I've played with this a bit and it's ok. I'd place it somewhere around sonnet 4.5 level, probably below. But with this aggressive pricing you can just run 3 copies to do the same thing, choose the one that succeeded and still come out way ahead with the cost. Not as great as following instructions as Claude models and can get lost, but still "good enough".
I'm very happy with using it to just "do things". When doing in depth debugging or a massive plan is needed, I'd go with something better, but later going through the motions? It works.
> It exhibits consistent and stable results in tools such as Claude Code, Droid (Factory AI), Cline, Kilo Code, Roo Code, and BlackBox, while providing reliable support for Context Management mechanisms including Skill.md, Claude.md/agent.md/cursorrule, and Slash Commands.
One of the demos shows them using Claude Code, which is interesting. And the next sections are titled 'Digital Employee' and 'End-to-End Office Automation'. Their ambitions obviously go beyond coding. A sign of things to come...
> MiniMax has been continuously transforming itself in a more AI-native way. The core driving forces of this process are models, Agent scaffolding, and organization. Throughout the exploration process, we have gained increasingly deeper understanding of these three aspects. Today we are releasing updates to the model component, namely MiniMax M2.1, hoping to help more enterprises and individuals find more AI-native ways of working (and living) sooner.
This compresses to: “We are updating our model, MiniMax, to 2.1. Agent harnesses exist and Agents are getting more capable.”
A good model and agent harness, pointed at the task of writing this post, might suggest less verbosity and complexity— it comes off as fake and hype-chasing to me, even if your model is actually good. I disengage there.
I saw yall give a lightning talk recently and it was similarly hype-y. Perhaps this is a translation or cultural thing.
so when MiniMax released a pretty capable model, you choose to ignore the model itself and just focus a single sentence they wrote in the release note and started bad mouthing it.
That they are still training models against Objective-C is all the proof you need that it will outlive Swift.
When is someone going to vibe code Objective-C 3.0? Borrowing all of the actual good things that have happened since 2.0 is closer than you'd think thanks to LLVM and friends.
Why would they not? Existing objective-c apps will still need updates and various work. Models are still trained on assembler for architectures that don't meaningfully exist today as well.
I'm very happy with using it to just "do things". When doing in depth debugging or a massive plan is needed, I'd go with something better, but later going through the motions? It works.
One of the demos shows them using Claude Code, which is interesting. And the next sections are titled 'Digital Employee' and 'End-to-End Office Automation'. Their ambitions obviously go beyond coding. A sign of things to come...
This compresses to: “We are updating our model, MiniMax, to 2.1. Agent harnesses exist and Agents are getting more capable.”
A good model and agent harness, pointed at the task of writing this post, might suggest less verbosity and complexity— it comes off as fake and hype-chasing to me, even if your model is actually good. I disengage there.
I saw yall give a lightning talk recently and it was similarly hype-y. Perhaps this is a translation or cultural thing.
is it a cultural thing?
“We're excited for powerful open-source models like M2.1 […]”
Yet as far as I can tell, this model isn’t open at all. Not even open weights, nevermind open source.
When is someone going to vibe code Objective-C 3.0? Borrowing all of the actual good things that have happened since 2.0 is closer than you'd think thanks to LLVM and friends.