WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:05.740 So DeepSeek version 4 Pro is officially out today. Now you might be confused because this model was 00:00:05.740 --> 00:00:10.680 technically out but it was in general availability but this is the official release meaning that they 00:00:10.680 --> 00:00:15.200 have trained the model a little bit more and produced a stronger version of the model that 00:00:15.200 --> 00:00:19.900 is available today. Now if I were to summarize today's release in one simple sentence it is that 00:00:19.900 --> 00:00:25.000 the price to performance is becoming a very very important thing because not only do we have a new 00:00:25.000 --> 00:00:30.660 model from the DeepSeek team, the SpaceX team also dropped Grok 4.6 and both of these models 00:00:30.660 --> 00:00:36.520 are competing with the best frontier labs at a fraction of their cost. Let's start with Grok 4.6 00:00:36.520 --> 00:00:41.180 and one thing I'm going to say is that I'm genuinely surprised by the SpaceX team. I'm not 00:00:41.180 --> 00:00:45.860 trying to glaze them or Elon Musk or anything. I was just very critical of this lab. In 2025, 00:00:46.240 --> 00:00:51.380 they dropped Grok 4 and other models like that but I wasn't really you know mind blown with their 00:00:51.380 --> 00:00:56.240 performance because they're pretty they're pretty subpar compared to any of the other labs out there 00:00:56.240 --> 00:01:01.680 but in 2026 it looks like things have kind of changed a little because grok 4.5 was quite 00:01:01.680 --> 00:01:08.280 competitive based off what it cost and grok 4.6 is actually not too bad if we take a look at the 00:01:08.280 --> 00:01:13.300 benchmarks for example if we start with the artificial analysis intelligence index this 00:01:13.300 --> 00:01:20.080 model achieves a 61 and fable 5 is at 62 now what's really important to remember is that once again 00:01:20.080 --> 00:01:25.460 this model is quite cheap compared to Fable 5. This is about $2 per million input tokens 00:01:25.460 --> 00:01:31.900 and $6 per million output tokens. And Fable 5 sits at $10 per million input tokens and $50 00:01:31.900 --> 00:01:36.700 per million output tokens. And this is why you start to appreciate this release a little bit 00:01:36.700 --> 00:01:42.240 more. It might not beat the performance of the best models. It's matching them. Even GPT 5.6 00:01:42.240 --> 00:01:47.540 sold, which is a pretty capable model, and this is set at max on the artificial analysis index. 00:01:47.540 --> 00:01:54.660 this model achieves 61 and grok 4.6 61 so it ties it and it's much cheaper and then even on all of 00:01:54.660 --> 00:02:00.420 these other benchmarks for example the gdp valve one it actually beats fable 5 which is at 1741 00:02:00.420 --> 00:02:06.900 and then gpt 5.6 it's at 1728 i'm not sure why they didn't choose opus 5 as well but i guess 00:02:06.900 --> 00:02:11.460 they wanted to choose the quote-unquote strongest model lineup from each lab and they chose fable 00:02:11.460 --> 00:02:16.140 5 for anthropic which is fair and then deep software engineering one which is a critical 00:02:16.140 --> 00:02:23.720 benchmark this model doesn't beat fable 5 or gpt 5.6 soul but it gets close to it it's 65.9 and 00:02:23.720 --> 00:02:29.040 fable 5 sits at 70 but if you're getting results that are pretty close and the model is five times 00:02:29.040 --> 00:02:34.080 cheaper i wouldn't be too disappointed with this result and then same thing with cursor bench 3.2 00:02:34.080 --> 00:02:42.240 the model achieves 69.9 funny number and fable 5 sits at 70.5 so once again closer and grok 4.6 00:02:42.240 --> 00:02:48.200 beats GPT 5.6 soul. The same thing with the Frontier Code, it gets close to Fable 5 beats 00:02:48.200 --> 00:02:53.940 GPT 5.6 soul. So yeah, this model is actually available in Cursor. So the partnership with 00:02:53.940 --> 00:02:58.960 Cursor or I guess the acquisition has really helped SpaceX make some strides in the AI space 00:02:58.960 --> 00:03:04.120 this year. And Grok build is something that, you know, maybe not a lot of us have been using so 00:03:04.120 --> 00:03:09.480 far, but it's probably going to be another platform like Codex or Cloud Code that we start to use. 00:03:09.480 --> 00:03:14.580 but obviously cursor is quite strong as well so you have options available for you to use them in 00:03:14.580 --> 00:03:20.240 both and one thing to note is that they're offering two times usage inside grok build and cursor for 00:03:20.240 --> 00:03:25.320 the first week so if you just want to try it out see what you feel about it then you know it might 00:03:25.320 --> 00:03:29.760 be worth trying it out right now because you get double the usage in the first week now if we were 00:03:29.760 --> 