Google is preparing to expand its Pixel Buds 2a line with two new colour options, according to leaked official images.
The earbuds, currently available in Hazel and Iris, will soon be offered in light grey and pink shades, expected to be branded as ‘Fog’ and ‘Berry’. The new finishes are tipped to arrive alongside the Pixel 10a in February or March, and are said to maintain the same $129 price point and feature set.
The Pixel Buds 2a were first introduced in August last year and have since been limited to two colour choices. The addition of Fog and Berry will broaden the appeal of Google’s mid‑range earbuds, which are powered by the Tensor A1 chip and include active noise cancellation, transparency mode and Bluetooth 5.4 support. The earbuds themselves carry IP54 certification, while the charging case is rated IPX4, ensuring resistance to dust and splashes.
Design remains unchanged, with the new colours simply refreshing the look rather than altering the hardware. The earbuds continue to be made with at least 41% recycled materials and ship in 100% plastic‑free packaging, aligning with Google’s sustainability commitments.
Advertisement
Advertisement
The timing of the leak suggests Google will unveil the new colours alongside the Pixel 10a launch, rather than waiting for Google I/O later in the year. This would mirror previous product cycles, where accessory updates have been tied to new smartphone announcements.
The Pixel Buds 2a sit in the competitive mid‑range market, priced below premium rivals such as Apple’s AirPods Pro and Samsung’s Galaxy Buds 3 Pro. While the hardware remains unchanged, the introduction of new colours could help Google attract style‑conscious consumers who felt limited by the original Hazel and Iris options.
These buds will continue the tradition of offering a balance of affordability and advanced features, with ANC and transparency mode making them suitable for commuting and everyday use. Google’s decision to expand the colour palette demonstrates its intent to keep the earbuds relevant as the Pixel ecosystem grows.
After years of rumors and leaks, Apple’s iPhone Fold is finally inching closer to a launch, and according to Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman, arguably the most reliable Apple oracle, the foldable is on track for a September 2026 debut.
Earlier this week, Nikkei Asia raised eyebrows by flagging development snags with the iPhone Fold, particularly during testing. Gurman, however, pushes back, reporting that despite the device’s complex design, Apple remains committed to its September launch window.
MajinBuofficia
Is the iPhone Fold’s launch on track?
The supply at launch might be tighter than for other iPhones, but the launch timeline itself stands. Does that mean that the purported iPhone Fold will be available to purchase alongside the iPhone 18 Pro models in September 2026? It doesn’t seem so.
While Apple intends to reveal or showcase the iPhone Fold alongside the iPhone 18 Pro and the iPhone 18 Pro Max in September this year, shipping may follow later. In his newsletter, Gurman drew a parallel between the rumored foldable and the iPhone X.
MajinBuofficia
When will Apple chip the iPhone Fold?
Apple announced the revolutionary iPhone X in September 2007, but deliveries began in November. The Fold, at least for now, could follow a similar path, potentially hitting hands as late as December this year.
In exchange for the long wait, buyers could get a book-style foldable that unfolds from a 5.5-inch outer screen to a 7.8-inch inner screen that mimics the aspect ratio and look of the iPad mini, has a 4.5-4.8 mm side profile, runs on a new Apple chip, and has a dual-rear-facing camera array.
Advertisement
Pricing, however, is the most sensitive aspect of the iPhone Fold, which, in my opinion, can make or break the company’s product lineup. For now, the general consensus on the internet points toward a starting price of over $2,000 for the baseline variant.
Adding another item on the list of things you probably shouldn’t be trying at home, we got [Brainiac75] giving magnetic levitation a shot using an unmodified induction cooktop and aluminium foil. Although not ferromagnetic, it turns out that aluminium can be made to do interesting things in the magnetic field created by the powerful electromagnet that underlies the induction principle.
Interestingly, although there’s a detection circuit in these units that should detect the presence of an appropriate (ferromagnetic) object, it appears that even a thin sheet of aluminium foil can completely deceive it. The effect is that of a force pushing the foil away from the cooktop’s surface, with foil areas that remain close enough to the ferrite bars on the electromagnet even heating up enough to begin melting the aluminium.
After a bit of fun with various shapes and types of aluminium objects, the video moves on to a scientific explanation of what’s going on. The surface resistivity of the foil is similar enough to ferromagnetic cookware that it fools the sensor, after which the skin effect of aluminium induces a current. This then does the typical Lorentz force things.
