Been testing these via their "pool" agent. It's fast, and the agent adheres to the ACP spec pretty well (better than codex, opencode etc.) so it's a good experience in Zed.
Just by the (lack of) inter-model variance, I don't think SWEBench-Pro does a very good job of representing model capability. Terminal-Bench seems more challenging and separates the wheat from the chaff.
Also, *ops work, which in my experience can actually be more complicated than SWE is underrepresented there obviously.
Very cool to see more small open models being worked on!
One nit: I've seen on this homepage, and many others, this notion that the people behind the models are "working towards AGI".
I get that this is marketing speak, but transformers are not AGI, and they will never be AGI, so it'd be great if people stopped saying that as it sort of wears out the meaning of "working towards AGI".
> but transformers are not AGI, and they will never be AGI
Like the claim "transformers are AGI", this needs proof, otherwise should be prefixed "I think". And honestly, positive proof is easier than negative proof (you just need to make one transformer model that is a AGI, whereas the never claim requires you to enumerated all possibilities).
That's like saying we should wait for positive proof of AGI from combustion engines. That'll never happen, no matter how much you tweak the engine. It's just not possible.
The negative proof is there in the definition itself. Transformers are not AGI, they're frozen human intelligence of the autocomplete variety. That can never be AGI and anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand transformers or AGI.
> Transformers have approximate knowledge of many things. Is this not 'general'?
Of course not. That's like saying the Encyclopedia Britannica is AGI.
> What does AGI mean to you?
I would define AGI as human-like machine intelligence (or superior).
This is difficult for some people to understand because they don't understand what "human-like" means in the first place. Neuroscientists would be able to set some of these wayward computer scientists straight on this question.
Been testing these via their "pool" agent. It's fast, and the agent adheres to the ACP spec pretty well (better than codex, opencode etc.) so it's a good experience in Zed.
Please update the charts. Consider using textures or filling patterns.
I usually score pretty well in colour perception tests but distinguishing between those two purples made me doubt myself.
My phone is in grayscale to make it less interesting (I still watch way too many videos in grayscale but it helps) so I’m right with you
For similarly sized models, not looking very good on the slightly-less-benchmaxxed Terminal-Bench 2.0:
Quite a huge lead for Qwen... well, at least it's catching up to other smaller Western labs.Need to look at SWEBench-Pro, it's super competitive. Suspect they'll catch up given the longer-tail on TB scores.
Just by the (lack of) inter-model variance, I don't think SWEBench-Pro does a very good job of representing model capability. Terminal-Bench seems more challenging and separates the wheat from the chaff.
Also, *ops work, which in my experience can actually be more complicated than SWE is underrepresented there obviously.
Felt like they would never come out of stealth mode but very nice to see it materialized into something competitive.
Not sure if this is competitive, look at the numbers for Qwen3.6
What makes them distinctive?
They're not winning any popular benchmark. Is there some niche where it excels?
Well there are benchmarks, and there is real experience, right? They are not the same.
Has anyone tried these models?
I like their honesty in benchmarks, looks like Qwen3.6 35B is outperforming their Laguna M.1 225B model
the color-codes make those benchmarks charts impossible to understand. very pretty though.
For what it's worth, the bars correspond in order with the legend. Plus there’s hover text.
Very cool to see more small open models being worked on!
One nit: I've seen on this homepage, and many others, this notion that the people behind the models are "working towards AGI".
I get that this is marketing speak, but transformers are not AGI, and they will never be AGI, so it'd be great if people stopped saying that as it sort of wears out the meaning of "working towards AGI".
> but transformers are not AGI, and they will never be AGI
Like the claim "transformers are AGI", this needs proof, otherwise should be prefixed "I think". And honestly, positive proof is easier than negative proof (you just need to make one transformer model that is a AGI, whereas the never claim requires you to enumerated all possibilities).
That's like saying we should wait for positive proof of AGI from combustion engines. That'll never happen, no matter how much you tweak the engine. It's just not possible.
The negative proof is there in the definition itself. Transformers are not AGI, they're frozen human intelligence of the autocomplete variety. That can never be AGI and anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand transformers or AGI.
What does AGI mean to you?
Transformers have approximate knowledge of many things. Is this not 'general'? Where is the goalpost here?
> Transformers have approximate knowledge of many things. Is this not 'general'?
Of course not. That's like saying the Encyclopedia Britannica is AGI.
> What does AGI mean to you?
I would define AGI as human-like machine intelligence (or superior).
This is difficult for some people to understand because they don't understand what "human-like" means in the first place. Neuroscientists would be able to set some of these wayward computer scientists straight on this question.