Twitxy Saved

AlphaSignal

Verified account This account is verified because it's an official organization on X. Learn more

@AlphaSignalAI

The gateway to the AI frontier.
alphasignal.ai Joined February 2010
350 Following 24K Followers 1.4K Posts

Latest posts 5

Pinned post

AlphaSignal Verified account @AlphaSignalAI
Kimi K3 is getting called Fable/Sol level, and it's 7th in our tests.

Arena Frontend Code: #1 at 1679 points.
Artificial Analysis: #3 at Intelligence Index of 57.

We ran it the next day on our coding-agent repair harness against GPT-5.6 Sol, Fable 5, Grok 4.5, Opus 4.8, GLM-5.2, and Gemini 3.1 Pro.

Results:
> Last of 7 models
> 53 of 67 attempts (79%)
> $0.186 per successful fix
> 702s average wall time

Sol hit 100% (70/70) on the same suite. Grok sat at 99% and 46s.

So why does the internet sound so sure K3 is crushing coding agents, if our tests have it at the bottom?
-----
> Full write-up: alphasignal.ai/news/arena-1-k…
> 5-min daily signals: alphasignal.ai/newsletter
Artificial Analysis Verified account @ArtificialAnlys Jul 16
Kimi K3 scores 57 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index. Its intelligence is comparable to Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 but remains behind Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol. Moonshot AI has expressed plans to release the 2.8T parameter model's weights, which would make it the leading open weights model

Key results:

➤ Strong agentic task performance: @Kimi_Moonshot's Kimi K3 reaches an Elo rating of 1668 on GDPval v2. This is a marked improvement over K2.6’s 1190, surpassing GLM-5.2 (1514), GPT-5.5 (1494), and Claude Opus 4.8 (1600). However, it still lags behind Claude Fable 5 (1760). Kimi K3 also scores an impressive 53% and takes the #1 position on AutomationBench-AA, our implementation of Zapier’s Agentic SaaS workflow evaluation.

➤ Second-highest performance on AA-Briefcase (agentic knowledge work): On our private long-horizon knowledge work evaluation, Kimi K3 reaches an overall Elo of 1547, +732 points from Kimi K2.6 and behind only Claude Fable 5. It is well-rounded: its rubric scoring and analytical quality almost reach Claude Fable 5’s scores, while GPT-5.6 Sol continues to outperform other leading models on presentation quality.

➤ Set to lead open weights models once weights are released: Moonshot AI has not yet released the weights but expressed plans to do so. Once available, Kimi K3 would clearly lead other open weights models including GLM-5.2 (51) and DeepSeek v4 Pro (44). However, at 2.8T parameters, it is significantly larger than its open weights peers (eg. GLM-5.2 at 753B params and DeepSeek V4 Pro at 1.6T), as well as the Kimi K2 to K2.6 models (1T params).

➤ Cost per task ($0.94) is similar to GPT-5.6 Sol ($1.04), ~1/2 the price of Opus 4.8 ($1.80) and higher than open weights peers: Moonshot AI’s pricing for K3 is significantly higher than their K2 pricing (K3’s output token price is $15/1M tokens while K2.6 was $4). This positions the model as cheaper on a cost per task basis than Opus 4.8, similar to GPT-5.6 Sol ($1.04) and more expensive than open weights peers, GLM-5.2 ($0.32) and DeepSeek V4 Pro ($0.04)

➤ Improved token efficiency alongside higher intelligence: Kimi K3’s token usage on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index decreased significantly, using 21% fewer output tokens than K2.6. The new model used approximately 132M output tokens to complete all nine evaluations, compared to approximately 166M for K2.6, while achieving higher scores.

➤ Native multimodal capabilities: Kimi K3, like K2.6, is released with native image and text multimodal input. If weights are released, this will position Kimi K3 as one of the leading open weights models with multimodal input capabilities

Other model details:

Context window: 1M

Size: 2.8T total parameters

Pricing: The first-party API is priced at $3.00/$15.00 per 1M input/output tokens, with cached input discounted 90% to $0.30 per 1M tokens.

Modality: Native multimodal input supports text and images, and the model remains text-only for output.

