At this point drawing these Pelicans must be in the training data sets.

We got an overachiever, here. Kimi sounds like a teacher's pet kind of name.

Too bad they didn't put equal effort into the pelican's legs and feet. Left leg paralyzed and not moving, and right ankle flipping around in alarming fashion!

Genuine question, what's the goal of posting this on almost every single new model thread here on HN? I may be old and grumpy but to me it got old a while ago, and is closer to a low effort Reddit comment

Not entirely true. Google released Gemma 4 models recently. Allen AI releases open Olmo models. However, you're right that the Chinese open models seem to be much better than others - Qwen 3.* models especially are punching above their weights.

All great technological advancements have come through opening up technology. Just look at your iPhone. GPS, the internet, AI voice assistants, touchscreens, microprocessors, lithium-ion batteries, etc all came from gov't research (I'm counting Bell Labs' gov't mandated monopoly + research funding as gov't) that was opened up for free instead of being locked behind a patent.

Private companies will never open up a technological breakthrough to their competitors. It just doesn't make sense. If you want an entire field to advance, you have to open it up.

This update makes Kimi K2.6 the strongest open multimodal AI model. (No affiliation with Kimi.)

Here's the aggregated AI benchmark comparison for K2.6 vs Opus 4.6 (max effort).

- Agentic: Kimi wins 5. Opus wins 5.

- Coding: Kimi wins 5. Opus wins 1.

- Reasoning & knowledge: Kimi wins 1. Opus wins 4.

- Vision: Kimi wins 9. Opus wins 0.

Please note that the model publisher chooses their benchmarks, so there's a bias here. Most coding and reasoning & knowledge benchmarks in their list are pretty standard though.

I'm genuinely so grateful for them

$200/m minimum to use Claude would bankrupt my country's white collar labor market

additional humor is the open in openai

I wonder if there's a strategy behind all of this on China's side. I know the CCP uses a direct hand in many affairs in China, but is there an actual coordinated effort to compete with, or sabotage the West?

This is not in antithesis. My limited personal experience is that I wrote code under OSS licenses primarily because of my past communist believes and current left-wing and redistribution of wealth point of view. This is not to provide the simple equation of: communist China is not interested in money, but also is hard to believe that there is no cultural connection among those things. Single Chine persons want to win, but also they have a different POV on what the collective means, compared to US. Also there is the obvious fact that in this moment China is more interested in winning technologically in AI, more than economically, since, I believe, they more collectively realized before many others that LLMs are eventually commoditized in the current form, in the long run. One could assume that a breakthrough could give some lab a decisive advantage, but so far we assisted to a different reality: it looks like AI is not architecture-bound (like LeCun and others want us to believe, but so far they mis-interpreted LLMs at every step) but GPU bound, and the data-boundness is both a common ground for all, and surpassable via RL in many domains. So, if this is true, it is not trivial for any single lab to do so much better. And indeed as far as we observed right now folks with enough engineers, GPUs, money, can ship frontier models, and in China even labs with a lot less GPUs can still do it at a SOTA level. For me, Italian, this is also a protective layer. After Trump the US looks like a very unstable partner from which to relay in an exclusive way for a decisive technology, and given that Europe is slow to put the money in this technology to have frontier things at home, China is a huge and shiny plan B for us.

It's only humorous if you live in an American bubble. Knowledge sharing has always been a part of Chinese culture. Only Americans try to make it proprietary and monetize it.

Maybe open source == communism

We are at the point where uncontrolled capitalism collides with humanity.

I do wonder where we go from here.

It’s good, but it’s not quite Claude level. And their API has constant capacity issues.

Price/quality is absolutely bonkers though. I loaded $40 a few weeks/months ago and I haven’t even gone through half of it.

Dirt cheap on openrouter for how good it is, too. Really hoping that 2.6 carries on that tradition.

