Astra rebuilt it in 3D with barrel rolls, boosts, a boss battle and sound effects. Then I asked it to prepare the new demo video. Here’s the result 🔊

Made Starfall type game in Single Prompt with Astra (high) Demo Gameplay video also prepared in the same prompt.

I would like to clarify a few things: 1) The screenshot is my reaching out to Levent to coordinate our releases. I hope it’s clear from the message that we came in with the best possible intentions. 2) I never ever asked for Levent to be removed from authorship of his own work (as indicated by my text). I was surprised to learn during the call with Tristan that they had only solved Euler and not Navier-Stokes; after learning this we brainstormed possible paths forward. One option we discussed was that Tristan could be the lead author on a rewrite of OpenAI’s Navier-Stokes proof. It is in that context that I said “it would be simpler if Levent was not an Anthropic employee” because I felt it would be inappropriate for an Anthropic employee to author OpenAI’s work. Importantly it was admitted that internal Anthropic models had been used in their proof of Euler blowup; I therefore felt I could not consider Levent to be an independent academic. Another option I wanted to propose (but got cut short) is to offer access to our internal model so that they could try to finish their proof and bridge the gap between Euler and NS. Again I did not know how to navigate giving access to internal OpenAI IP to an Anthropic employee. 3) To reiterate it plainly: as my text clearly indicates, and as I said during our call, OpenAI's intention was to do everything possible to celebrate their mathematical achievements and the heroic efforts that they made on Euler. In the call I was immediately met with a litany of slander, including direct threats that if we were to announce Navier-Stokes he would immediately go to the press with a barrage of unfounded accusations. I refuted all these accusations but he replied “there is nothing you can do, I simply do not trust you”. I was confused why one would turn an incredible source for celebration (of their achievements!) into such bickering, which is when I said that I did not understand why one would risk their career [over unfounded accusations]. Genuinely, at that moment, I was trying to care for him and do a last ditch attempt to get a chance to give them all the credits that they deserve. I deeply apologize for this extremely poor choice of words, it is the opposite of what I was trying to convey. (I should say that I retracted them on the spot by the way.) 4) Overall, on a personal level, it was incredibly difficult to have these conversations. Levent refused to attend any of the meetings despite my repeated asking. As Sholto Douglas said, there will need to be coordination between Anthropic and OpenAI in the future; I felt I was doing a proxy negotiation with Anthropic while the Anthropic employee refused to directly participate.

We’re sharing a solution to the Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize Problem, one of the deepest problems at the frontier of mathematics. The proof was produced by a group of agents, using an OpenAI next-generation model significantly more capable than GPT-6 Astra. The problem concerns whether the description of smooth three-dimensional fluid motion modeled by the Navier-Stokes equations can break down. It has remained unresolved for roughly 90 years.

Announcing Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.3, upgrading Terminal-Bench to 4.0 and adding AutomationBench-AA, an agentic workflow automation benchmark with a private test set. This is a continuation of our rollout of Intelligence Index v5 Changelog (Index v4.2 → Index v4.3): ➤ Terminal-Bench: 2.1 → 4.0, completing our upgrade to the latest version of Terminal-Bench ➤ Replacing 𝜏³-Banking with AutomationBench-AA, our implementation of Zapier's business workflow automation benchmark We are continuing to prioritize keeping Intelligence Index as useful as possible by bringing forward a subset of the changes we had planned for Index v5. Each change in v4.2 and v4.3 stands on its own merits and brings the Index closer to real-world problem solving, adds more private test sets to prevent gaming, and reduces saturation Intelligence Index v4.3 raises the difficulty of agentic coding tasks and broadens the types of agentic workflows tested. Because we use a held-out test set for AutomationBench-AA, in collaboration with @zapier, the weight assigned to evaluations with private tasks or answers increases from 40% to 45%. Category weights are unchanged from v4.2: Agents 30%, Coding 20%, General 30%, Scientific Reasoning 20% Detailed changes: ➤ Upgraded Terminal-Bench 2.1 to 4.0: 66 multi-step tasks testing agents on tasks run in agent sandboxes driven via the terminal, including tasks involving software engineering, machine learning, science, and operations. The 4.0 update recalibrates compute and time allowances, and improves task instructions and verification. We have changed from the Terminus 2 harness to mini-SWE-agent, a minimal, model-agnostic harness. We will also be updating our Coding Agent Index, where we test model and harness pairs, to include Terminal-Bench 4.0 soon ➤ Replaced 𝜏³-Banking with AutomationBench-AA: Our implementation of Zapier’s AutomationBench tests agents on 657 business workflows across simulated applications such as Gmail, Slack, Salesforce, and Jira. Agents must complete task objectives while following business rules. AutomationBench-AA uses Zapier’s private set of 657 tasks, and is built on v1.0.6 Key results: ➤ Claude Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 Astra lead the Intelligence Index: Both Claude Fable 5.1 (max with fallback) and GPT-6 Astra (max) score 53 on Intelligence Index v4.3, followed by Claude Opus 5 (max, 51), Claude Fable 5 (with fallback, 50), Muse Spark 1.3 (max, 48) and GPT-5.6 Sol (max, 47) ➤ GLM-5.3 and Kimi K3 continue to lead open weights models (both at 44): GLM-5.3-Flash (42) is the third strongest open weights model, followed by Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (40) and DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 (max, 36) ➤ 4 labs occupy the Intelligence vs. Cost per Task Pareto frontier: OpenAI occupies the majority of the cost-efficiency frontier, with all five reasoning efforts of the recently released GPT-6 Astra offering the lowest Cost per Task at their respective levels of intelligence. Claude Fable 5.1 (xhigh, max, 53), GLM-5.3-Flash (42) and MiMo-V2.5-Pro (26) round out the rest of the frontier

since you guys loved the exploding tesla.. I used GPT-6 Astra to create a 3D website that pulls apart the male anatomy into 2,234 modeled pieces! we are in a renaissance of learning

Final results for Astra: 94%! 🤯 Also results for Gemini 3.8 Flash: 9%. Improvement over Gemini 3.6 Flash, but lower than Gemini 3.8 Flash. Astra seems to be a fundamental advance - at least according to this benchmark. Interestingly, it never returned a wrong answer. With Astra at 94%, this benchmark went from challenging to saturated in one go. Bad news for me, I will have to create harder problems. However, at the moment it is likely that all other models will get about 0% on harder problems.

"I want you to take over [complex pull request] and get it landed. This means I need you to: - Clone the branch. - Get it up to date. - Push your changes. - Babysit the pull request, addressing any feedback that comes in or any CI failures that occur. - Test your changes thoroughly with the tools available to you. When you are confident in the pull request as well as passing all CI and automated review steps, merge the PR." Usage depends on the complexity of the pull request and the amount of verification required to actually validate the changes.