It's weird because two days after Jev was released there were a dozen decision models, a week later there are several dozen, mostly open source, OpenAI's own Decisions API [1] beats it, and you can easily finetune your own [2]. But as others have pointed out, this doesn't matter.

EDIT: As I wrote this Microsoft just released their own Decision-1 model [3].

[1] https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/decisions

[2] https://unsloth.ai/docs/basics/train-your-own-decision-model...

[3] https://commandline.microsoft.com/microsoft-decision-1-model...

Yup, I also released an open source classifiers tool, Jeffy. It comes with 68 pre trained classifiers which run and train on CPU alone. They run locally and are faster than Jev/Laya/Decisions. And they can do things like label email, all the way to even playing Doom

* https://jeffyclassify.com/

* https://playground.jeffyclassify.com/#doom

* https://github.com/nicobrenner/jeffy

Decision models have the potential to have an even larger impact on the Real World than LLMs have to this point (which is obviously quite large). But the model itself matters less than the product experiences you build around the model, and its very likely that the incumbent labs are treating the area as something more like "oh yeah I guess we can ship that and then forget about it" rather than investing in what building business processes on decision models looks like. Unlike full language models, I don't think the primary business of Typesafe will be serving Jev at API pricing; it'll look a lot more like putting Jev at the center of a much more expensive suite of software.

There's the potential for an inverse LLM play. In contrast with LLMs, all that seems to matter is the model, and the products the labs build around the models are all really samey and boring; the same left panel list of agents, main view agent conversation, right hand extra context, and we're now in the era of everyone creating the same cutesey furry friend on top of all this tech.

But Jev established the branding and investors are betting that Jev will be acquired by one of the big labs soon - and if they aren't, the money itself can create a positive outcome by allowing Jev to hire incredible talent and scale the company rapidly.

Most of them appear to be small LLM’s fine tuned for the role.

That’s a different set of properties in terms of size, cost, and latency. Jev (apparently, not like I’ve seen its insides) is extremely cheap, extremely fast, doesn’t cost any output tokens as it speaks the output natively, can’t get the output wrong because it speaks the format natively, and (presumably based on the docs), the context is separate from the question, meaning it should be immune (or at least highly resistant) to prompt injection attacks.

It’s not just about the accuracy of the result, it’s a collection of all the properties that make Jev interesting.

Jev took years to develop, I strongly doubt that a copycat that was put together within days after Jev’s release will be able to match it on a sun of its properties. Even if fine tuned LLMs can outperform it on raw accuracy.

> you can easily finetune your own

no, you can't, and it's unclear why you would think this.

Counterpoint: my work has already allowed us to call and test Jev. Those others? Who knows when, if ever.

Isn’t the OpenAI decisions API basically just Luna cosplaying a decisions model and pretending the confidence score isn’t just a hallucination?

> OpenAI's own Decisions API [1] beats it

Have you heard that from a different source than OpenAI? From what I'd heard other models haven't gotten close, and the open source ones are like running gemma4 E2B against Opus 5.5- sure, the API calls go in and are returned the same but the quality isn't close.

You are right in terms of how fast competition created alternatives.

But, for OpenAI this is not a primary business, for open source models as well, so they will not be chasing the market and customers to buy their product and promise them to maintain it.

TypeSafe will do all this, they will try to understand your use cases and then solve your pain point, while others are providing raw material.

A major VC could type safe ai money, then head to a larger AI company looking to raise their series E+ and demand they acquire typesafe as part of their funding allotment.

such an arrangement can end up beneficial to the VC firm

OpenAI's "Decisions" library has this in requirements:

To run the SDK examples below, use these OpenAI SDK versions or later: Python 3.26.0,

I thought Pythin 3.15.0 just came out, 3.26.0 must be really far off?

Investments aren’t made because the product is amazing, they’re made because there’s a compelling exit scenario. Engineers don’t want to hear this but more generally, the critical success factors for a business aren’t product or engineering they’re relationships i.e. sales and team dynamics. If technical excellence dictated business outcomes in tech Salesforce wouldn’t exist for example.

> OpenAI's own Decisions API [1] beats it

Jev is 42$/B but OpenAI is 100$/B token.

I mean I'm already ditching my Apple stocks because soon AI will be able to replicate iOS and MacOS.

"It doesn't matter"

By all means, become an A16Z LP.

You are assuming that the VCs have done their due diligence. For a "hot" company like Typesafe AI, most likely little due diligence was done. That's the way it's played.

Nothing beats nepo, brother.