Search: “Luna”

3 stories

Searchkeyword smart Sortlatest hot importance relevance

DomainAll Cyber AIWindow24h 3d 7d 30d AllIn the wild Important only Show duplicates

CategoryAll Ransomware 36 Vulnerability 11 Malware 9 Phishing & fraud 9 Threat actor 8 AI industry 8 Model release 7 Policy & legal 4 Industry 4 AI safety & security 3 Exploit / PoC 3 AI research 3 Data breach 2 AI tools & infra 2

SeverityAll critical 22 high 41 medium 11 low 15 info 22

GPT-5.6 Luna vs. GPT-6 Astra: Is a $1.20 Model Good Enough for Code Review?

Entelligence benchmarks GPT-5.6 Luna ($1.20/M output) against GPT-6 Astra for code review: Luna found 69 verified bugs at 3.6% of Astra's cost.

Entelligence compared GPT-5.6 Luna ($0.20/$1.20 per million tokens) against GPT-6 Astra ($10/$50) on 50 benchmark pull requests from Cal.com, Sentry, Discourse, Keycloak, and Grafana. Astra verified 92 bugs versus Luna's 69, with precision of 96% versus 74%, and Astra caught 19 of 24 security bugs while Luna found only 9. Luna cost $0.20 total versus Astra's $5.66 and reviewed faster at 23 seconds versus 36, with the widest quality gap on Keycloak authentication and permission logic (6 vs 14 verified bugs). Running both models would find 82% of the 143 verified bugs for $5.86 total.

Hacker News · AISep 14, 19:56 UTC · 2d agoAI research HN 44↑ · 45 comments

The Pelican comparison grid for Astra is pretty interesting

Simon Willison's pelican SVG comparison shows GPT-6 Astra producing markedly better images than GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra, and Luna across reasoning levels.

Willison generated pelicans-riding-bicycles SVGs with newly accessed GPT-6 Astra at low through max reasoning levels and rendered them in a comparison grid against GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra, and Luna. Astra's outputs were markedly more coherent, while even the best GPT-5.6-Sol images remained largely abstract shapes. Astra does not support a reasoning=none setting, so all comparisons involved reasoning-enabled runs.

Simon WillisonSep 4, 23:59 UTC · 12d agoAI research

I tested 10 model/harness combinations on the same Three.js task

A developer benchmarked 10 model/harness combinations on a Three.js task; Qwen 3.8 27B on OpenCode scored 95.64% fastest at 8m48s.

The author ran an identical Three.js sci-fi hangar build prompt across 10 model/harness combinations and recorded score, tokens, durations, and tool errors. Qwen 3.8 27B x-high on OpenCode achieved 95.64% in 8m48s, the best fast result, while GLM 5.3 Flash Max on OpenCode scored highest at 96.89% in 20m28s. Other runs included GLM 5.3 Flash, Luna 5.6, SOL 5.6, and Astra 6.0 across Codex Open, OMP Open, OpenCode, DSH, and PTC harnesses, with scores ranging from 78.54% to 96.89%.

Hacker News · AISep 8, 03:42 UTC · 9d agoAI research HN 104↑ · 61 comments1