| ▲ | thereitgoes456 3 hours ago | |||||||
(EDIT: A child comment has refuted the AA score comments, AA runs using their own harness.) One of the new benchmarks is FrontierCode 2.0 by Cognition. AA seems to have accepted Cognition's benchmark scores without questioning, but they should have looked more closely. On this benchmark, Anthropic's models are run using Claude Code; OpenAI's using Codex, and Gemini is run using... Cognition's own Devin (not Antigravity). Thus its score is much lower than it should be, knocking ~3 points off its AA score. All open-source models are also inexplicably run using Devin, damaging their scores as well. This may even be intentional, if Cognition has beef with Google, since Antigravity was built using Windsurf's technology. But aside from that, it is to their advantage to make Anthropic/OAI look like leaders in the AI market. They are a company known to lie and exaggerate again and again, so I have trouble giving them benefit of the doubt. | ||||||||
| ▲ | shelfchair 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
I don't think this is relevant on AA's FrontierCode score. AA runs FrontierCode 2.0 benchmark using their own Stirrup agent harness [1]. [1] https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/frontiercode-2-0 | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | zurfer 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
What's the advantage for cognition? I would think it's the opposite as a more competitive frontier for llms makes the labs shed some margins and enable a broader ecosystem. | ||||||||
| ||||||||