#推理

Great article here on DeepSeek. Their real story is not cheaper chatbots, but architecture that turns hardware scarcity into strategy. DeepSeek is not trying to sell coding seats, it is trying to make Chinese memory, accelerators, and systems useful for frontier AI. Every recent DeepSeek move attacks a bottleneck that makes frontier models dependent on elite HBM-heavy GPU stacks: MoE activates only parts of a model, DSA reduces long-context attention cost, and V4-Pro’s official card says CSA/HCA cuts 1M-token single-token inference FLOPs to 27% and KV cache to 10% of V3.2. Engram, a separate research line, pushes the same logic from another side: let static knowledge live in scalable lookup memory, then fetch it predictably from host memory instead of forcing every fact through dense computation. That sounds like engineering detail until you see the business consequence. If models need less HBM and less brute-force compute, then second-best chips, abundant LPDDR, NAND, and customized ASICs become less second-best. Reuters has already reported a permanent 75% DeepSeek V4-Pro price cut, while noting Huawei Ascend supply constraints and expected supernode availability, which is exactly the kind of feedback loop that they wanted. DeepSeek is not only optimizing models for benchmarks, it is optimizing AI for a different industrial base. The prize is not the app layer. The prize is making scarcity programmable.

http://x.com/i/article/2057886253249662976

Qwen 3.7-max beats Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 We tested three frontier models on a real agentic task: write a Tetris bot that plays the game and trains itself. Each model could read its own code, run benchmarks, and rewrite itself across 10 iterations. Then we compared the final bots head to head. Qwen 3.7-Max: training cost $1.32, bot improvement +56% Claude Opus 4.7: training cost $12.15, bot improvement +28% GPT-5.5: training cost $2.85, bot improvement +7% Qwen won on every dimension - biggest jump, 9× cheaper than Claude, 2× cheaper than GPT. Long agentic loops is where Qwen Max actually delivers.

DeepSeek V4 Flash has topped the weekly leaderboard

Token economics determine whether your AI scales or stalls. The key to optimizing AI tokenomics? Start with the customer use case. Then work backwards. 🧵 Shruti Koparkar from our Accelerated Computing team breaks down each tokenomics pillar on the NVIDIA AI podcast:

📣Meet Qwen3.7-Max — our latest flagship, made for the Agent Era. A versatile foundation for agents that actually get things done: 🧑‍💻 Coding agent, end to end. Frontend prototypes, multi-file refactors, real debugging — nails it. 🗂️ A reliable office and productivity assistant. Get your work done through MCP integrations and multi-agent orchestration. ⏱️ Long-horizon autonomy. 35 hours straight on a kernel optimization task — 1,000+ tool calls, zero hand-holding. 🔌 Scaffold-agnostic. Claude Code, OpenClaw, Qwen Code, or your own stack. Consistent reliability everywhere. API's up on Alibaba Model Studio. You can also take it for a spin on Qwen Studio. Go build something wild!🏃🏃‍♂️ 📖 Blog: https://qwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3.7 ✅ Qwen Studio: https://chat.qwen.ai/?models=qwen3.7-max ⚡️ API：https://modelstudio.console.alibabacloud.com/ap-southeast-1?tab=doc#/doc/?type=model&url=2840914_2&modelId=qwen3.7-max&serviceSite=international

Today, we share a breakthrough on the planar unit distance problem, a famous open question first posed by Paul Erdős in 1946. For nearly 80 years, mathematicians believed the best possible solutions looked roughly like square grids. An OpenAI model has now disproved that belief, discovering an entirely new family of constructions that performs better. This marks the first time AI has autonomously solved a prominent open problem central to a field of mathematics.