The four astronauts aboard the Integrity spacecraft now headed home from their historic arc around the moon really are like the rest of us: Sometimes they reach for their smartphones to snap photos.
For the Artemis II mission, iPhone 17 Pro Max phones have been used to capture photos inside the capsule of the astronauts pondering the views of Earth and working on mission objectives. (Technically, NASA refers to them as PCDs – personal computing devices.)
Smartphones were cleared for use in space for the first time in February. In a post on X, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman wrote, “We are giving our crews the tools to capture special moments for their families and share inspiring images and video with the world.”
Advertisement
Artemis II mission commander Reid Wiseman looks out the window at Earth. The photo was taken with an iPhone 17 Pro Max.
NASA
Early in the mission, Commander Reid Wiseman snapped a pair of photos looking out the window with Earth behind him. Mission specialist Christina Koch and her dynamic curls in zero-gravity also captured a pensive view looking out over the planet. All three were made using the front camera — because wouldn’t you want to grab a selfie if you were in space?
Advertisement
Artemis II mission specialist Christina Koch looks out the window at Earth.
NASA
The iPhone 17 Pro’s rear cameras are pulling their own weight during the mission, too. During the live broadcast as the crew approached the moon, Wiseman took a photo of the moon’s surface using the iPhone’s telephoto camera at 8x zoom. He turned the screen toward one of the video cameras mounted inside the spacecraft, creating an image of the moon’s surface alone against the darkness of the unlit cabin, with the iPhone’s signature rounded edges and Dynamic Island cutout at the top.
Advertisement
Artemis II mission commander Reid Wiseman holds up his iPhone 17 Pro Max showing a photo of the moon he captured using the telephoto camera at 8x zoom.
NASA
The main photo workhorses on this trip are a Nikon D5 DSLR and a Nikon Z9. The D5 is a model that has been used on several space excursions, and the Z9 is onboard as an experimental camera.
For NASA missions, every piece of equipment must be tested and certified, which is why the previously-approved D5 has a secure spot. Cameras must be resistent to space environmental factors like radiation, and safe if they’re floating around the capsule. However, the iPhones in space now are off-the-shelf models, according to a report by Jackie Watties of CNN.
The moon flyby was especially photo-intensive, with astronauts switching places several times so that two were always at windows with cameras and relating what they could see with their eyes. This photo of mission specialist and Canadian Space Agency astronaut Jeremy Hansen taking images using one of the Nikon cameras shows how some windows have camera shrouds attached. The shroud ensures that light from the interior isn’t reflected in the glass.
Advertisement
Artemis II mission specialist Jeremy Hansen takes photos of the moon through a window shroud using a Nikon camera. The picture of him was captured using an iPhone 17 Pro Max.
NASA
In a particularly relatable photo, Hansen is also using the front-facing camera of a white iPhone 17 Pro — as a portable mirror while he shaves. As the (modified) saying goes, the best selfie screen is the one you have with you.
Advertisement
Artemis II mission specialist Jeremy Hansen uses an iPhone 17 Pro as a mirror while shaving.
NASA
The iPhone 17 Pro isn’t the first Apple product to go into space. Crew members have taken iPods, iPads and AirPods on missions since the Space Shuttle era. The Mac Portable even went up on a shuttle (and revealed that its trackball in zero-G isn’t the best option).
An Apple representative didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
A New York Times analysis found Google’s AI Overviews now answer questions correctly about 90% of the time, which might sound impressive until you realize that roughly 1 in 10 answers is wrong. “[F]or Google, that means hundreds of thousands of lies going out every minute of the day,” reports Ars Technica. From the report: The Times conducted this analysis with the help of a startup called Oumi, which itself is deeply involved in developing AI models. The company used AI tools to probe AI Overviews with the SimpleQA evaluation, a common test to rank the factuality of generative models like Gemini. Released by OpenAI in 2024, SimpleQA is essentially a list of more than 4,000 questions with verifiable answers that can be fed into an AI.
Oumi began running its test last year when Gemini 2.5 was still the company’s best model. At the time, the benchmark showed an 85 percent accuracy rate. When the test was rerun following the Gemini 3 update, AI Overviews answered 91 percent of the questions correctly. If you extrapolate this miss rate out to all Google searches, AI Overviews is generating tens of millions of incorrect answers per day.
