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].
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.
Yeah, agreed. A model or primitive on its own has no moat and frankly limited value. The paradigm behind "System One" models on the other hand is potentially huge.
Skimming the post, it seems to argue for reconstructing the very rigidity that LLMs let us escape, and that very aspect of LLMs is what made them useful and explode in popularity so much.
Yes, the best way to think of a general classifier like this is like a smart switch statement. Essentially a "JEV" like thing becomes a sort of programming primitive. Once you see it, it's hard to not get excited.
But even if others surpass them and make better solutions, the fact that nobody was able to see it before typesafe is a testament of what they might be able to come up with next.
I sound like a fanboy but I swear I 'm unaffiliated with typesafe. I was building my own version of this way before they announced JEV (mine was ALE and it was mentioned here on HN for a bit), in use for VR gaming (so one can give commands to NPCs with voice and supports multiple commands in sequence in a single pass), but I missed the "killer usecase" of being a new primitive, like everyone else.
TLDR: There's a lot of value in thinking ahead and seeing the future. The clones are nice and exciting but they give me "I could have built this first, yes but you didn't" vibes. I hope they manage to keep it up and push the space forward again
> 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.
Precisely this. Should be top comment.
Also, the model moat is understated as training data for these purposes also accrues to the winner, which due to the first mover advantage as well as the distribution advantage you speak of, is typesafe. In contrast to relatively open coding data. Openai anthropic also have that, but like you say its a different business.
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.
I feel like half the game now is marketing though, so I can see why they'd be attractive to an investor. Maybe if they scale they can come up with something.
It’s the classic SV flip. You scale your investors, your executive team, your sales people, hire a bunch of engineering you don’t need, then sell the company. The company’s product doesn’t matter, the company is the product.
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.
> 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
But why? If the simplest way to achieve Jev's capabilities (accuracy, cost, latency) is by fine tuning a small model, what makes you think that this isn't exactly what Typesafe did?
And even if they did something different - what makes you think it was a good idea in the first place, given how easy their results were replicated without any "secret sauce"?
My point is that it’s not replicated. You replicate the accuracy, but not the other properties. The Jev-competitors only proved that you can get or beat the accuracy, nothing about the other properties. Especially the “zero hallucination” output and the (if it works how the documentation make it sound) prompt injection resistant architecture. You can’t get that with a fine tuned LLM.
"SalesRLAgent: A Reinforcement Learning Approach for Real-Time Sales Conversion Prediction and Optimization"
Jev is a general-purpose thing. That is a specific-purpose thing. General-purpose thing is not the same as specific-purpose thing. What makes people think these are the same thing? I don't get it.
Bullshit. Below is copypaste from the paper in the section that outlines the "key contributions" of the paper. As you can see, it is focused on one specific problem: predicting sales conversions. So if you were to take this system and use it for some other task ("evaluate customer mood" for example), it would not work. Because, again, it is not describing a general purpose solution. It is describing a solution that is specific to one problem: sales conversions.
Copypasta:
• A reinforcement learning architecture specifically designed for sales conversation analysis and conversion
prediction
• A synthetic data generation pipeline leveraging GPT-4O to create diverse and realistic sales conversations
• Novel state representation techniques using Azure OpenAI embeddings (3072 dimensions) with sales-specific
features
• A meta-learning approach enabling the system to express confidence in its predictions based on conversation similarity to training data
• Integration mechanisms providing real-time guidance within existing sales platforms
This is a fine-tuned model. The author even states that the model is competitive with Jev only if fine-tuned on the evaluation at hand.
Literally misses the point of Jev, which you don't need to fine-tune to get accuracy nor - and no other model has this - some sort of out of sample calibration
And even if you do have that, you haven't made your own Jev, because Jev is a general-purpose thing, whereas what you have built is a specific-purpose thing.
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.
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.
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
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.
Everyone appears surprised by this news. It’s clear that they don’t have a product with some incredible moat. But they clearly have good engineering and product people that came up with a product people wanted. On top of that they have very strong marketing muscle that took the AI world by storm. And as far as I’ve seen, they still lead in some part of the latency-quality (-cost) curve?
They may well be a good team to throw money behind if you are hoping to bet on a new AI lab.
This is all due to 40% marketing, 50% execution and 10% credentials (with the founders being associated with creating ChatGPT).
If anyone else came up with the same concept on a Reddit thread (they have) it no-one would care without those characteristics even if you are "first".
Rebranding, execution, marketing, ex-<big_name_company> and mostly importantly, hype is what gets the investors scrambling into throwing money at you.
