> Meta could easily show how far ahead its own model is against the rest of the pack of open models but they chose not to. Why?

Wonder is not an open model and there's no claims that it will be in their announcement.

Despite the claims that they would release weights for Muse Spark, they haven't done that yet either.

they started their massive ai capex over a year ago with aquihiring scale ai, so I think it makes sense that their investment is paying off now. in total they've spent in the high 200 billion on ai, though I think most is likely on datacenters.

muse ai was the biggest consumer launch since chatgpt. That left them ( and lets them sit on top of ) tonnes of valuable exchanegs with people trying to get things done. That must be an amazing corpus for training.

Unlike everyone else, which at least has to pretend not to train on user data, they gave out their model for basically free if you agreed to let them train on it. Opencode shows nearly 40 trillion tokens going through muse spark 1.3 contributor this week alone. That almost definitely helped close the gap a lot.

They're not until they are. No doubt they are working on something and have better resourcing than the AI labs

Gemini 4 Argon release a few days ago was frontier a few days ago. Things move fast.

I think some of the benchmarks that Meta didn't pick show Gemini 4 Argon ahead but really the benchmarks are not that great any more and getting increasingly disconnected from reality as people search for "headroom" in the evals to avoid saturation I think. Opus 5.5 is "top" for example but I really dislike the way it talks to me (it feels quite condescending, holier-than-thou, uptight etc) and prefer Gemini 3.8 flash as a daily driver just because it's so much more pleasant (and faster!) to work with and it's code is good-enough for my needs, despite being weaker in the benchmarks.

Grok has been at the frontier since 4.6

Shine, Shimmer, Glow, and ultimately, Cherenkov Radiation.