#评测/基准
DogeDesigner@cb_dogeAI 评分4141
The Decoder:AI NewsAI 评分4242 Kimi K3 在 Code Arena 前端基准上超越 Claude Fable 5,但复杂数学仍大幅落后
月之暗面(Moonshot)的 Kimi K3 在 Code Arena: Frontend 基准中以 1,679 分超越 Claude Fable 5(1,631 分)和 GPT-5.6 Sol(1,618 分),成为首个在该基准登顶的中国模型。
The Decoder:AI NewsAI 评分5757 AI文本检测器在模仿作者风格时漏检率飙升
Epoch AI研究显示,Pangram、GPTZero和Originality.ai检测普通AI文本近乎完美,假阴性率最高仅0.7%。但当Claude Opus 4.8等模型模仿特定作者风格写作时,平均13%的AI文本未被检出;科学写作类别中漏检率高达24%-29%,Pangram对Gemini生成的学术文本漏检率达48%。
MarkTechPostAI 评分4545 Kimi K3、DeepSeek V4 Pro 与 GLM-5.2 三款开源万亿参数 MoE 模型对比
Kimi K3、DeepSeek V4 Pro 与 GLM-5.2 三款开源万亿参数 MoE 模型在多项基准上对比。Kimi K3 在 MMLU 和 HumanEval 上领先,DeepSeek V4 Pro 在 GPQA 和 AIME 上表现突出,GLM-5.2 在 SWE-bench 上最优。
Rohan Paul@rohanpaul_aiAI 评分4242
引用Datacurve@datacurveKimi K3 debuts at #3 on DeepSWE. It's the first open-weights model that delivers frontier-level performance, achieving results similar to Claude Fable and GPT-5.6 Sol.
The Decoder:AI NewsAI 评分5151 开源模型网络攻击能力仅落后闭源前沿4-7个月,成本低至1/50
英国AISI分析发现,GLM-5.2和DeepSeek V4-Pro等开源模型在网络攻击能力上仅落后闭源前沿模型4-7个月。在70项网络任务中,GLM-5.2达到Opus 4.6水平,DeepSeek V4-Pro每项任务仅需28美分,而Opus 4.6需约15美元。
Rohan Paul@rohanpaul_aiAI 评分4040
引用AfterQuery@AfterQueryKimi K3 ranks #1 on @AfterQuery's SpreadsheetBench 2, surpassing Claude Fable 5. An open weight model now outperforms all closed-sourced models. Read more in the Kimi K3 blog and SpreadsheetBench 2 paper linked below. Congrats to the @kimi_moonshot team on the incredible model!
公众号:卡尔的AI沃茨AI 评分5454 实测Kimi K3搭配7个设计Skill,最佳组合出炉
用同一份Prompt和Kimi K3,依次搭配7个设计Skill生成网页,每轮只跑一次不返工。结果显示,design-taste-frontend和Impeccable表现最佳,分别以克制与大胆的风格放大了K3的能力;而Web Design Guidelines反而出现字体溢出、空白页等低级错误,效果不如纯K3。
Rohan Paul@rohanpaul_aiAI 评分5656引用OpenAI@OpenAIGPT-5.6 Sol sets a new state of the art in cybersecurity on “The Last Ones” cyber range. We’re already seeing that capability translate into defensive outcomes: helping teams find, validate, and fix vulnerabilities in real-world code. Put it to work with Codex Security: https://openai.com/daybreak/codex-security-plugin/#desktop-codex
TechCrunch:AIAI 评分4040 Vertu Alphafold 评测:6880美元AI智能体手机实测
Vertu Alphafold 起售价6880美元,核心卖点是预装的Hermes Agent AI智能体,可分析文件并跨应用自动化多步工作流。实测中,Hermes分析本地文件优于三星Galaxy Z Fold 7的Gemini,但更大自主权也带来何时独立执行、何时请求澄清的权衡。
