ZeroHour

Search: “Terminal-Bench”

2 stories in the last 3d

Exclusive: Paying for frontier AI models buys 4-month head start at 5x the cost

Mozilla report finds the capability gap between best open-weights (largely Chinese) and closed frontier AI models narrowed to 4.4 months at ~5x lower cost.

Mozilla's State of Open Source AI report (September 15) says the gap between closed frontier models and best open-weights models has closed to 4.4 months. Moonshot AI's Kimi K3 scores three points behind Anthropic's Fable 5 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index at 30% of the cost, and Z.ai's GLM 5.2 scored within a point of Claude Opus 4.7 on Terminal-Bench 2.1. Eight of the top 10 OpenRouter models by August 2026 token volume provide open weights, though a Linux Foundation paper found open models earned only 4% of revenue. The report recommends open models as the default for routine workloads, reserving closed models for 8-12 hour expert tasks.

Ars Technica · AI · 19h agoAI industry1

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.