The report includes several examples of where AI Overviews went wrong. When asked for the date on which Bob Marley’s former home became a museum, AI Overviews cited three pages, two of which didn’t discuss the date at all. The final one, Wikipedia, listed two contradictory years, and AI Overviews confidently chose the wrong one. The benchmark also prompts models to produce the date on which Yo Yo Ma was inducted into the classical music hall of fame. While AI Overviews cited the organization’s website that listed Ma’s induction, it claimed there’s no such thing as the Classical Music Hall of Fame. “This study has serious holes,” said Google spokesperson Ned Adriance. “It doesn’t reflect what people are actually searching on Google.” The search giant likes to use a test called SimpleQA Verified, which uses a smaller set of questions that have been more thoroughly vetted.
A crescent Earth sinks behind the moon’s disk in a wide-angle version of the Artemis 2 crew’s “Earthset” picture. (NASA Photo)
A day after the Artemis 2 mission’s historic lunar flyby, NASA has released a stunning set of high-resolution images documenting Earthset and Earthrise, a solar eclipse that set the moon aglow, and other views of the lunar far side and the astronauts who took the pictures.
The photographs were taken during a seven-hour lunar observation period at the farthest point of the Orion space capsule’s 10-day odyssey. The mission marked the first crewed trip around the moon since Apollo 17 in 1972, and the farthest-ever voyage by space travelers (252,756 miles from Earth, and more than 4,000 miles beyond the moon).
The Earthset photo was captured just as our home planet was sinking beneath the lunar horizon, followed about 40 minutes later by a picture of Earth rising above the horizon on the other side of the moon. The pictures rekindled the spirit of NASA’s original Earthrise photo, taken by astronaut Bill Anders during Apollo 8’s round-the-moon mission in 1968.
As Artemis 2’s astronauts prepared to take their own Earthrise photo, NASA astronaut Christina Koch said she was inspired by the original. “I had the photo up in my room as a kid, and it was part of what inspired me to keep working hard to achieve things I dreamed about,” she said.
The original Earthrise is one of the best-known photos from the Apollo era, but it took decades to confirm who actually took the shot. Anders wasn’t the sort of person to make a fuss over attribution. After a long career at NASA, at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in the diplomatic corps and in private industry, he settled down in Western Washington and founded the Heritage Flight Museum in Burlington, Wash. Two years ago, he died in a plane crash in waters off the San Juan Islands at the age of 90.
Artemis 2’s four astronauts — Koch, NASA mission commander Reid Wiseman, pilot Victor Glover and Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen — were scheduled for off-duty periods today as Orion coasted toward Friday’s Pacific Ocean splashdown. The astronauts took questions from the crew of the International Space Station during a ship-to-ship chat.
“Basically, every single thing we learned on ISS is up here,” Koch said. The big difference? “I found myself noticing not only the beauty of the Earth, but how much blackness there was around it,” she said. “It just made it even more special. It truly emphasized how alike we are, how the same thing keeps every single person on planet Earth alive. … We have some shared things about how we love and live that are just universal. The specialness and preciousness of that really is emphasized when you notice how much else there is around it.”
