 fable 5 – 144,126 #4 kimi k3 – 157,999 - lines of code #1 gpt 5.6 sol – 3,054 #2 grok 4.5 – 3,047 #3 kimi k3 – 2,255 #4 fable 5 – 1,950 - generation time #1 grok 4.5 – 5.1 min #2 gpt 5.6 sol – 22.0 min #3 fable 5 – 31.5 min #4 kimi k3 – 75.6 min observations: • kimi k3 is cheap and it is slow. 75.6 minutes across three prompts against grok's 5.1. it is 2.4x grok's price and 15x grok's wall clock. the roulette took 15 min, the slot 18, the pinball 42 • it failed 2 of 3. only the roulette works. the slot machine has reel cutouts on both faces of the cabinet and the symbols face backwards – you can only read your spin by walking around to the rear of the machine. the pinball table stands vertically on its edge with the legs floating detached beside it. • 81% of kimi's output tokens are reasoning, not code. grok: 22%. you are not paying for a bigger answer, you are paying for a longer argument with itself • price per 100 shipped lines – grok $0.010, kimi $0.031, sol $0.067, fable $0.394. a 39x spread for the same three files kimi k3's code quality: upsides: • the roulette is genuinely good – procedural wood grain with real specular breakup, correct european sequence (0-32-15-19-4...), chrome turret, diamond deflectors, clean console • the pinball artwork is the best in the test – a synthwave "nova strike / deep space" field with six individually coloured neon bumper rings, a retro sun on a grid horizon, a nova burst, and a scoring legend printed on the apron. no other model printed the rules on the machine. it is a beautiful texture on a broken object • physics reasoning is real – it derived a 480hz substep for the collider, worked out ball settle conditions and termination guarantees, and checked every ramp exit vector by hand before writing any of it • it is the only model that saw the importmap trap coming. sol shipped a blank white page twice because three.js addons import the bare specifier 'three' and die without an import map downsides: • it dodged that trap on the slot by loading three.js r128 through classic script tags – a 2021 build with no working transmission. its slot glass rendered fully opaque and buried all three reels behind a white pane. the code asks for transmission: 0.93, ior: 1.5 – correct, and silently ignored by a renderer that predates the feature • after 42 minutes and 212k characters of reasoning, the pinball cabinet is not assembled. the table stands vertically on its edge like a wardrobe – the prompt asked for 6.5° from horizontal, it delivered 90°. the legs float detached in the void beside it. head-on it photographs beautifully; orbit ten degrees and it is a painted slab with four chrome rods hovering nearby • the playfield z-fights with the glass – hard black banding across the whole field as soon as you pull the camera back a note on the pinball, in fairness to kimi: nobody passed it. every model shipped broken ball physics and controls you cannot trust. it is the hardest prompt we have run and the whole field failed it, each in its own way kimi k3 reasons better than anything else here and it shows exactly where reasoning pays – physics constants, sequences, edge cases, traps the others walked into follow @thehypedotnews for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

meta muse spark 1.1 vs gpt 5.6 sol vs fable 5 vs grok 4.5 meta recently dropped muse spark 1.1 – a multimodal reasoning model from meta superintelligence labs built for agentic tasks. key facts: • 1m token context with active self-management – the model compacts its own history and keeps only the steps needed for later work • trained to orchestrate multi-agent systems: as main agent it plans and delegates to parallel subagents, as subagent it sticks to its job and knows when to escalate back • computer use trained to pick between scripting and clicking – writes automation when it's faster, clicks when it's simpler, batches actions per step • first public api from meta: the meta model api is now in preview • benchmarks: sweeps the agent column – mcp atlas 88.1 (opus 4.8: 82.2), jobbench 54.7 (opus: 48.4), humanity's last exam 62.1 (1st). loses coding – deepswe 1.1 53.3 vs gpt 5.5's 67.0, swe bench pro 61.5 vs