While you're at it, feel free to send me $200 as well, I'll generate a crypto address ending with "AI".
(don't send anything, sharing only because of the base58 fun fact I didn't know)
These prices are just going to get raced to $0.
It's similar to how AirPods normalised all of us having $300+ headphones. All of us would have scoffed at the idea a decade ago.
They are talking about a much larger group of people.
Guess what, the big players are hoarding all the RAM and GPUs so that other people can't afford decent hardware. It's working out beautifully for them!
The reasoning chains could have been used, and the resulting combined model could easily and effectively have been distilled.
it's interesting that they're offering in the form of fixed cost subscription plans too. My impression was that the first party providers can do this because they api inference margins to the tune of 80ish percent. Anyone else orchestrating on top of these models have to pass through these costs or eat it themselves.
Does multiple vendors run this "single API" or how is this not replacing a single-vendor dependency for another single-vendor dependency?
This gets you that in a nice neat package, without the underlying tinkering mechanics.
If (big iff) the usage mechanics work out, then this is actually a really good anti-big-model strategy.
They'll be incentivized for your success, not token-maximizing for their investors.
The team is super smart too. What's not to like?
Wishing them the best on launch.
But their paid plans I'm not sure yet - planning to subscribe and can let you know.
Almost no chance it will be as generous as OpenAI though. They just don't have the money :-)
If cost becomes an even bigger problem being able to choose "best performance possible" or "strong but cost effective" will be useful.
This is ask a special orchestrator they built, which is in front of a bunch of models, which model would suit the request best.
Regular Fugu seems to be just "pick the best model and route the request there"
Fugu Ultra can generate like a little mini workflow/plan instead to achieve a result
1. Ask GPT to derive the math. 2. Ask Opus to check for implementation/security issues. 3. Ask Gemini to synthesize or resolve disagreement. 4. Return final answer.
I could be wrong but seems to be that at a glance, so I think it's more dynamic than OpenRouter Fusion.
> So basically... openrouter
:skull:
i now really wonder how many people of the public understood my thesis defense lol
Is there any official source that could confirms if Fable (or Mythos) is parallelized test-time compute (like GPT 5.5 Pro) or sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) transformer combined with a multi-agent, inference-time compute scaling architecture (Gemini 3.1 Deep Think)?
Basically, if you combine a bunch of near-frontier models (like GPT 5.5, etc) you can get performance that sometimes surpasses top line models like Claude's Fable.
Sakana seems to have a separate approach using a domain specific model to perform the model routing step.
We open sourced it all
and will be releasing a similar orchestrator next week on TrustedRouter
Looks like Fusion calls a bunch of models and then uses an LLM to synthesize the results, and pass to another model for final output.
Fugu looks like it's doing something different? Using an LLM earlier on in the flow as an orchestrator to decide which other LLMs to call. More coordinator than simply synthesizing results, and more "agentic".
It's interesting because it's all exposed behind a single OpenAI compatible endpoint (Responses API?) and so then presumably someone could use this for one of their single agents. Now you have agent-of-agents, nested in some sense. The token usage increases accordingly!