Video yükleniyor...
Video Yüklenemedi
JEV put System One models on the map. We think the category should be open. So we built Instinct. 87.45% accuracy vs Jev's 86.58%. 5.5x faster in our test. Up to 76% cheaper. All weights open. And it doesn't generate a single word. The demo below? Generated by our... show more
34,329 görüntüleme • 28 gün önce •via X (Twitter)
7 Yorum
Why build a model that doesn't talk? As agents move from chatting to acting, much of their work is choosing, not writing: → Which tool? → Approve or reject? → Route or escalate? → Automate or hand to a human? Yet we still make LLMs write an essay to pick one.
How it works: context + rules + options → calibrated probabilities No prose to generate. No JSON to parse. Accuracy tells you if a model is useful. Calibration tells you if you can trust it to act. 90% sure? Automate. Under 60%? Escalate.
Three models, all open-weight: Dual 4B, Tuned 4B and 27B. Or use our hosted API, free in preview. Benchmarks: 27B vs Jev 1.13.0, same 231 questions. Pricing: 27B is 30% cheaper than Jev; the 4B models, up to 76%.
Try it: Blog + test setup: Weights (tuned 4B): Maybe not every AI problem needs a model that talks. Some just need a model that decides.

My bet: a year from now, nobody will ask whether an AI writes well, only whether it can say "I'm not sure."

The no-generated-text part makes the output interface interesting. How do you help someone inspect a wrong decision and understand which input mattered, without turning the result back into a speculative explanation?

Impressive results — open weights, strong accuracy, and a big efficiency gain. The fact that the demo itself was generated by the agent makes it even more compelling.

