TOP AI Network

Meta has released Muse Wonder and Muse Wonder Full, achieving Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.3 scores of 52 and 56 at max reasoning effort - each a material gain over Muse Spark 1.3 (max) at 48, with a release gap of only 6 weeks Muse Wonder is available for users on Meta’s first-party API, while Muse Wonder Full is currently only available for Muse Code users. Meta notes that each model is designed for personal and professional agent use Congratulations to @AIatMeta, @finkd, and @alexandr_wang on the release! Key Takeaways: ➤ Both models exhibit a material jump in overall Intelligence Index score. Muse Wonder Full (max) improves on Muse Spark 1.3 (max) across all ten Intelligence Index evaluations, gaining 8 points to 56. The largest gains were seen in agentic evaluations: Terminal-Bench 4.0 (+24 points, 33% to 57%), GDPval-AA v2.1 (+176 Elo, 1681 to 1857), and AA-Briefcase (+148 Elo, 1581 to 1729). Muse Wonder (max) gains 4 Intelligence Index points and lands at 52, with notable improvements vs. Muse Spark 1.3 (max) in Terminal-Bench 4.0 (33% to 52%) and AutomationBench-AA (58% to 68%) ➤ Muse Wonder Full (max) places in the top three on six of the ten Intelligence Index evaluations, and is particularly strong in agentic knowledge work and scientific reasoning. In agentic knowledge work, it narrowly leads on GDP.pdf (33%), ranks #2 on GDPval-AA v2.1 (1857 Elo), and #3 on both AA-Briefcase (1729 Elo) and AutomationBench-AA (71%). In scientific reasoning, it tops the CritPt leaderboard at 33% and ranks #3 on SciCode with 63%. This builds on the relative strengths of Muse Spark 1.3 (max), which also showed particular ability in these two domains ➤ Both models use fewer output tokens than Muse Spark 1.3 (max). Muse Wonder (max) and Muse Wonder Full (max) each use around 54k output tokens per Intelligence Index task, down ~10% from Muse Spark 1.3 (max, 60k). This usage is lower than similarly intelligent models Gemini 4 Argon (high, 62k) and Claude Fable 5.1 (max w/ fallback, 78k), but higher than GPT-6.1 Sol (max, 38k) and GPT-6 Astra (max, 27k). Muse Wonder Full (max) uses 16% fewer input tokens per Intelligence Index task than Muse Wonder (max) (6.44M vs 7.69M), meaning it is both more intelligent and more token-efficient ➤ Cost per Task for Muse Wonder (max) lands higher than most similarly intelligent models. Despite efficient output token use, premium API pricing ($4 per million input tokens, $20 per million output tokens) and high input token use (7.69M per task) push Muse Wonder (max)’s cost to $4.52 per Intelligence Index task. This is lower than Claude Fable 5.1 (max w/ fallback, $7.63), Claude Opus 5.5 (max w/ fallback, $5.98), and Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max w/ fallback, $5.46), but higher than GPT-6 Astra (max, $3.26), Gemini 4 Argon (high, $1.99), GPT-6.1 Sol (max, $0.72), and its predecessor Muse Spark 1.3 (max, $1.60). Per-token pricing is not currently available for Muse Wonder Full, so no Cost per Task figure can be estimated at this stage ➤ Both models gain significantly in Coding Agent performance. Muse Wonder Full achieves 68 on the Artificial Analysis Coding Agents Index at max effort in Muse Code, alongside Claude Code with Sonnet 5.5 (max, 68) and Opus 5.5 (max, 66). Muse Wonder (max) scores 63. These represent material gains over Muse Code with Muse Spark 1.3 (max), which scores 54 Other details for the two new models: ➤ Context windows: 1M tokens each, unchanged from Muse Spark 1.3 ➤ Pricing: for Muse Wonder, $4 input / $0.20 cached input / $20 output per 1M tokens. Pricing per token is not yet announced for Muse Wonder Full ➤ Input modalities: text, image, video, and audio ➤ Output modalities: text ➤ Availability: Muse Wonder is available on Meta's first-party API and Muse Code at launch, while Muse Wonder Full is only available to Muse Code users

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

Grok 4.7 scores 46 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index to bring SpaceXAI into the top 4 AI labs. Coding Agent Index performance has also improved, overtaking GPT-5.6 Sol Grok 4.7 scores +2 points over Grok 4.6 on the Intelligence Index, with strong performance on agentic knowledge work tasks. We evaluated the new model at xhigh reasoning effort. Congratulations to @spacexai and @ElonMusk on the release! Key takeaways: ➤ Grok 4.7 joins the frontier of agentic knowledge work: Grok 4.7 gains +111 Elo over Grok 4.6 (high) on AA-Briefcase, our private benchmark for long-horizon agentic knowledge work, scoring 1657 Elo and placing it alongside Claude Opus 5 and Claude Fable 5.1 at the frontier. On GDPval-AA, it scores 1695 Elo, +90 ahead of Grok 4.6 (high). ➤ A leap in coding agent performance: Grok 4.7 (xhigh) with Grok Build scores 56 on the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index, up +9 points from Grok 4.6 (xhigh). Among models in their native harnesses, Grok 4.7 + Grok Build now ranks 4th, behind only Claude Fable 5.1, GPT-6 Astra, and Claude Opus 5. ➤ Incremental performance changes elsewhere: Outside of agentic knowledge work, Grok 4.7 broadly matches Grok 4.6 (high) on the other Intelligence Index tasks. It improves on Terminal-Bench 4.0 (+4.5 percentage points) and GDP.pdf (+3.0 p.p.), with regressions on AA-LCR (-3.7 p.p.) and AutomationBench-AA (-1.1 p.p.). ➤ High token use across tasks: Grok 4.7's gains come with higher token usage. Grok 4.7 (xhigh) uses approximately 81k output tokens per Intelligence Index task, compared with 36k for Grok 4.6 (high) and 27k for GPT-6 Astra (max) - 125% and 196% more, respectively. Other model details: ➤ Context window of 500k tokens, unchanged from Grok 4.6 ➤ Pricing of $2/$6 per 1M input/output tokens with cache hits discounted to $0.50 per 1M tokens, matching Grok 4.6 ➤ Configurable reasoning effort spans low to xhigh. Our evaluation uses xhigh.