Meanwhile, NASA’s image-processing team put in long hours overnight to work on the pictures taken by Artemis 2’s astronauts during the flyby. Pictures are being posted to NASA’s lunar flyby gallery. Check out these highlights, and click on the images to feast your eyes on higher-resolution views:
Advertisement
This Artemis 2 image shows the moon fully eclipsing the Sun. From the crew’s perspective, the moon appears large enough to block the sun completely, creating nearly 54 minutes of totality and extending the view far beyond what is possible from Earth. The dark lunar disk is surrounded by a glowing halo of scattered sunlight. Also visible are stars, typically too faint to see when imaging the moon. The faint glow of the near side of the moon is visible along the left edge of the disk, due to illumination by Earth’s reflected light. (NASA Photo)The Artemis 2 crew – Christina Koch (top left), Jeremy Hansen (bottom left), Reid Wiseman (bottom right) and Victor Glover – used eclipse glassesto protect their eyes at key moments during the solar eclipse. This was the first use of eclipse glasses at the moon for safe viewing of a partial solar eclipse. The glasses weren’t needed during the eclipse’s total phase. (NASA Photo)This image shows the sun beginning to peek out from behind the moon as the eclipse transitions out of totality. Only a portion of the moon is visible in frame, its curved edge revealing a bright sliver of sunlight returning after nearly an hour of darkness. Space artist Don Davis posted a processed version of the image that brings out details of the sun’s corona. (NASA Photo)Artemis 2’s Earthset picture, captured as Earth sank beneath the lunar horizon, is reminiscent of the classic Earthrise picture that was taken by Apollo 8 astronaut Bill Anders in 1968. Earthset came at the beginning of a communications blackout for the Artemis 2 crew, and was followed 40 minutes later by Earthrise and the resumption of communications. (NASA Photo)Our home planet appears as a delicate crescent in Artemis 2’s Earthrise photo, captured as the Earth emerged from behind the lunar disk. The moon itself is shrouded in darkness on the right half of the image. (NASA Photo)This photo, taken just before the Artemis 2 crew began their official lunar observation period, zeroes in on a 600-mile-wide impact crater known as Orientale Basin. The black patch in the center of the crater is a mass of ancient lava that punched through the moon’s crust in an eruption billions of years ago. Orientale Basin lies along the transition between the near and far sides and is sometimes partly visible from Earth. The small, bright crater to its left is Byrgius, which has 250-mile rays extending out from its basin. (NASA Photo)The heavily cratered terrain of the eastern edge of the South Pole-Aitken Basin is seen with the shadowed terminator – the boundary between lunar day and night – at the top of the image. The South Pole-Aitken Basin is the largest and oldest basin on the moon, providing a glimpse into an ancient geologic history built up over billions of years. NASA is targeting the moon’s south polar region for the Artemis program’s first crewed lunar landing, which is scheduled for no earlier than 2028. (NASA Photo)Artemis 2 pilot Victor Glover and mission specialist Christina Koch peer out of the darkness of Orion’s cabin to observe the moon and acquire images during the lunar flyby. Over the course of about seven hours, the astronauts took turns looking out Orion’s windows as they flew around the moon’s far side. At closest approach, they came within 4,067 miles of the lunar surface. (NASA Photo)
The newly announced Netflix Playground is an all-in-one app designed to give children a curated gaming experience built around familiar cartoon characters. The streaming giant describes it as an ever-growing library of instantly playable games for kids aged 8 and under. Read Entire Article Source link
At the height of the muscle car era, Buick made a very rare vehicle. This Buick came with an amazingly powerful engine that set it apart from most others of its type. This Buick muscle car was called the Buick GSX. The GSX was a higher-performance evolution of the GS, or Gran Sport, moniker that Buick had used since it first shoehorned a 401-cubic-inch “nailhead” engine from the larger Wildcat into the intermediate-sized Skylark in 1965. The Buick GSX definitely qualified as having one of the classic muscle car engines that made tons of torque.
Without a doubt, the 455-cubic-inch engine in the GSX did make a huge amount of torque. Even though the base 455 in the GSX was rated at 350 horsepower, which has generally been acknowledged as severely underrated to keep the car insurance underwriters calm, it was also rated at 510 lb-ft of torque, the highest-listed torque rating during the muscle-car heyday.
Advertisement
The Buick GSX was made during a three-year period, during which the fortunes of the muscle cars would both rise and fall. The GSX’s run started in 1970, which could be considered the peak year for American muscle cars, particularly those from General Motors, and ended in 1972. A total of 678 GSX examples were produced in 1970, with just 124 in 1971 and an even lower 44 in 1972. And then the GSX was done, with only 846 units having ever been produced.
Advertisement
What was so special about the GSX?
In reality, the 1970 Buick GSX was essentially a package of appearance items that was applied to the 1970 GS model, which came with either the standard 350-horsepower 455 or the 360-horsepower Stage 1 engine. The buyer had a choice of two exterior colors: the unique Saturn Yellow and the non-exclusive Apollo White.
The GSX also received a front chin spoiler in black, a Buick-branded hood tach originally popularized on Pontiac’s GTO and Grand Prix, a rear spoiler that sat atop the trunk lid, body-colored racing-type mirrors and headlight bezels, a padded steering wheel, and, of course, the two distinctive broad hood stripes, complemented by the narrower stripe running along the body sides from front to rear and crossing at the rear spoiler. A firmed-up suspension called the “Rallye ride package” used gas shocks, sway bars, stiffer springs and bushings, and power front discs to improve the Buick GSX’s handling.