I really don't understand how this can be. I have sat in fund raising meetings with VCs in toronto and my experience is that there is shit ton of due diligence at the tech level. a product which has no moat, was already available, was duplicated within a couple of days is valued at 7B - i thought we were past the peak of the hype cycle.
There is a belief that there is going to be at least one more breakout success in startup AI labs - rather than OpenAI and Anthropic being the final word - and so investors want to own a part of whichever companies seem most likely to be that success. If you start from that premise and stack rank what company that might be, you could quite reasonably put TypeSafe toward the top of that list right now, based on the people at the company and the ability they've demonstrated to ship stuff that people care about and cut through the noise in a crowded space.
Also the situation isn't static. Investors know that the act of writing them a $870M check itself increases the chance that they'll be one of the winners, because that will attract more talent, customers, and funding to the company in a self-reinforcing cycle. And investors know that other investors know that, and that someone is going to write them that $870M check, so to some extent they're forced to think of the company as having already been successful at the fundraising and already having that momentum boost.
Only a small number of investors in the world can play the game at this level, because you have to smart enough to be right (often enough), and you have to be established enough to see the deals (be on every CEO's short list - because CEOs are only going to seriously pitch 5-10 VCs on a hot deal, if that). Otherwise you can't pull it off. Martin Casado and his team are among the few that can and I think their results reflect that.
> sat in fund raising meetings with VCs in toronto
There's your problem. The single biggest thing every Canadian VC is trying to figure out is "why are these people asking us for money when if they were any good they'd be in the US" so by simply asking them you're already signalling something bad. A lot of their enthusiasm for process is based on this suspicion and also that the entire industry is just a way for various professional services to extract most of the investment money, since that's the game they're so used to playing with the government.
There are some Canadian VCs earnestly trying to improve but they are overwhelmingly hilariously conservative and focused on unimportant signals over reality. This is one (but not all) of the major factors that drive basically every remotely ambitious Canadian company to run a corp in Delaware and go for funding from the US. The tax situation is the other major contributor.
The lack of a “moat” is mostly irrelevant because success is not decided by who can or can’t be cloned. TypeSafe invented[1] a new approach that became wildly popular almost immediately, if they can do that once, they can probably do it again. Venture capital is big bets, of course TypeSafe is going to fail, that’s inevitable, but if it has even a 10% chance of capturing 1/10th the market cap of OpenAI then it is a great investment! Plus, money means nothing any more, they’ve raised less at a lower valuation than Instinct, a personal assistant.
[1] not really but they did some innovative things and popularized a concept
Its not normal time in SF/Bay Area. For better or worse, VCs in this city/region are thinking very differently on AI bets.
I think the key differentiator was that a team found a whitespace in what ChatGPT was doing, main comes from the same pedigree and team is as conscious of marketing as their product. SF VCs love these out of the box challengers, and people are claiming to replicate doesn't seem to matter.
The amount raised feels surprising but again entire SF/US AI scene is primarily "add moar layers and GPU" one trick ponies at this point.
This is the difference between a "hot" company in a good ecosystem like SF. Yeah, the funds can take 2-3 months to do their due diligence. By the time it's done, the round has closed, and then what good is the due diligence?
A very major part of Jev is the cost and speed. Yes, classification is/will be a commodity business, just like LLMs are, and similarly there is no moat only production cost and pricing.
Yes, anyone can wrap a decisions API around an LLM, but so what? If you want to compete then you need to compete on price, and it's not clear if OpenAI and/or Anthropic are able or willing to do that without building a custom architecture, and even then if a race to the bottom on pricing is what they really want to pursue.
I'm not sure if OpenAI have announced pricing for their Decisions API, but they have said it's based on Luna which costs $0.10/M input, not even remotely competitive with Jev's $0.04/M input, which I'd expect has some headroom built into it.
Assuming that the architecture behind Jev is not just an LLM, and gives them some inherent efficiency/cost and speed advantage, then the question is whether OpenAI and Anthropic really want to duplicate this and have a race to the bottom on pricing for what may be a large part of the business automation market they are addressing. Is that what they want as their IPO pitch - we're selling potatoes, and think can grow them cheaper than Typesafe ?
Probably the “nobody ever got fired for buying IBM” effect. If there’s a use case for the tech, buying the most well known implementation of it will always be useful for people who want credit without the threat of blame. This funding is based entirely on the hype and a bet that TypeSafe will have name recognition.
Isn't this the exact opposite? When people were saying that saying, the connotation was that IBM was an old, stodgy company that had been around forever. (These days I often think "No one got fired for choosing AWS"). Typesafe is a hot new startup that could, to my eyes, easily burst into flame or die in the next year.