I remember when the first K2 dropped

It was the best creative writer by some distance

It's also one of the few models that seem capable of drawing an SVG clock

https://clocks.brianmoore.com/

Kagi has it as an option in its Assistant thing, where there is naturally a lot of searching and summarizing results. I've liked its output there and in general when asked for prose that isn't in the list/Markdown-heavy "LLM style." It's hard to do a confident comparison, but it's seemed bold in arranging the output to flow well, even when that took surgery on the original doc(s). Sometimes the surgery's needed e.g. to connect related ideas the inputs treated as separate, or to ensure it really replies to the request instead of just dumping info that's somehow related to it.

Maybe because it's a bit of like unleashing a chaos monkey on your codebase? I tried it locally (K2.5 72B) and couldn't get anything useful.

> And if that’s the case, would it happen much quicker since technology has been speeding up year by year?

I wouldn't expect this.

Historically we've had a roughly exponential rate of shrinkage. If we keep that same exponential going, we should expect the amount of time to shrink "room full of compute" to "pocket full of compute" to be equal.

And recently we've fallen behind that exponential rate of shrinkage. And this is rather expected because exponentials are basically never sustainable rates of growth.

I still expect that technological progress is getting faster year by year, and that we're still shrinking compute, but that's not necessarily enough for the next shrinking to take less time than when we had exponential progress on shrinking.

I tried it on openrouter and set max tokens to 8192, and every response is truncated, even in non-thinking mode. Maybe there's an issue with the deployment, but in your link also shows it generates tons of output tokens.

With the previous generation? Yes. With 10T mythos-level models? Not even close.

Yes. You’re using Kimi if you use the composer-2 model in cursor. It’s great. Plan in state of the art. Execute in composer-2

Kimi has their own subscription that works basically the same as all the others.

https://www.kimi.com/code

The threshold for "worth building" is much lower than that for a lot of people.

Worth building with VC capital maybe. A small team putting together an app that pulled in $20M per year should be pretty pleased with that.

And the Kimi team broke the Anthropic ToS by training off Opus outputs and… nothing happened?

I'll definitely put this into the "good problem to have" category.

it feels like between K2.6 and GLM5.1 we have Sonnet level intelligence at roughly Haiku level pricing. Which is great.

I'm hoping that Anthropic will be able to release an updated Haiku soon and they really need something that is 1/3-1/5 the price of Haiku to compete with the truly cheaper models (Gemma-4 is really good at this range).

I think you should worry more about NSA, FBI, ICE and other 3 letter US agencies monitoring your sessions

Are there any protections from industrial espionage when using Anthropic, Cursor, Gemini, or OpenAI?

This should erase any doubt that AI Labs are making $$$ on API inference.

Kimi 2.5 (which this is based on) is served at $0.44 input / $2 output by a ton of different providers on OpenRouter, 2.6 will certainly be similar.

That's about 11X less than Opus for similar smarts.

K2.6-code-preview was a minor, but noticeable jump, especially in a long running testing task and prior Moonshot releases have been the only models that I'd consider a suitably competitive replacement for Anthropic models. The way they approach tool calls, task inference and adherence is far closer than any other providers output, similar to how GLM models map far more closely to OpenAIs releases. Whether task adherence, task assessment, task evaluation or task inference, K2.5 got closer to Opus 4.5 than any other model (but was still behind overall).

I will have to test this full release of K2.6 but could see it serve as a very good overall drop-in replacement for Opus 4.5 and Opus 4.6 at 200k across the vast majority of tasks.

I will say however that Opus 4.7 Max 1M has been a very significant jump in performance for me, especially in tasks beyond 120k token where I'd argue it is now the most reliable model in continued task adherence and tool calling without compaction. Ironically, my initial experience was less than pleasant as on XHigh I found task adherence to have regressed even with less than 1/10th of the context window having been used.