The 455-cubic-inch Buick GSX motor could be upgraded with the Stage 1 package, which added larger valves, a higher-compression cylinder head, a more aggressive camshaft, an upgraded four-barrel Rochester Quadrajet carburetor, and a retimed distributor. This made it one of the most powerful Buick engines, ranked by horsepower. Transmission options were either a three-speed Turbo Hydramatic or a four-speed manual. Performance numbers for the 1970 Buick GSX Stage 1, as performed by Motor Trend, were a quarter-mile time of 13.38 seconds at 105.5 mph. Pretty fast.
Advertisement
What happened to the Buick GSX in 1971 and 1972?
The 1971 Buick GSX saw some changes, as both emission regulations and the heavy hand of the insurance industry began to rein in performance. General Motors required all of its vehicles to run on regular gasoline, which lowered the standard 455’s compression ratio from 10:1 to 8.5:1, while the Stage 1 lost a full two points of compression. Horsepower dropped accordingly, from 350 to 315 in the standard 455 and from 360 to 345 in the Stage 1. One more change that Buick made to the GSX for 1971 and 1972 was the availability of a smaller, lower-powered engine — a 350-cubic-inch mill with a four-barrel carburetor producing 260 horsepower in 1971. Instead of the original two colors of Saturn Yellow and Apollo White, an additional nine colors became available.
1972 marked the final year for this fading muscle car, now available in 12 colors, even though total production amounted to just 44 cars. Power was also down, thanks to the use of “net” horsepower numbers, which lowered the output of the Stage 1 455 engine to 270 horsepower, the standard 455 engine to 250 horsepower, and the 350 engine to just 195 horsepower.
Advertisement
The Buick GSX is a distinctive muscle car that lived during both the best and the worst times of the muscle car era. Its rarity makes it one of the classic American muscle cars worth every penny.
Is China picking back up the open source AI baton?
Z.ai, also known as Zhupai AI, a Chinese AI startup best known for its powerful, open source GLM family of models, has unveiled GLM-5.1 today under a permissive MIT License, allowing for enterprises to download, customize and use it for commercial purposes. They can do so on Hugging Face.
The new GLM-5.1 is designed to work autonomously for up to eight hours on a single task, marking a definitive shift from vibe coding to agentic engineering.
Advertisement
The release represents a pivotal moment in the evolution of artificial intelligence. While competitors have focused on increasing reasoning tokens for better logic, Z.ai is optimizing for productive horizons.
GLM-5.1 is a 754-billion parameter Mixture-of-Experts model engineered to maintain goal alignment over extended execution traces that span thousands of tool calls.
“agents could do about 20 steps by the end of last year,” wrote z.ai leader Lou on X. “glm-5.1 can do 1,700 rn. autonomous work time may be the most important curve after scaling laws. glm-5.1 will be the first point on that curve that the open-source community can verify with their own hands. hope y’all like it^^”
In a market increasingly crowded with fast models, Z.ai is betting on the marathon runner. The company, which listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in early 2026 with a market capitalization of $52.83 billion, is using this release to cement its position as the leading independent developer of large language models in the region.
Advertisement
Technology: the staircase pattern of optimization
GLM-5.1s core technological breakthrough isn’t just its scale, though its 754 billion parameters and 202,752 token context window are formidable, but its ability to avoid the plateau effect seen in previous models.
In traditional agentic workflows, a model typically applies a few familiar techniques for quick initial gains and then stalls. Giving it more time or more tool calls usually results in diminishing returns or strategy drift.
Z.ai research demonstrates that GLM-5.1 operates via what they call a staircase pattern, characterized by periods of incremental tuning within a fixed strategy punctuated by structural changes that shift the performance frontier.
In Scenario 1 of their technical report, the model was tasked with optimizing a high-performance vector database, a challenge known as VectorDBBench.
Advertisement
VectorDBBench graphic from z.ai for GLM-5.1. Credit: z.ai
The model is provided with a Rust skeleton and empty implementation stubs, then uses tool-call-based agents to edit code, compile, test, and profile. While previous state-of-the-art results from models like Claude Opus 4.6 reached a performance ceiling of 3,547 queries per second, GLM-5.1 ran through 655 iterations and over 6,000 tool calls. The optimization trajectory was not linear but punctuated by structural breakthroughs.