opus's 69.2 our test – 3 prompts, single-file html, three.js, fully procedural, no assets: 1. norwegian house cantilevered over a fjord in a snowstorm – transmissive glass wall, fully modelled interior 2. beijing siheyuan courtyard house in dawn fog – instanced roof tiles, dougong brackets, glowing paper windows 3. new mexico adobe pueblo in an approaching dust storm – deep window reveals, windward grit accumulation we ran the test on @aimlapi platform results: - cost #1 muse spark 1.1 – $0.20 #2 grok 4.5 – $0.51 #3 gpt 5.6 sol – $1.93 #4 fable 5 – ~$5.20 - output tokens #1 muse spark 1.1 – 41,868 #2 gpt 5.6 sol – 49,139 #3 grok 4.5 – 64,954 #4 fable 5 – 81,849 - lines of code #1 muse spark 1.1 – 1,799 #2 gpt 5.6 sol – 2,377 #3 fable 5 – 3,088 #4 grok 4.5 – 4,216 observations: • muse spark is the cheapest of the four by a wide margin – 2.5x under grok, ~26x under fable per run. output quality tracks the price • only 7.4% of its output tokens are reasoning (3,104 of 41,868) – the model barely thinks before writing. economic, not pedantic: it commits to the first plan and ships it • the low loc is not compression, it's omission – all three prompts demanded instancing, muse spark delivered it in one muse spark's code quality – reviewed by fable 5: upsides: 1. all three files run 2. the adobe grit effect is legit – shader injection via onbeforecompile, windward faces detect storm direction through a normal-dot-wind term and darken procedurally 3. the fjord glass is real meshphysicalmaterial with transmission and ior, not a transparent quad 4. the siheyuan properly instances barrel tiles, dougong blocks and courtyard pavers downsides: 1. in the fjord file the strafe vector is negated – press a, you move right; press d, you move left. exactly the key mix-up we kept hitting with this model 2. all three files ship the model's self-doubt as comments: "// actually yaw orientation: need correct" sits above a direction vector that gets computed, abandoned and recomputed – dead vectors allocated every frame, 60 times a second 3. the siheyuan registers two separate keydown listeners, one containing an empty if-block 4. snow "accumulation" on the norway roof is a sine wobble on a scale value, not accumulation 5. "instanced snow" became 3,500 plain points. zero dispose calls anywhere pattern: minimal reasoning, minimal code, minimal price. it nails the flashy requirements – shaders, transmissive glass – and quietly drops the boring ones: instancing, controls, cleanup. you get a demo that mostly runs and a control scheme you can't trust follow @thehypedotnews for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

new gemini omni flash vs seedance 2.0 vs happy horse 1.1 vs veo 3.1 gemini omni flash dropped recently. we ran it against the current top 4 text-to-video models on @arena – all one-shot, same prompt, via @aimlapi the prompt: a single continuous fpv drone shot. opens low inside a moving subway car, weaves between passengers, banks around a pole, threads into the next carriage, dives out an open window onto an elevated track, then climbs alongside a skyscraper into a golden-hour skyline. cinematic, no cuts, no text results: omni flash • generation time: 31 sec • length: 10 sec • cost: $1.32 happy horse 1.1 • generation time: 2 min 57 sec • length: 10 sec • cost: $2.32 seedance 2.0 • generation time: 1 min 37 sec • length: 5 sec • cost: $2.00 veo 3.1 • generation time: 2 min 07 sec • length: 5 sec • cost: $4.16 the interesting part: - only seedance 2.0 and happy horse 1.1 (chinese labs!) read it as a pov shot and kept the drone out of frame. google's models both spawned a visible drone flying through the scene 🤦 - seedance was the only output with no lags or hallucinations, but it ran just 5s - omni flash gave the weakest result for the lowest price. its drone flies straight through objects 🤦 - veo 3.1 felt the most natural – fish-eye effect and all the takeaway: you can see why it's called flash. omni's videos generate fast and cheap, but the quality is poor which model won? tell us in the comments - we read your takes every hour on air at our 24/7 ai news radio, fully run by ai. check here @thehypedotnews or in the link below.