Accessibility: Accessible at launch through Moonshot’s first party API. Model weights are not yet released but Moonshot AI has expressed plans to do so.
View quoted post on X
145 replies 107 reposts 1K likes 504K views View on X
AlphaSignal Verified account @AlphaSignalAI
We're presenting the SF AI Assistant Meetup with @merit_systems on October 19.

​This event is a space for power users and people interested in the world of AI Assistants to hang out, get to know one another, and share tips/tricks on how to best use these tools.

RSVP: luma.com/wabd65c0
luma.com SF AI Assistants Meetup · Luma Hello SF AI Assistant lovers! Welcome to the first official SF meetup. This is a space for power users and people interested in the world of AI Assistants to…
David Pawlan Verified account @DavidPawlan Oct 8
SF AI Assistant lovers, your time has come!

October 19th. Get ready for an epic AI assistant meetup 🤖

To be announced:
> more sponsors/partners
> location
> event agenda

RSVP here: luma.com/wabd65c0
View quoted post on X
3 replies 4 reposts 12 likes 9.5K views View on X
AlphaSignal Verified account @AlphaSignalAI
You’ve probably heard the buzz around Looped transformers, but which one?

Over the past month, the same word covered three reuse tricks.

Implementing the wrong one burns a training week. It also budgets a 3B file like a 3B decode.

We opened a looped transformer open model, Nanbeige 4.2:

> 22 layers, two passes
> 44 applications, same weights
> About twice the block compute
> KV cache doubles with it

It kept about 75% of a standard Transformer's token efficiency.

Sharing the cache halved its memory. And quality gains were consistently lower.

A second design carries state token to token. Sequence length is the depth.

Training used 500 million tokens. That run cost about 20 times the GPU-hours.

So, Which reuse trick is the viral tweet?
If extra loops do not raise quality, what are you paying?
Does the file still need a second cache?

Full Breakdown ↓↓
3 replies 4 reposts 16 likes 6.8K views View on X
AlphaSignal Verified account @AlphaSignalAI
An agent repeats a mistake, so you add a rule.

Months later, nobody remembers why it exists.

“Why Does CLAUDE.md Keep Growing?” calls this “catastrophic remembering.”

The study tracks 247,694 instruction lifetimes across 1,867 repositories.

Files like CLAUDE.md more than triple over their lifetime.
The cause is lost reasoning, not changing requirements.

Without the reason, deleting anything feels risky.
The paper tests attaching a comment to each rule.

Those comments record:

> The failure behind the instruction
> The hypothesis behind the fix
> Evidence from previous attempts

The author built tests where the ideal prompt was known.
Uncommented prompts ended 211% longer than that ideal.

Informative comments cut the excess to 1.4%.
The agent followed constraints equally well both ways.

In an interview with AlphaSignal, author Kushal Chakrabarti (@kushalc) recommends a cache approach.

“The cache should have triggers and pointers, not summaries.”
5 replies 3 reposts 25 likes 5.2K views View on X
AlphaSignal Verified account @AlphaSignalAI
A support ticket comes back as billing, sales, or technical. The return is that label, with a probability on it.

You pass the state, the questions, and the allowed answers. That exchange is one step.

TypeSafe's Jev does that in 70 to 500 ms. Input is $0.042 per million tokens, and output tokens are not metered.

> 40x to 200x faster on the comparison table, for System One shaped queries
> 444.6x cheaper only as the workflow-eval high end

A negative balance stays in code. The model is for the call you cannot separate with a rule.

> Route the ticket
> Score the urgency
> Pick the next tool

The vocabulary is the list you typed. A fraud ticket that only offers billing, sales, and technical comes back as one of those three. A spam score of 0.52 is not a 0.998

> Laya, 421 million parameters, about 33 ms for one question on a Tesla T4
> That 33 ms is a local pass, not the hosted 70 to 500 ms
> CLM, up to 9x faster zero-shot when actions repeat or the list is long
> Fine-tuned CLM, 81.6% of 38 DeepSWE tasks and 87.6% of 30 Terminal-Bench 2.1 tasks
> Jev on that judge test, 71.1% and 83.1%, under the one-sample line

Which real ticket has no label in your list?
Full breakdown↓↓