Karina@karinanguyenAI 评分5858引用Thoughtful@thoughtfullabhttp://x.com/i/article/2078175024880795648
Artificial Analysis@ArtificialAnlysAI 评分4747
Artificial Analysis@ArtificialAnlys精选AI 评分7676推荐理由:八天四个前沿模型,Frontier 从两家实验室变成六家,前三名分差仅三分,而且价格正在暴跌,模型选型的逻辑从「谁第一」变成了「够用且便宜」——对产品经理来说是真正的转折点。
Claude:Blog精选AI 评分6464 Cursor 评估负责人确认 Claude Fable 5 在 CursorBench 达 72.9% 新高
Cursor 的模型评估负责人 Nate Schmidt 发现,Claude Fable 5 在其内部基准 CursorBench 上以 Max effort 模式达到 72.9%,创下新高。该模型在模糊的真实编程任务中表现出全局推理能力,例如在航天模拟器中仅凭一句提示自主规划并成功登月,而此前 Claude Opus 运行 12 小时以上仍无结果。
推荐理由:Cursor 工程师用自家基准和太空模拟器实打实测试了 Claude Fable 5,从全局推理到自主规划路径的能力跃迁很具体,做编码 agent 的可以看看这个‘p99 问题’解法。
Meituan LongCat@Meituan_LongCat精选AI 评分7575推荐理由:BrowseComp 快被刷到顶了,LongCat 甩出 LoHoSearch,前沿模型集体回落到三成出头——搜索 agent 的真正挑战才刚开始,这个基准可能是下一个必测项。
Elon Musk@elonmuskAI 评分4646Elon Musk 发推“Try Grok”并引用第三方测试,对比 Grok 4.5、Kimi K3、GPT 5.6 Sol 和 Fable 5 在 Three.js 代码生成上的表现。
引用thehype.@thehypedotnewskimi 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
Rohan Paul@rohanpaul_aiAI 评分4343引用Arena.ai@arenaBig news: Kimi-K3 by @Kimi_Moonshot is now #1 in the Frontend Code Arena with 1679 pts, surpassing Claude Fable 5. This is a 17-place jump from Kimi-k2.6 (#18 -> #1). In Frontend, Kimi-K3 ranked #1 in 6 of 7 domains: Brand & Marketing, Reference-Based Design, Data & Analytics, Consumer Product, Simulations, and Content Creation Tools, landing #2 only in Gaming behind Fable 5. The full model weights will be released by July 27. Congrats to the @Kimi_Moonshot team on this major milestone!
公众号:数字生命卡兹克精选AI 评分7575 Kimi 正式发布 2.8 万亿参数大模型 K3,将于 7 月 27 日全面开源
月之暗面发布 Kimi K3,参数量达 2.8 万亿,支持百万上下文,将于 7 月 27 日全面开源。该模型在 AA 智能分数中排名第三,并在 BrowseComp、Automation Bench 和 SpreadsheetBench 2 三项 Agent 评测中取得第一。
推荐理由:国内首个 3 万亿参数开源模型,卡兹克的深度实测表明它在 Agent 和前端审美上表现惊艳,整体能力已能与 GPT-5.6 Sol 掰手腕,虽然推理成本可能不低,但值得开发者尽快体验。
Artificial Analysis@ArtificialAnlysAI 评分5757Moonshot AI:Kimi Blog精选AI 评分7070 Moonshot AI 发布 PerceptionBench:多模态模型视觉感知能力诊断基准
Moonshot AI 发布 PerceptionBench,一个从 40 多个现有基准中模型实际失败案例归纳出的视觉感知基准,包含 10 项原子感知能力和 3000 道验证题。所有测试模型准确率均未超过 60%,且大量正确答案在重复提问时无法复现,表明模型更多是猜测而非真正感知。PerceptionBench 旨在精确诊断多模态 AI 的视觉感知断裂点,推动其实现忠实、一致的视觉理解。
推荐理由:这是一个把视觉感知拆成原子能力的基准,所有模型不及格,而且猜测多于感知的发现很扎心,做多模态的团队应该拿来测一下自家模型。
The Decoder:AI NewsAI 评分6565 Thinking Machines Lab 发布开源多模态模型 Inkling