00:03:34.520 to take a look at some of the outputs that people have been generating with grok 4.6 what we're 00:03:34.520 --> 00:03:40.180 looking at right now is a Falcon 9 booster return sequence simulation and this was done in a single 00:03:40.180 --> 00:03:47.620 HTML file and as I said if you expected to get this type of output from Grok in 2025 you would 00:03:47.620 --> 00:03:52.140 be kind of surprised because you wouldn't expect something like this to be generated with Grok but 00:03:52.140 --> 00:03:55.960 now it looks like we have to start taking the Grok team a little bit more serious because 00:03:55.960 --> 00:04:01.160 this output is quite competitive and obviously we're just looking at a simulation and we're just 00:04:01.160 --> 00:04:05.940 basing it off of a visual representation but if the model is able to produce something like this 00:04:05.940 --> 00:04:11.340 consistently then I would expect a lot of people to start adopting Grok because number one it is 00:04:11.340 --> 00:04:15.660 cheaper than the other labs at least at the moment because we don't know if this pricing strategy is 00:04:15.660 --> 00:04:20.360 going to be sustainable for the SpaceX team in the long run but at least for now their models are 00:04:20.360 --> 00:04:25.280 definitely cheaper compared to the others and as I mentioned this model excelled at the artificial 00:04:25.280 --> 00:04:32.580 analysis index. This model jumped to probably number four model. It's tied to GPT 5.6. It's 00:04:32.580 --> 00:04:36.560 pretty much similar. So you could say number three as well. But the models before that are 00:04:36.560 --> 00:04:43.540 Fable 5 and Opus 5, which are only above the model by about a 1% or a 2% difference. So yeah, 00:04:43.580 --> 00:04:48.640 even on this intelligence index, which if you're not familiar with, has nine evaluations. So on 00:04:48.640 --> 00:04:54.220 all of these evaluations, it's kind of matching almost Fable 5 performance, which is crazy to see. 00:04:54.220 --> 00:04:59.760 Before we continue, we just launched the Universe of AI newsletter. If you want to stay on top of 00:04:59.760 --> 00:05:05.060 AI news without having to hunt for it, link is in the description. Don't miss out. And what you see 00:05:05.060 --> 00:05:10.980 on screen right now is a racing game that Grok 4.6 built. And based off of this post, the model took 00:05:10.980 --> 00:05:15.780 about one minute and it was a five word prompt, which was a create a simple racing game in HTML. 00:05:16.280 --> 00:05:21.200 So if you're able to generate something like this easily using Grok 4.6, I think a lot of people 00:05:21.200 --> 00:05:27.160 will be happy. And this is a more detailed analysis of what it costs to run GPT 5.6 on 00:05:27.160 --> 00:05:32.120 the artificial analysis index and what it produced, meaning the output. Both of these models, if you 00:05:32.120 --> 00:05:38.120 remember, scored 61 on the artificial analysis index. Now to run the whole test with GPT 5.6, 00:05:38.480 --> 00:05:45.500 it costs about 2.8k. And then with Grok 4.6, it costs about 1.1k-ish. And this tells you that 00:05:45.500 --> 00:05:50.420 you're getting similar level of performance at half the cost. So yeah, this is a big release for 00:05:50.420 --> 00:05:54.280 the SpaceX team because they just proved once again that they are a lab that you seriously 00:05:54.280 --> 00:05:59.900 start into considering especially in 2026 and I'm going to talk more about DeepSeek version for Pro 00:05:59.900 --> 00:06:05.600 GA but basically what we're seeing today is that both of these releases kind of emphasize the fact 00:06:05.600 --> 00:06:10.520 that performance and all above that is the price at what you're getting for that performance is 00:06:10.520 --> 00:06:15.880 becoming more and more important for all users because we see many labs now focusing on creating 00:06:15.880 --> 00:06:21.380 the best model at the cheapest cost. Last year in 2025, most of the labs were just focused on, 00:06:21.440 --> 00:06:26.680 I would say, creating the strongest model. Yes, cost was important, but I think most of the times 00:06:26.680 --> 00:06:31.620 the frontier labs, meaning OpenAI Anthropic, were kind of more lenient on that fact because they 00:06:31.620 --> 00:06:38.020 didn't have as strong of a competition. Intelligent models that are maybe not always ahead of OpenAI 00:06:38.020 --> 00:06:42.560 Anthropic, but match their performance at a fraction of the cost. So yes, price to performance 00:06:42.560 --> 00:06:49.800 ratio is becoming a critical I would say indicator in 2026. Now this is the updated benchmark chart 00:06:49.800 --> 00:06:54.120 after the release of the new model and one thing you'll see across the board is that it matches 00:06:54.120 --> 00:06:58.360 the top