Am very interested in K2.6s compaction strategy (which appears to be very simply all things considered) and how it performs beyond 100k tokens. As it stands, only OpenAI models have made compaction for long running tasks work well, though overall, GPT-5.4 is still inferior in my tests regardless of context window over other models such as Opus 4.6 1m and Opus 4.7 1m. Haven't gotten around to testing Opus 4.7 200k and will have to do this to properly assess K2.6 fairly, but I'd be very surprised if K2.6 truly beat Opus 4.7 200k given the jump I have experienced.

It's a Kimi K2.5 finetune, there was some drama about this a few weeks ago.

You can request access here: https://huggingface.co/datasets/cais/hle

The test data is purposely difficult to access to reduce the chance of leaking it into the training dataset.

A trillion parameters is wild. That's not going to quantize to anything normal folks can run. Even at 1-bit, it's going to be bigger than what a Strix Halo or DGX Spark can run. Though I guess streaming from system RAM and disk makes it feasible to run it locally at <1 token per second, or whatever. GLM 5.1, at 754B parameters, is already beyond any reasonable self-hosting hardware (1-bit quantization is 206GB). Maybe a Mac Studio with 512GB can run them at very low-bit quantizations, also pretty slowly.

Quite curious how well real usage will back the benchmarks, because even if it's only Opus ballpark, open weights Opus ballpark is seismic.

Huh, so the metadata says 1.1 trillion parameters, each 32 or 16 bits.

But the files are only roughly 640GB in size (~10GB * 64 files, slightly less in fact). Shouldn't they be closer to 2.2TB?

While I'm skeptical of any "beats opus" claims (many were said, none turned out to be true), I still think it's insane that we can now run close-to-SotA models locally on ~100k worth of hardware, for a small team, and be 100% sure that the data stays local. Should be a no-brainer for teams that work in areas where privacy matters.

It doesn't beat Opus 4.6, no way, don't be fooled by benchmarks.

Opus is clearly a sidegrade meant to help Anthropic manage cost, so I would say they may have it if it actually beats 4.6

If it's open then there will be multiple providers. I see it is on OpenRouter now.

Why use "their API"? It is an open model, use any provider on OpenRouter

What's the privacy/data security like? I can't find that on that page.

Edit: found it.

> We may use your Content to operate, maintain, improve, and develop the Services, to comply with legal obligations, to enforce our policies, and to ensure security. You may opt out of allowing your Content to be used for model improvement and research purposes by contacting us at membership@moonshot.ai. We will honor your choice in accordance with applicable law.

Section 3 of https://www.kimi.com/user/agreement/modelUse?version=v2

"sufficient resources" is going to be a lot of resources. I doubt this will run on even something like a Strix Halo or DGX Spark, even at 1-bit quantization. You'll need a 256GB or 512GB Mac Studio, or a monster GPU situation, to run it locally, I think, though quantized versions aren't showing up yet, to be sure.

How are the usage limits compared to Anthropic?

Absolutely. Thing is, I'd actually rather take a worse model than Anthropic, so long as it's consistent. Like, a model that can successfully do well for 80% of tasks is much better than Anthropic that some days will be 90% other 60%.

When you have a consistent model, you can incorporate fixes/prompts into your workflow to make it behave better. But this, always having to guess if Anthropic has quantised the model today, wastes so much time and effort.

Codex has a lot better limits, and 5.5 will be out soon

> dumbing down their models,

This should be so easy to prove if it were true. Yet there is none of it, just vibes.

Still, your other two points are completely valid. The opaqueness of usage quotas is a scam, within a single month for a single model it can differ by more than 2x. And this indeed has been proven.

Anthropic has done horrible PR and investors should be livid.

Had the same experience using it for a refactor of a 3k LOC monolith via the Pi harness and OpenRouter. After burning through $8 worth of tokens it left the code in a broken state, the "thoughts" were full of loops where it would edit the monolith, then refer back to the original file, not finding it and then overwriting its changes with "git checkout --"

We'll have to wait for the results on Artificial analysis

They're comparing to Opus 4.6, not 4.5. It was Anthropic's best public model up until last week.