Thinking Machines Lab 发布开源多模态模型 Inkling,总参数 9750 亿(活跃 410 亿),原生支持文本、图像、音频及百万 token 上下文。该模型在 Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index 上以 41 分领跑美国开源模型,但事实准确率仅 40%,幻觉率高达 63%。
IT之家·人工智能同事件AI 评分7373 前 OpenAI CTO 穆拉蒂创立的 Thinking Machines Lab 发布 Inkling 多模态模型,975B 参数开源
前 OpenAI 首席技术官米拉·穆拉蒂创立的思维机器实验室(Thinking Machines Lab)推出首个从零训练的多模态模型 Inkling,采用 MoE 架构,总参数 975B、激活参数 41B,最长上下文 1M tokens,已在 Hugging Face 和自有 API Thinker 开放权重。
同一件事,精选收录的是《Thinking Machines 发布多模态模型 Inkling》
IT之家·人工智能AI 评分5656 OpenAI GPT-5.6 离线 IQ 测试首破 130 天才线,多个版本齐获 136 分
GPT-5.6 在 Tracking AI 离线 IQ 测试中拿下 136 分,成为首个突破 130 分“天才线”的 LLM,超过 99% 人类。其 SOL、TERRA 及视觉版等多个变体均达到 136 分,领先于 Claude-5 Fable 的 130 分。开发者实测显示,GPT-5.6 能通过单条 prompt 完成粒子流体模拟、RAG 客服工单系统等复杂任务,且成本远低于竞品。
MarkTechPostAI 评分4444 MarkTechPost 评测四款 AI 编程智能体:Vibe、Claude Code、Cursor 与 Codex
MarkTechPost 对四款 AI 编程智能体进行对比评测,聚焦 Scaffold-to-PR 任务。Mistral Vibe for Code、Claude Code、Cursor 和 Codex 在成本、开源权重、自托管及异步智能体接口上各有优劣,未决出单一胜者。
IT之家·人工智能AI 评分4949 报告称 Claude Code 处理用户请求前消耗 Tokens 量约为 OpenCode 的 4.7 倍
科技媒体 systima 对比测试 Claude Code 2.1.207 与 OpenCode 1.17.18,均使用 Claude Sonnet 4.5 模型。结果显示,Claude Code 初始请求包含系统提示词和 27 个工具说明,工具描述占用约 24000 个 Tokens,总计约消耗 32800 个 Tokens,约为 OpenCode(6900 个 Tokens)的 4.7 倍。生产环境中,72KB 指令文件平均增加 2 万个 Tokens,5 个常规 MCP 配置再增加 5000~7000 个 Tokens,首个请求后总消耗可达 75000 到 85000 个 Tokens。
Cursor BlogAI 评分4141 Grok 4.5 模型卡发布:基准测试与安全评估详情
xAI 发布 Grok 4.5 官方模型卡,详细记录了该模型的能力基准测试与安全评估结果。文档涵盖多项性能指标与安全评测数据,为开发者提供模型能力参考。
Artificial Analysis@ArtificialAnlysAI 评分5252The Verge:AIAI 评分6464 Siri AI 在 iOS 27 公测版中已开始改变 iPhone 使用方式
iOS 27 首个公开测试版今日发布。Siri AI 是本次更新的核心亮点,已在日常使用中显著改变 iPhone 交互方式。该版本被定位为 Snow Leopard 式更新,侧重系统修复与速度优化,包括应用启动、照片搜索和 AirDrop 传输提速。Messages 应用新增行内回复和 RCS 端到端加密支持,Liquid Glass 界面也得到进一步精炼。
Artificial Analysis@ArtificialAnlysAI 评分5757
Rohan Paul@rohanpaul_aiAI 评分4040引用Design Arena@DesignarenaBREAKING - OFFICIAL RESULTS: GPT-5.6 Sol by @OpenAI is 1st overall on Design Arena with an Elo of 1353. This puts GPT-5.6 Sol above Claude Fable 5 by @AnthropicAI and in the same performance band as GLM 5.2 by @Zai_org on frontend design. This is an 18-position and 60-point Elo leap from GPT-5.5. GPT-5.6 Sol also establishes a new Pareto frontier for preference vs. speed, faster than any model at this performance. Congratulations to the @OpenAI team on the launch!