At iteration 90, the model shifted from full-corpus scanning to IVF cluster probing with f16 vector compression, which reduced per-vector bandwidth from 512 bytes to 256 bytes and jumped performance to 6,400 queries per second.
By iteration 240, it autonomously introduced a two-stage pipeline involving u8 prescoring and f16 reranking, reaching 13,400 queries per second. Ultimately, the model identified and cleared six structural bottlenecks, including hierarchical routing via super-clusters and quantized routing using centroid scoring via VNNI. These efforts culminated in a final result of 21,500 queries per second, roughly six times the best result achieved in a single 50-turn session.
Advertisement
This demonstrates a model that functions as its own research and development department, breaking complex problems down and running experiments with real precision.
The model also managed complex execution tightening, lowering scheduling overhead and improving cache locality. During the optimization of the Approximate Nearest Neighbor search, the model proactively removed nested parallelism in favor of a redesign using per-query single-threading and outer concurrency.
When the model encountered iterations where recall fell below the 95 percent threshold, it diagnosed the failure, adjusted its parameters, and implemented parameter compensation to recover the necessary accuracy. This level of autonomous correction is what separates GLM-5.1 from models that simply generate code without testing it in a live environment.
Kernelbench: pushing the machine learning frontier
The model’s endurance was further tested in KernelBench Level 3, which requires end-to-end optimization of complete machine learning architectures like MobileNet, VGG, MiniGPT, and Mamba.
Advertisement
In this setting, the goal is to produce a faster GPU kernel than the reference PyTorch implementation while maintaining identical outputs. Each of the 50 problems runs in an isolated Docker container with one H100 GPU and is limited to 1,200 tool-use turns. Correctness and performance are evaluated against a PyTorch eager baseline in separate CUDA contexts.
The results highlight a significant performance gap between GLM-5.1 and its predecessors. While the original GLM-5 improved quickly but leveled off early at a 2.6x speedup, GLM-5.1 sustained its optimization efforts far longer. It eventually delivered a 3.6x geometric mean speedup across 50 problems, continuing to make useful progress well past 1,000 tool-use turns.
Although Claude Opus 4.6 remains the leader in this specific benchmark at 4.2x, GLM-5.1 has meaningfully extended the productive horizon for open-source models.
This capability is not simply about having a longer context window; it requires the model to maintain goal alignment over extended execution, reducing strategy drift, error accumulation, and ineffective trial and error. One of the key breakthroughs is the ability to form an autonomous experiment, analyze, and optimize loop, where the model can proactively run benchmarks, identify bottlenecks, adjust strategies, and continuously improve results through iterative refinement.
Advertisement
All solutions generated during this process were independently audited for benchmark exploitation, ensuring the optimizations did not rely on specific benchmark behaviors but worked with arbitrary new inputs while keeping computation on the default CUDA stream.
Product strategy: subscription and subsidies
GLM-5.1 is positioned as an engineering-grade tool rather than a consumer chatbot. To support this, Z.ai has integrated it into a comprehensive Coding Plan ecosystem designed to compete directly with high-end developer tools.
The product offering is divided into three subscription tiers, all of which include free Model Context Protocol tools for vision analysis, web search, web reader, and document reading.
The Lite tier at $27 USD per quarter is positioned for lightweight workloads and offers three times the usage of a comparable Claude Pro plan. The Pro tier at $81 per quarter is designed for complex workloads, offering five times the Lite plan usage and 40 to 60 percent faster execution.
Advertisement
The Max tier at $216 per quarter is aimed at advanced developers with high-volume needs, ensuring guaranteed performance during peak hours.
For those using the API directly or through platforms like OpenRouter or Requesty, Z.ai has priced GLM-5.1 at $1.40 per one million input tokens and $4.40 per million output tokens. There’s also a cache discount available for $0.26 per million input tokens.
Notably, the model consumes quota at three times the standard rate during peak hours, which are defined as 14:00 to 18:00 Beijing Time daily, though a limited-time promotion through April 2026 allows off-peak usage to be billed at a standard 1x rate. Complementing the flagship is the recently debuted GLM-5 Turbo.
Advertisement
While 5.1 is the marathon runner, Turbo is the sprinter, proprietary and optimized for fast inference and tasks like tool use and persistent automation.