Alibaba’s new Qwen3.7 Max model scores 56.6 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 4.8 points higher than Qwen3.6 Max Preview (51.8). While Alibaba still trails models from OpenAI, Anthropic and Google, Qwen3.7 Max is the closest they have been to the frontier Qwen3.7 Max is @Alibaba_Qwen's latest proprietary flagship, scoring 56.6 on the Intelligence Index, a 4.8 point gain over Qwen3.6 Max Preview (51.8) released in April. Qwen3.7 Max continues Alibaba's pattern, in place since Qwen2.5 Max (January 2025), of releasing Max and Plus models as closed weights while the rest of the Qwen line remains open weights. The leading open weights Qwen on the Intelligence Index is Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning, 45.8) released in April 2026, and the leading open weights MoE Qwen is Qwen3.5 397B A17B (Reasoning, 45.0) released in February 2026 Key takeaways for the reasoning variant: ➤ The Intelligence Index gains over Qwen3.6 Max Preview are concentrated in scientific reasoning, agentic capability and coding. CritPt +9.7 p.p (3.7% to 13.4%), HLE +9.2 p.p (28.9% to 38.1%), TerminalBench Hard +6.9 p.p (43.9% to 50.8%) and GDPval-AA +42 Elo (1504 to 1546). Scores on other benchmarks in the Intelligence Index are flat compared to Qwen3.6 Max Preview ➤ A significant share of the Intelligence Index gain is driven by higher abstention on AA-Omniscience, not higher accuracy. Qwen3.7 Max's accuracy on AA-Omniscience dropped 7.6 p.p (37.7% to 30.1%), while its hallucination rate dropped 21.3 p.p (44.2% to 22.9%). The model is choosing not to answer more questions rather than recalling more facts. Because hallucination rate and accuracy both feed into the Intelligence Index, the hallucination reduction is one of the larger single contributors to the +4.8 point gain on the Intelligence Index ➤ Qwen3.7 Max used 96.7M output tokens to run the Intelligence Index, ~31% more than Qwen3.6 Max Preview (73.9M). It sits mid-pack on frontier token usage: above GPT-5.5 (high, 44.5M) and Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (57.3M), below Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort, 112M), Kimi K2.6 (166M) and DeepSeek V4 Pro (Reasoning, Max Effort, 187M) Key model details: ➤ Context window: 1M tokens (up from 256K on Qwen3.6 Max Preview) ➤ Multimodality: Text input and output only ➤ Pricing: Yet to be announced (Qwen3.6 Max Preview is priced at $1.30/$7.80 per 1M input/output tokens on the @alibaba_cloud first-party API) ➤ Licensing: Proprietary, closed weights

AI in math is creating history again, as OpenAI's general-purpose reasoning model has disproved a major Erdős conjecture from 1946. The important part is not that AI solved a hard math problem, but how little special machinery it needed. For decades, the planar unit distance problem looked almost embarrassingly simple: place points on a plane, then ask how many pairs can be exactly one unit apart. For decades, the best examples looked like stretched versions of a square grid, so mathematicians believed grids were almost the best possible design. OpenAI’s internal model broke that picture by finding an infinite family of constructions that gives a polynomial improvement, with the proof checked by external mathematicians. The point to note is that the model was not a bespoke theorem-proving engine trained only for this problem, and the official post says its success improved with more test-time compute, meaning more reasoning at inference rather than only more training. That matters so much, because research progress often comes from holding a fragile chain of ideas together long enough to cross from one field into another. In this case, the bridge ran from a plain geometric question into deep algebraic number theory, including machinery like infinite class field towers and Golod–Shafarevich theory. And now we see a general-purpose reasoning system appears able to search a conceptual space where human taste, field boundaries, and inherited guesses may have quietly narrowed the path. So future is not machines replacing judgment, but machines widening the map before judgment begins.

A breakthrough by OpenAI in a very famous Combinatorics problem, the Planar Unit Distance problem by Erdos 1946. The problem is amazing because it can be described to a first-grader: Find a way to place n points on the plane to maximize the number of pairs that have distance exactly 1. For example, if you have n=4 points on a square (of side-length 1) you have 4 pairs of distance 1. The diagonals have length sqrt(2) so don't count. But you can squeeze one diagonal and create a point-set with n=4 points and 5 pairs of distance 1. And you can't get more than 5 pairs from n=4 points, so we are done with n=4 points. Now, if you place n points on a line, you have n-1 pairs of distance 1. In general, all known constructions of n points had a number of pairs scaling essentially linearly: n^{1+something vanishing} It seems that the model found a way to place n points on the plane so that their unit distances scale super-linearly: like n^{1+delta} for some *constant* delta. Delta was not explicitly specified apparently, but a forthcoming refinement by Will Sawin shows delta=0.014 works, according to the announcement. This is incredible progress for mathematics, since this is (unlike previous Erdos problems solved by AI) a major breakthrough, in one of the most studied problems in combinatorial geometry. If you're in mathematics research now, you feel the AGI. Lijie Chen said it honestly in the video: "It's very hard to sleep, man"

Today, we share a breakthrough on the planar unit distance problem, a famous open question first posed by Paul Erdős in 1946. For nearly 80 years, mathematicians believed the best possible solutions looked roughly like square grids. An OpenAI model has now disproved that belief, discovering an entirely new family of constructions that performs better. This marks the first time AI has autonomously solved a prominent open problem central to a field of mathematics.