> there is shit ton of due diligence at the tech level
Maybe in some cases. But counterexample, courtesy of The Information:
"It took just 15 minutes for Blue Owl executives to agree to invest up to $10 billion in future projects alongside real estate firm Primary Digital Infrastructure during their first in-person meeting two years ago, said Primary chief investment officer Bill Stein."
Yeah your problem and my problem and others around here is the word you just said there... "Toronto." Canadian investors are risk averse as hell. And cheap. They can make more money helping sell bitumen or real estate, why bother with arcane tech?
And if you could put the words "Bay Area" or "Stanford" or "San Francisco" next to your name... different story.
The VCs are not buying the idea or the tech, they're investing in the people. And they invest in a formula that has already worked for them before to make big coin. Prop somebody up, let them hire like crazy, and then get them get acquired, and then cash out. They don't care if it fails if they can make it succeed 1/200 times.
Canadian investors want you to have already succeeded before they help you succeed a tiny bit more.
You are used to dealing with companies where the money bags hold the power.
When you are in the middle of a boom cycle, it's the hottest company that has the advantage. Investing in them is a matter of privilege and they get to pick and choose.
Also, Canadian VCs are bottom of the barrel as far as VCs go.
Whether a product has network effects makes a difference.
I would argue Dropbox did have a moat. It didn't merely store your data. It made it possible to make backup efficiently when bandwidth wasn't all that good.
Reading "no moat" so often is also tied to the fact those companies happen to be getting surreal valuations, at a quite early stage, showing no profit, building a tech that doesn't seem difficult to reproduce.
Has anyone actually eval'd the other open source options against Jev on real world tasks rather than looking at benchmarks?
I see a lot of people parroting the quick open source alternatives as being better on the benchmarks, but it's such a new category that I'm not convinced we have solid benchmarks.
I'm hoping a company releases an internal eval benchmark for these options. I'm sure some of the open source ones are solid in some cases, but would love to see more reliable data.
Only just now I realized that "TypeSafe AI" are the people behind Jev, and "System One" isn't the company name, as I assumed, but a larger project label.
Jev does seem to have become the Kleenex of decision models. Is brand recognition worth $7.5B? There are lots of other decision models out there that perform at or near jev-level (laya, gliner 2.5 decide, even embedding gemma 2) that you can also run locally, and honestly I think this kind of model makes the most sense running locally as well. Maybe if TypeSafe can ship fast they can stay the default. Guess we'll find out.
I just started experimenting with the decision models. I spun up Laya on a VM with a couple of vCPU and 6GB of RAM. I get the results in about half a second. No need for GPUs or tons of memory.
I am integrating it into the product I am building and to me it doesn't seem like there is much need to go with a SaaS for this since the requirements are so light. I just can run it in Cloud Run and get all of the scale I'll ever need, and I get to tell my customers their data never leaves my environment.
Whether they can compete on decision models or not, TypeSafe showed that a lot of the market had missed something important. With this much money, they have a lot more chances to discover other important things that are missing.
Same thing was said about Character AI, Cohere, etc. Companies started by the authors of the "Attention is all you need" paper. Look how that went... the team gets thrown around a lot as if it's the magic bullet. There is no magic bullet.
interestingly , it destroy the landscape of Chinese models.
Unless china takes leadership in frontier space the picture is next :
1. cheap workhorses for classification, routing, other scenarios : Jev
2. coding agents with less erros : Anthropic/Openai, etc.
3. Science /Legal/Medical : A mixture of Jev+Anthropic scenarios
We've tested the decisions API against Jev at work and it's worse in various dimensions. Costs more, higher error rates, slower, and the answers are worse.
A lot of people are shouting about how Jev hasn't actually differentiated itself, but I question how much folks are actually experimenting with what's out there before coming up with an opinion.
For us, it's cleae that OpenAI rushed this out to meet the hype in the market right now without having a product that actually meets the bar Jev has set.
We released an Apache-2.0, open-weight 4B decision model that scores above Jev 1.13 on JevBench's composite score (72.5 vs 71.5) and is currently the top open model there: https://benchmarkheaven.com/jev-models . Newer models coming even larger than beat Jev in intelligence as well.
- Same contract as Jev: state + typed questions in, calibrated probabilities out, one forward pass, no generated tokens.
- Your data never leaves your environment, and there's no per-call fee.
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...
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.
https://seldon-ai.com/blog/fronter-llms-are-semantic-interpr...
But even if others surpass them and make better solutions, the fact that nobody was able to see it before typesafe is a testament of what they might be able to come up with next.
