Dusting off this tweet from April because this gap in shared understanding of LLM capability is *widening*. It's now less "two groups of people speaking past each other" and more a sharp funnel. - Napkin math somewhere around 6B people (~75% of the population) have barely come in contact with LLMs at all. - Around 1-2B (~20%) are casual and infrequent users of free-tier ChatGPT-like products. This group sees derpy chatbots and treats them a bit like a better Google search, a writing aid, or etc. Maybe an agent tries to book you a flight. I have non-tech friends who (reasonably, imo) say they have not much use for it at all. Even many professionals outside of math&code are in this tier. For example, execs and many other functions spend a lot of their time talking to other people, so while they understand what is happening intellectually, it is still second-hand and a bit abstract. - Now we get to professional use of frontier-grade LLMs in math&code. Somewhere around 20M people (0.2%) see first-hand that large, complex projects that used to take them weeks/months can now be completed by agents with a prompt. Building apps, copying apps, translating apps, decompiling apps from binaries... This has all happened very quickly and recently - less than 1 year ago, I was writing code manually by hand, typing memorized computer code commands into a code editor character by character, occasionally pressing Tab to autocomplete a little chunk of code. - And finally we get to the ~5,000 people (~0.00006%) with access to frontier-grade systems internally. The external world has seen the preview. It looks like swarms of thousands of agents collaborating over weeks on software mega projects: minting zero days, running cyber attacks and defenses at machine speeds, discovering new science, advancing the frontier of mathematics. Things that would have taken top professionals in the industry years of work. Meanwhile, human review and comprehension are starting to fall behind. For example, people are still involved in the "archeology" of the OpenAI-HF incident from many months ago. Mathematicians may be poring over the 722 manuscripts on frontier mathematics for a while. The funnel is driven by a combination of factors: 1. The impact scales with ambition, problem size, and horizon. A question with a paragraph answer barely stresses the system. You need a reservoir of big, difficult problems that you really care about. This aspect drives the consumer / professional dimension of the funnel. 2. The jaggedness of the system (which I have written about a lot separately). Capability peaks in domains that are digital, verifiable and economically valuable. This is because LLM capability emerges from reinforcement learning on verifiable rewards on a curated environment mixture driven by revenue potential. This aspect primarily drives the area (e.g. math&code) dimension of the funnel. 3. Access. Free-tier, paid-tier, internal. So this is the weirdness of the moment. The general public has mostly not interacted with these systems. When they have, it looks like a derpy chatbot. The majority of professionals still see only a modest uplift. And a small sliver of professionals are experiencing the vertigo of the curve going vertical. And it is all happening at the same time.

GPT-6 Astra makes significant gains in the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index, scoring equal to Fable 5 at lower cost. In the Intelligence Index, it uses fewer tokens than GPT-5.6 Sol for similar performance, but this is outweighed by higher prices Pricing is 2.5x GPT-5.6 Sol’s current prices across the board, up from $4/$20 to $10/$50 per million input/output tokens, with the same 90% discount for cache reads and 25% premium for cache writes. We see distinct stories across our two flagship Indices. In the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index, GPT-6 Astra equals Fable 5 at less than half the cost, driven by significant token efficiency gains. In the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, GPT-6 Astra is more token efficient than its predecessor for similar performance, but this is offset by the price increase. Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index - key takeaways: ➤ Rivals top models: In Codex, GPT-6 Astra scores 67 in the Index - approximately equal to Claude Opus 5 and Fable 5 in Claude Code, and Muse Spark 1.3 in Muse Code. Fable 5.1 in Claude Code leads the Index with a score of 70. ➤ 70% more token efficient than GPT-5.6 Sol: GPT-6 Astra sees a substantial improvement in token efficiency, using one third of the tokens compared to GPT-5.6 Sol (max) in the Codex harness, and one fifth of the tokens of Claude Opus 5 (xhigh). Various effort levels of the model occupy the Pareto frontier of token efficiency. ➤ Leads Coding Agent Index cost efficiency frontier: At max effort, GPT-6 Astra costs about the same as GPT-5.6 Sol (max) while scoring 2 points higher on the Index. Per task, the model is less than half the cost of Claude Fable 5, for the same score. Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index - key takeaways: ➤ Sits beside GPT-5.6 Sol in Intelligence: GPT-6 Astra scores equal to GPT-5.6 Sol in the Index at 61. This is 5 points lower than Claude Fable 5.1 (max with fallback). The model also trails Meta’s newly released Muse Spark 1.3 (max). ➤ ~10% fewer output tokens, offset by price increase: GPT-6 Astra defines a new Pareto frontier for Intelligence Index vs Output Tokens per Task - with a ~10% reduction in token use at max effort compared to GPT-5.6 Sol. However, due to the 2.5x increase in price, the model is 75% more expensive per task than its predecessor at max effort. ➤ Hallucinates half as much as GPT-5.6 Sol: GPT-6 Astra sees a large jump in AA-Omniscience, our knowledge and hallucination benchmark. This is driven by a significant decrease in hallucination rate from 92% to 51% at max effort. Unlike some models, this improvement does not come at the cost of accuracy - Astra increased accuracy by 4 points at the same time. ➤ ~80 point gain in AA-Briefcase Elo: GPT-6 Astra improves ~80 points in AA-Briefcase, our frontier long-horizon knowledge work evaluation. Models are tested on multi-week projects, with many linked tasks and thousands of source files. Astra sees a significant increase in both rubric scores and Analytical Quality Elo in AA-Briefcase compared to its predecessor. In the other direction, we observe a reduction in Presentation Quality Elo, where GPT-5.6 Sol (max) still leads all models. ➤ Mixed progress on other evaluations: The model sees a 6 point gain in Humanity’s Last Exam, a long-standing evaluation with emphasis on mathematics, science, and humanities. This is offset by a drop of ~80 Elo points in GDPval-AA v2 - a benchmark we adapted from OpenAI’s dataset measuring economically valuable tasks across 44 occupations. We also observe 2-3 point regressions on other evaluations across a mix of capabilities, including reductions in τ³-Banking (customer support), SciCode (Python problems in a scientific domain), and AA-LCR (long context reasoning over large documents). Congratulations @OpenAI and @sama on the launch!