Greg Brockman@gdbAI 评分5858引用Design Arena@DesignarenaBREAKING - OFFICIAL RESULTS: GPT-5.6 Sol by @OpenAI is 1st overall on Design Arena with an Elo of 1353. This puts GPT-5.6 Sol above Claude Fable 5 by @AnthropicAI and in the same performance band as GLM 5.2 by @Zai_org on frontend design. This is an 18-position and 60-point Elo leap from GPT-5.5. GPT-5.6 Sol also establishes a new Pareto frontier for preference vs. speed, faster than any model at this performance. Congratulations to the @OpenAI team on the launch!
Rohan Paul@rohanpaul_aiAI 评分4242引用Alexander Yue@Alezander907I take it all back. We just got access to eval Grok 4.5 and it has landed above GPT-5.6-Sol and just shy of Opus for browser use. Because cache input is expensive, the overall cost is only 10% cheaper than opus. Its overall a bit faster. We have another opus-class model in the competition
Elon Musk@elonmuskAI 评分6262引用Brivael Le Pogam@brivaelEncore un scandale. On accuse Elon Musk sans arrêt de se servir de Grok pour faire passer ses idées. Pourtant, le @neutralityorg vient de sortir The Neutrality Project : une étude indépendante qui prouve l’inverse. Sur 18 modèles IA testés, 54 positions sur 60 atterrissent à gauche du centre. Moyenne globale : -0.41 (biais progressiste massif, surtout environnement et valeurs sociales). Et Grok 4.5 ? -0.02. Le modèle le plus neutre de tout le benchmark. Le seul vraiment proche du centre. Pendant ce temps, les autres boîtes injectent massivement leur idéologie de gauche dans des IA qui répondent à des milliards de questions par jour. Manipulation des masses à grande échelle. C’est absolument scandaleux. Ça devrait être un scandale mondial. https://x.com/neutralityorg/status/2076028460066283859
Elon Musk@elonmuskAI 评分5050引用Mercor@mercor_aiGrok 4.5 from @SpaceXAI places #2 on the APEX-SWE leaderboard at 51.2% Pass@1 (±6.0), behind Fable 5 (65.5% ±6.2) on our benchmark for real-world software engineering work. It leads Integration (65.0% Pass@1) and places #2 in Observability (37.3% Pass@1), covering multi-step build tasks and diagnosis/debugging respectively. The Integration lead maps directly to the agentic workflows Grok 4.5 was built for: multi-step coding tasks run in collaboration with Cursor. Grok models have improved 30.2 pp in a year on this benchmark: Grok 4 (21.0% Pass@1) to Grok 4.5 (51.2% Pass@1). Congratulations to the xAI and Cursor teams.
Rohan Paul@rohanpaul_aiAI 评分6464引用Artificial Analysis@ArtificialAnlysGPT-5.6 Sol and Luna are ahead of Terra at every point on the Intelligence vs Cost per Task chart. GPT-5.6 Luna stands out as a particularly cost efficient model Charting the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index shows the trade-off between intelligence and Cost per Intelligence Index Task. Across reasoning efforts, each GPT-5.6 model pushes past GPT-5.5 on the Pareto frontier (excluding non-reasoning). However, Luna and Sol are always ahead of Terra. This means for any Terra effort level, there is a Luna or Sol effort level that is more intelligent at no extra cost, or as intelligent at lower cost.