I sound like a fanboy but I swear I 'm unaffiliated with typesafe. I was building my own version of this way before they announced JEV (mine was ALE and it was mentioned here on HN for a bit), in use for VR gaming (so one can give commands to NPCs with voice and supports multiple commands in sequence in a single pass), but I missed the "killer usecase" of being a new primitive, like everyone else.
TLDR: There's a lot of value in thinking ahead and seeing the future. The clones are nice and exciting but they give me "I could have built this first, yes but you didn't" vibes. I hope they manage to keep it up and push the space forward again
Here if anyone is interested: https://pantel.is/projects/ai-gaming-companion/
Precisely this. Should be top comment.
Also, the model moat is understated as training data for these purposes also accrues to the winner, which due to the first mover advantage as well as the distribution advantage you speak of, is typesafe. In contrast to relatively open coding data. Openai anthropic also have that, but like you say its a different business.
I give it to them for creating the hype (good marketing), and for making a useful classifier. Not sure what they would scale rapidly though.
Actually they stolen the idea from a paper.
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.
But why? If the simplest way to achieve Jev's capabilities (accuracy, cost, latency) is by fine tuning a small model, what makes you think that this isn't exactly what Typesafe did?
And even if they did something different - what makes you think it was a good idea in the first place, given how easy their results were replicated without any "secret sauce"?
and https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.01237
"SalesRLAgent: A Reinforcement Learning Approach for Real-Time Sales Conversion Prediction and Optimization"
Jev is a general-purpose thing. That is a specific-purpose thing. General-purpose thing is not the same as specific-purpose thing. What makes people think these are the same thing? I don't get it.
Copypasta:
• A reinforcement learning architecture specifically designed for sales conversation analysis and conversion prediction
• A synthetic data generation pipeline leveraging GPT-4O to create diverse and realistic sales conversations
• Novel state representation techniques using Azure OpenAI embeddings (3072 dimensions) with sales-specific features
• A meta-learning approach enabling the system to express confidence in its predictions based on conversation similarity to training data
• Integration mechanisms providing real-time guidance within existing sales platforms
• Extensive comparative evaluation demonstrating significant performance improvements over LLM-based approaches
Literally misses the point of Jev, which you don't need to fine-tune to get accuracy nor - and no other model has this - some sort of out of sample calibration
no, you can't, and it's unclear why you would think this.
*if you have a sufficiently sized and quality dataset for the specific classifications you're targeting
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.
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.
such an arrangement can end up beneficial to the VC firm
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?
Jev is 42$/B but OpenAI is 100$/B token.
By all means, become an A16Z LP.
They may well be a good team to throw money behind if you are hoping to bet on a new AI lab.
https://benchmarkheaven.com/jev-models
According to this benchmark, Jev is currently trailing Quyet-1.0-Large and a few other hastily put-together LLM-based decision API-like setups.
If anyone else came up with the same concept on a Reddit thread (they have) it no-one would care without those characteristics even if you are "first".
Rebranding, execution, marketing, ex-<big_name_company> and mostly importantly, hype is what gets the investors scrambling into throwing money at you.
I have no faith in the technique if it cannot do the basics (i.e. not real probabilities, the confidence for coin flip outcomes)
tried it a couple of days ago here: https://jevplayground.com
the "not real probability" disclaimer only appears after you get a result
Also the situation isn't static. Investors know that the act of writing them a $870M check itself increases the chance that they'll be one of the winners, because that will attract more talent, customers, and funding to the company in a self-reinforcing cycle. And investors know that other investors know that, and that someone is going to write them that $870M check, so to some extent they're forced to think of the company as having already been successful at the fundraising and already having that momentum boost.
Only a small number of investors in the world can play the game at this level, because you have to smart enough to be right (often enough), and you have to be established enough to see the deals (be on every CEO's short list - because CEOs are only going to seriously pitch 5-10 VCs on a hot deal, if that). Otherwise you can't pull it off. Martin Casado and his team are among the few that can and I think their results reflect that.
There's your problem. The single biggest thing every Canadian VC is trying to figure out is "why are these people asking us for money when if they were any good they'd be in the US" so by simply asking them you're already signalling something bad. A lot of their enthusiasm for process is based on this suspicion and also that the entire industry is just a way for various professional services to extract most of the investment money, since that's the game they're so used to playing with the government.
There are some Canadian VCs earnestly trying to improve but they are overwhelmingly hilariously conservative and focused on unimportant signals over reality. This is one (but not all) of the major factors that drive basically every remotely ambitious Canadian company to run a corp in Delaware and go for funding from the US. The tax situation is the other major contributor.