level performance of many of the models. The one thing interesting over here is that they 00:06:58.360 --> 00:07:02.960 haven't put Opus 5 here for some reason. There is Fable 5 here that we can compare this model 00:07:02.960 --> 00:07:08.900 against but one thing you'll notice is that DeepSeek, remember this model costs 43.5 cents 00:07:08.900 --> 00:07:14.940 per million input tokens and 87 cents per million output tokens while the other models all over here 00:07:14.940 --> 00:07:20.140 are way more expensive than that. So the first thing if you look at Terminal Bench 2.1 the model 00:07:20.140 --> 00:07:26.126 scores 87.9. The older version of the model was 72.1 and the flash version was 00:07:26.126 --> 00:07:29.526 of the model was 72.1, and the Flash version, which we got last week, was 82.7. And what's 00:07:29.526 --> 00:07:37.146 crazy is that Fable 5 is 88. Yes, 88. So this model is only 0.1% behind Fable 5. And then on 00:07:37.146 --> 00:07:43.606 the Cyber Gym which is Cybersecurity the model actually beats Fable 5. Fable 5 sits at 83.1 00:07:43.606 --> 00:07:49.546 while DeepSeek version 4 Pro the new one that we got today is at 83.3. Now if this tells you 00:07:49.546 --> 00:07:54.706 something is that this model is once again really geared at Cybersecurity. We saw the Flash model 00:07:54.706 --> 00:07:58.966 also be geared towards Cybersecurity and becoming a model that was quite capable in that area 00:07:58.966 --> 00:08:04.986 and we're seeing the same thing today with the new version 4 Pro which sits at 83.3 outperforming 00:08:04.986 --> 00:08:10.486 Fable 5 on the benchmark. On deep software engineering this model is not beating Fable 5 00:08:10.486 --> 00:08:17.786 because Fable 5 sits at 70 but the model achieves 62.7 which is ahead of GLM 5.2 and a bit behind 00:08:17.786 --> 00:08:24.186 Kimi K3 which sits at 67.5 but one thing again this is a big jump compared to the preview version 00:08:24.186 --> 00:08:29.686 of the model which was at 12.8 so yeah they have really trained this model and have improved it on 00:08:29.686 --> 00:08:34.706 the back end because we can clearly see in this deep software engineering benchmark. And there's 00:08:34.706 --> 00:08:40.266 couple of other benchmarks but one key benchmark that this model excels at is the automation bench 00:08:40.266 --> 00:08:48.346 where the model achieves 31.8 and fable 5 29.1 so once again the model outperforms fable 5 now this 00:08:48.346 --> 00:08:53.166 is a fraction of the cost as i mentioned this is 43 cents and 87 cents for input and output 00:08:53.166 --> 00:08:59.606 respectively versus fable 5 which is at 10.50 so yes if we look at the terminal bench for example 00:08:59.606 --> 00:09:05.106 we are seeing this model achieve a result which is 0.1 behind the best model out there fable 5 00:09:05.106 --> 00:09:12.766 and the pricing is insane to look at 43 cents versus 10 dollars 87 cents versus 50 dollars per 00:09:12.766 --> 00:09:19.446 million input tokens so when we turn that into a fraction this model is 57 times cheaper and earlier 00:09:19.446 --> 00:09:24.586 last week i think i made a video about how deep seek version 4 pro was going to achieve a result 00:09:24.586 --> 00:09:28.866 like this because there was an investor report that leaked and when i saw the pricing where it 00:09:28.866 --> 00:09:34.206 said that it was going to match Fable 5 or even outperform it and be at 57 times cheaper per cost. 00:09:34.366 --> 00:09:38.906 When I was reading their investor report, I didn't really believe it. But today it is proven because 00:09:38.906 --> 00:09:43.786 at least on the benchmark so far, yes, I'm just saying the benchmarks, we are seeing similar level 00:09:43.786 --> 00:09:49.086 performance. Now, if this model actually performs like that in production, it's a little too early 00:09:49.086 --> 00:09:53.506 to tell yet. We still would have to give a couple of weeks and see how it's performing in the long 00:09:53.506 --> 00:09:58.206 run. Because sometimes on the release date, the models perform quite good. But over time, 00:09:58.206 --> 00:10:02.406 they kind of deteriorate in their quality. So we hope DeepSeek doesn't do that. Historically, 00:10:02.486 --> 00:10:06.726 they haven't done that. But let's just see. Just going to put it out there because right now we're 00:10:06.726 --> 00:10:11.886 basing this off of benchmarks. But that's it for today's video. Make sure you guys are subscribed 00:10:11.886 --> 00:10:17.666 to the channel. Follow our new newsletter as well at universeofai.beehive.com. As well, 00:10:17.726 --> 00:10:22.906 subscribe to the main channel, World of AI, and support us on X by following the Universe of AIZ 00:10:22.906 --> 00:10:25.706 as well. Until then, I'll see you guys in the next video.