upvote
Comments trashing this are rightly correct skeptics who remember the benchmaxxing of llama 4. This model was out in the woods as early as like a couple months ago but they didn't release it because it was at gemini 2.5 pro levels.
reply
The llama4 series was one of the earliest large MoE's to be made publically available. People just ignored it because they were focused on running smaller and denser models at the time, we should know better these days.
reply
Deepseek R1 was a publically-available, MoE model that was getting a ton of attention before llama4. Llama4 didn't get much attention because it wasn't good.
reply
the models were objectively horrible
reply
They really weren't horrible. They were ~gpt4o, with the added benefit that you could run them on premise. Just "regular" models, non "thinking". Inefficient architecture (number of active out of total) but otherwise "decent" models. They got trashed online by bots and chinese shills (I was online that weekend when it happened, it's something to behold). Just because they were non-thinking when thinking was clearly the future doesn't make them horrible. Not SotA by any means, but still.
reply
Wrote longer comment steel-manning this, posted it to a reply, then realized you might like to know they had a reasoning model on deck ready for release in the next 2-4 weeks.

Got shitcanned due to bad PR & Zuck God-King terraforming the org, so there'd be a year delay to next release.

Real tragi-comedy, and you have no idea how happy it makes me to see someone in the wild saying this. It sounds so bizarre to people given the conventional wisdom, but, it's what happened.

reply
Nah I remember how disgusted I felt trying llama 4 maverick and scout. They were both DOA.. couldn't even beat much smaller local models.
reply
failing non-stop at tool calls on top of that.
reply
I'll cosign what you said, simultaneously, yr interlocutor's point is also well-founded and it depresses me it's not better known and sounds so...off...due to conventional wisdom x God King Zuck's misunderstanding his own company and resulting overreaction.

They beat Gemini 2.5 Flash and Pro handily on my benchmark suite. (tl;dr: tool calling and agentic coding).

Llama 4 on Groq was ~GPT 4.1 on the benchmark at ~50% the cost.

They shouldn't have released it on a Saturday.

They should have spent a month with it in private prerelease, working with providers.[1]

The rushed launch and ensuing quality issues got rolled into the hypebeast narrative of "DeepSeek will take over the world"

I bet it was super fucking annoying to talk to due to LMArena maxxing.

[1] my understanding is longest heads up was single-digit days, if any. Most modellers have arrived at 2+ weeks now, there's a lot between spitting out logits and parsing and delivering a response.

reply
Your comments seem to imply the engineers made a great product but Zuck intervened so now it's shit
reply
I don't know how Zuck intervening could change float32s in a trained model, so I don't think I think that, but maybe I'm parsing your words incorrectly.
reply
It's a decent model if the benchmarks are to be believed, but it won't be close to Opus in usefulness for programming. None of these benchmarks completely capture what makes a model useful for day-to-day coding tasks, unfortunately. It will take time for them to catch up, and Opus will keep improving in the meantime. But it's good to have more competition.
reply
> If it slightly beats or even matches Opus 4.6

It doesn't though

reply
Curious on why you think this. Any data points that led you to this?
reply
The benchmarks they released
reply
What do you mean? In most cases, the benchmarks show a larger number for Muse and a smaller number for Opus.
reply
In Multimodal yes, but Opus is definitely edging out in Text/Reasoning and Agentic benchmarks.

I think the general skepticism is because they are late to race, and they are releasing a Opus-4.6-equivalent model now, when Anthropic is teasing Mythos.

reply
> I don't get the comments trashing this.

People like to hate on Meta regardless of anything, and regardless of whether it's justified or not. Not saying it isn't, just that it's many people's default bias.

reply
Because bots and trillion dollar ipos and even bigger stakes. People need to better appreciate the level of manipulation going on. Social media has an outsized impact. Bots and even people are getting paid to post and upvote/downvote narratives.
reply
> people are getting paid to post and upvote/downvote narratives

This problem will be solved shortly with better AI (if it hasn't essentially been solved already).

No more humans in the loop, much lower costs for social media manipulation. Welcome to the future!

reply