just got the weekly status report from the team

muse spark open. why 2026 won't be like 1984 

$NFLX - NETFLIX - SECURES EXCLUSIVE FIFA WORLD CUP 2030 BROADCAST RIGHTS IN SPAIN AND ANDORRA

We've unified plans across Grok, Cursor, and X Premium. Introducing The X Subscription.

Meta has released Muse Wonder and Muse Wonder Full, achieving Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.3 scores of 52 and 56 at max reasoning effort - each a material gain over Muse Spark 1.3 (max) at 48, with a release gap of only 6 weeks Muse Wonder is available for users on Meta’s first-party API, while Muse Wonder Full is currently only available for Muse Code users. Meta notes that each model is designed for personal and professional agent use Congratulations to @AIatMeta, @finkd, and @alexandr_wang on the release! Key Takeaways: ➤ Both models exhibit a material jump in overall Intelligence Index score. Muse Wonder Full (max) improves on Muse Spark 1.3 (max) across all ten Intelligence Index evaluations, gaining 8 points to 56. The largest gains were seen in agentic evaluations: Terminal-Bench 4.0 (+24 points, 33% to 57%), GDPval-AA v2.1 (+176 Elo, 1681 to 1857), and AA-Briefcase (+148 Elo, 1581 to 1729). Muse Wonder (max) gains 4 Intelligence Index points and lands at 52, with notable improvements vs. Muse Spark 1.3 (max) in Terminal-Bench 4.0 (33% to 52%) and AutomationBench-AA (58% to 68%) ➤ Muse Wonder Full (max) places in the top three on six of the ten Intelligence Index evaluations, and is particularly strong in agentic knowledge work and scientific reasoning. In agentic knowledge work, it narrowly leads on GDP.pdf (33%), ranks #2 on GDPval-AA v2.1 (1857 Elo), and #3 on both AA-Briefcase (1729 Elo) and AutomationBench-AA (71%). In scientific reasoning, it tops the CritPt leaderboard at 33% and ranks #3 on SciCode with 63%. This builds on the relative strengths of Muse Spark 1.3 (max), which also showed particular ability in these two domains ➤ Both models use fewer output tokens than Muse Spark 1.3 (max). Muse Wonder (max) and Muse Wonder Full (max) each use around 54k output tokens per Intelligence Index task, down ~10% from Muse Spark 1.3 (max, 60k). This usage is lower than similarly intelligent models Gemini 4 Argon (high, 62k) and Claude Fable 5.1 (max w/ fallback, 78k), but higher than GPT-6.1 Sol (max, 38k) and GPT-6 Astra (max, 27k). Muse Wonder Full (max) uses 16% fewer input tokens per Intelligence Index task than Muse Wonder (max) (6.44M vs 7.69M), meaning it is both more intelligent and more token-efficient ➤ Cost per Task for Muse Wonder (max) lands higher than most similarly intelligent models. Despite efficient output token use, premium API pricing ($4 per million input tokens, $20 per million output tokens) and high input token use (7.69M per task) push Muse Wonder (max)’s cost to $4.52 per Intelligence Index task. This is lower than Claude Fable 5.1 (max w/ fallback, $7.63), Claude Opus 5.5 (max w/ fallback, $5.98), and Claude Sonnet 5.5 (max w/ fallback, $5.46), but higher than GPT-6 Astra (max, $3.26), Gemini 4 Argon (high, $1.99), GPT-6.1 Sol (max, $0.72), and its predecessor Muse Spark 1.3 (max, $1.60). Per-token pricing is not currently available for Muse Wonder Full, so no Cost per Task figure can be estimated at this stage ➤ Both models gain significantly in Coding Agent performance. Muse Wonder Full achieves 68 on the Artificial Analysis Coding Agents Index at max effort in Muse Code, alongside Claude Code with Sonnet 5.5 (max, 68) and Opus 5.5 (max, 66). Muse Wonder (max) scores 63. These represent material gains over Muse Code with Muse Spark 1.3 (max), which scores 54 Other details for the two new models: ➤ Context windows: 1M tokens each, unchanged from Muse Spark 1.3 ➤ Pricing: for Muse Wonder, $4 input / $0.20 cached input / $20 output per 1M tokens. Pricing per token is not yet announced for Muse Wonder Full ➤ Input modalities: text, image, video, and audio ➤ Output modalities: text ➤ Availability: Muse Wonder is available on Meta's first-party API and Muse Code at launch, while Muse Wonder Full is only available to Muse Code users

introducing muse wonder our new frontier model. state-of-the-art at personal agents and professional agents. our largest and most capable model yet—rivals the big bois

Haven’t seen $META Zuck be so cocky ever. Seems we up for a big surpise if that Watermelon is as big as Zuck is saying.

Technical moats are mostly over at this point. If you’re building something that is meant to be durable, the only moats now are: • Proprietary data • Network effects • A physical component

$AMZN AWS CEO just shared some important details on AI usage on the a16z podcast. The key point is that AWS is more skewed toward inference and has lower exposure to frontier labs (so a healthier, more diversified workload base). Some of his comments: 1. Compared to some other hyperscalers and neoclouds, AWS's exposure to a single frontier model provider is only in the single digits %, while some others are in the 30-60% range. 2. Most of the usage on AWS today is core compute, storage, and inference, which they believe is durable (so less training than others) 3. AWS says YES to around 60% of compute requests and is planning to buy 2M GPUs in the next couple of years. 4. I found it interesting as he mentioned during the talk that because of AWS Bedrock and the OAI partnership: "That is why you see OpenAI workloads migrating to AWS"

$META just banned TikTok in the US This one is going to hurt in the morning, but happy to buy more at the right time

Important note regarding Grok @Bot: Going forward, @SpaceX will use the best back end model for any given task, including Claude Opus 5.5, MidJourney, Suno and other leading APIs. Whatever is most likely to give you the best outcome.

By day, Warren Buffett is all business. At night, he gets lost on YouTube like the rest of us. wsj.com/lifestyle/warren-buf… via @WSJ

This is why GPUs cost $6,000

We need more GPUs 😂

$NFLX 5 years ago: Stock price: $67 FCF: -$132M Revenue: $29.7B Subscribers: 222M Operating income: $6.2B $NFLX in 2026: Stock price: $67 FCF: $11.2B (+8,600%) Revenue: $51B (+72%) Subscribers: 300M+ Operating income: $16B (+160%) Stock didn't move, fundamentals compounded.