[1] not really but they did some innovative things and popularized a concept
I think the key differentiator was that a team found a whitespace in what ChatGPT was doing, main comes from the same pedigree and team is as conscious of marketing as their product. SF VCs love these out of the box challengers, and people are claiming to replicate doesn't seem to matter.
The amount raised feels surprising but again entire SF/US AI scene is primarily "add moar layers and GPU" one trick ponies at this point.
no, it was not
> was duplicated within a couple of days
was it already available or did it become available in a couple of days? it cant be both (neither is true, actually)
Yes, anyone can wrap a decisions API around an LLM, but so what? If you want to compete then you need to compete on price, and it's not clear if OpenAI and/or Anthropic are able or willing to do that without building a custom architecture, and even then if a race to the bottom on pricing is what they really want to pursue.
I'm not sure if OpenAI have announced pricing for their Decisions API, but they have said it's based on Luna which costs $0.10/M input, not even remotely competitive with Jev's $0.04/M input, which I'd expect has some headroom built into it.
Assuming that the architecture behind Jev is not just an LLM, and gives them some inherent efficiency/cost and speed advantage, then the question is whether OpenAI and Anthropic really want to duplicate this and have a race to the bottom on pricing for what may be a large part of the business automation market they are addressing. Is that what they want as their IPO pitch - we're selling potatoes, and think can grow them cheaper than Typesafe ?
Acquired in the vc sense… not literal exit.
Maybe in some cases. But counterexample, courtesy of The Information:
"It took just 15 minutes for Blue Owl executives to agree to invest up to $10 billion in future projects alongside real estate firm Primary Digital Infrastructure during their first in-person meeting two years ago, said Primary chief investment officer Bill Stein."
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/blue-owl-eyes-new-de...
AI seems to make some people lose their damned minds.
And if you could put the words "Bay Area" or "Stanford" or "San Francisco" next to your name... different story.
The VCs are not buying the idea or the tech, they're investing in the people. And they invest in a formula that has already worked for them before to make big coin. Prop somebody up, let them hire like crazy, and then get them get acquired, and then cash out. They don't care if it fails if they can make it succeed 1/200 times.
Canadian investors want you to have already succeeded before they help you succeed a tiny bit more.
When you are in the middle of a boom cycle, it's the hottest company that has the advantage. Investing in them is a matter of privilege and they get to pick and choose.
Also, Canadian VCs are bottom of the barrel as far as VCs go.
Anyone know when this "have no moat" meme appeared? Even 5 years ago I don't remember seeing it on every post.
I would argue Dropbox did have a moat. It didn't merely store your data. It made it possible to make backup efficiently when bandwidth wasn't all that good.
Reading "no moat" so often is also tied to the fact those companies happen to be getting surreal valuations, at a quite early stage, showing no profit, building a tech that doesn't seem difficult to reproduce.
I see a lot of people parroting the quick open source alternatives as being better on the benchmarks, but it's such a new category that I'm not convinced we have solid benchmarks.
I'm hoping a company releases an internal eval benchmark for these options. I'm sure some of the open source ones are solid in some cases, but would love to see more reliable data.
[1]: https://tn1ck.com/blog/jevdit
I am integrating it into the product I am building and to me it doesn't seem like there is much need to go with a SaaS for this since the requirements are so light. I just can run it in Cloud Run and get all of the scale I'll ever need, and I get to tell my customers their data never leaves my environment.
VC is a hits business. Just one hit pays for 9 that didn't work out.
I actually resized my browser thinking maybe something weird was going on with flex-wrap or overflow or whatever it is.
Unless china takes leadership in frontier space the picture is next :
1. cheap workhorses for classification, routing, other scenarios : Jev 2. coding agents with less erros : Anthropic/Openai, etc. 3. Science /Legal/Medical : A mixture of Jev+Anthropic scenarios
https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/decisions
A lot of people are shouting about how Jev hasn't actually differentiated itself, but I question how much folks are actually experimenting with what's out there before coming up with an opinion.
For us, it's cleae that OpenAI rushed this out to meet the hype in the market right now without having a product that actually meets the bar Jev has set.
We released an Apache-2.0, open-weight 4B decision model that scores above Jev 1.13 on JevBench's composite score (72.5 vs 71.5) and is currently the top open model there: https://benchmarkheaven.com/jev-models . Newer models coming even larger than beat Jev in intelligence as well.
- Same contract as Jev: state + typed questions in, calibrated probabilities out, one forward pass, no generated tokens. - Your data never leaves your environment, and there's no per-call fee.
Weights, card and run instructions: https://huggingface.co/h2oai/h2o-lightning-4b