#推理

5.6 Terra high is underrated. Switched @clawsweeper (GitHub review bot) to it and it's ~40% faster overall with negligible quality loss. Better than 5.5 on all counts. Massively cheaper. (Tried xhigh but that negates perf wins, didn't make a noticable difference in review evals)

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

AI has helped resolve an important question in statistics. In the area of multiple hypothesis testing, the goal of controlling the false discovery rate (FDR) has been introduced in a seminal paper by Benjamini and Hochberg (1995). They also introduced a method (the Benjamini-Hochberg or BH method) and proved it controls the FDR. This method has been widely adopted in modern high-throughput science, including in genomics, astronomy, economics, etc. The paper has has garnered more than 130,000 citations to date. However Benjamini and Hochberg showed FDR control only when the data for the individual tests are *independent*. In practice, these data are often dependent; a good example is data on genetic variants due to linkage disequilibrium. Later work has focused on extending the validity of the BH procedure, e.g., to a form of positive dependence by Benjamini and Yekutieli (2001). The question of when the BH procedure controls the FDR has remained open. Over the last twenty years, many authors, including Reiner-Benaim (2007), Kim and van de Wiel (2008), Benjamini (2010), Sarkar (2023), Sarkar and Zhang (2025), have conjectured that the BH procedure controls the FDR for two-sided tests using any correlated Gaussian data. These authors have presented both theoretical and empirical evidence supporting, but not directly showing, the conjecture. With the help of AI (specifically GPT-5.6 Sol Pro), I have settled the question in the negative: The Benjamini-Hochberg procedure does *not* generally control the false discovery rate at the desired level for correlated two-sided Gaussian tests. This was done by exhibiting a Gaussian factor model for which, at a nominal level alpha=0.01, the false discovery rate is proved to be FDR>0.0104. There is a lot of interesting commentary to be made: 1. This result should be of interest to everybody in the field of statistics. Emmanuel Candes of Stanford University once called the false discovery rate and the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure "one of the two most important developments in statistics after 1950" (the other being James-Stein shrinkage). The present conjecture is probably the most central question about FDR/BH that was unresolved to date. 2. GPT-5.6 one-shot the problem after 90 minutes of reasoning, whereas with 5.5 I was not able to solve it even after iterating with multiple parallel agents for perhaps 20 hours. So the capability improvement is quite real. Exciting times to live in! 3. The argument is not especially surprising, but it does combine an asymptotic approach (standard for FDR analysis, see e.g., Genovese and Wasserman, Efron, etc) with a numerical certificate in a way that would be pretty non-standard in the field. Once we have the specific example, then straightforward simulations also support that the false discovery rate is indeed higher than the nominal value (see attached fig). 4. The current degree of violation over the nominal level is relatively small (0.104 vs 0.1). So the importance of this result is mainly conceptual. The practical implications remain to be determined. Overall, an exciting development! Preprint is available here (https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bh.pdf) and will be on arxiv tonight; supporting code is here (https://github.com/dobriban/BH).

Our first model, Inkling. Trained from scratch, weights are open, fine-tunable on Tinker today.

Today, we are introducing Inkling. Inkling reasons efficiently across text, image, and audio modalities. We are making the full weights available. https://thinkingmachines.ai/news/introducing-inkling/ Available today for fine-tuning on Tinker. Play with it in the Inkling Playground. 🧵

5.6 sol growth is insane. the inference team has done heroic work to be able to support demand. we are going to move mountains to continue to scale, but it is possible there are some hiccups soon.