At a cost of $1.20 per million input / $4 per million output, it is more expensive than the base GLM-5 but comes in at more affordable than the new GLM-5.1, positioning it as a commercially attractive option for high-speed, supervised agent runs.
The model is also packaged for local deployment, supporting inference frameworks including vLLM, SGLang, and xLLM. Comprehensive deployment instructions are available at the official GitHub repository, allowing developers to run the 754 billion parameter MoE model on their own infrastructure.
For enterprise teams, the model includes advanced reasoning capabilities that can be accessed via a thinking parameter in API requests, allowing the model to show its step-by-step internal reasoning process before providing a final answer.
Advertisement
Benchmarks: a new global standard
The performance data for GLM-5.1 suggests it has leapfrogged several established Western models in coding and engineering tasks.
SWE-Bench Pro benchmark comparison chart showing GLM-5.1 leading other major models. Credit: z.ai
On SWE-Bench Pro, which evaluates a model’s ability to resolve real-world GitHub issues using an instruction prompt and a 200,000 token context window, GLM-5.1 achieved a score of 58.4. For context, this outperforms GPT-5.4 at 57.7, Claude Opus 4.6 at 57.3, and Gemini 3.1 Pro at 54.2.
Beyond standardized coding tests, the model showed significant gains in reasoning and agentic benchmarks. It scored 63.5 on Terminal-Bench 2.0 when evaluated with the Terminus-2 framework and reached 66.5 when paired with the Claude Code harness.
Advertisement
On CyberGym, it achieved a 68.7 score based on a single-run pass over 1,507 tasks, demonstrating a nearly 20-point lead over the previous GLM-5 model. The model also performed strongly on the MCP-Atlas public set with a score of 71.8 and achieved a 70.6 on the T3-Bench.
In the reasoning domain, it scored 31.0 on Humanitys Last Exam, which jumped to 52.3 when the model was allowed to use external tools. On the AIME 2026 math competition benchmark, it reached 95.3, while scoring 86.2 on GPQA-Diamond for expert-level science reasoning.
The most impressive anecdotal benchmark was the Scenario 3 test: building a Linux-style desktop environment from scratch in eight hours.
Unlike previous models that might produce a basic taskbar and a placeholder window before declaring the task complete, GLM-5.1 autonomously filled out a file browser, terminal, text editor, system monitor, and even functional games.
Advertisement
It iteratively polished the styling and interaction logic until it had delivered a visually consistent, functional web application. This serves as a concrete example of what becomes possible when a model is given the time and the capability to keep refining its own work.
Licensing and the open segue
The licensing of these two models tells a larger story about the current state of the global AI market. GLM-5.1 has been released under the MIT License, with its model weights made publicly available on Hugging Face and ModelScope.
This follows the Z.ai historical strategy of using open-source releases to build developer goodwill and ecosystem reach. However, GLM-5 Turbo remains proprietary and closed-source. This reflects a growing trend among leading AI labs toward a hybrid model: using open-source models for broad distribution while keeping execution-optimized variants behind a paywall.
Industry analysts note that this shift arrives amidst a rebalancing in the Chinese market, where heavyweights like Alibaba are also beginning to segment their proprietary work from their open releases.
Advertisement
Z.ai CEO Zhang Peng appears to be navigating this by ensuring that while the flagship’s core intelligence is open to the community, the high-speed execution infrastructure remains a revenue-driving asset.
The company is not explicitly promising to open-source GLM-5 Turbo itself, but says the findings will be folded into future open releases. This segmented strategy helps drive adoption while allowing the company to build a sustainable business model around its most commercially relevant work.
Community and user reactions: crushing a week’s work
The developer community response to the GLM-5.1 release has been overwhelmingly focused on the model’s reliability in production-grade environments.
User reviews suggest a high degree of trust in the model’s autonomy.
Advertisement
One developer noted that GLM-5.1 shocked them with how good it is, stating it seems to do what they want more reliably than other models with less reworking of prompts needed. Another developer mentioned that the model’s overall workflow from planning to project execution performs excellently, allowing them to confidently entrust it with complex tasks.
Specific case studies from users highlight significant efficiency gains.
A user from Crypto Economy News reported that a task involving preprocessing code, feature selection logic, and hyperparameter tuning solutions, which originally would have taken a week, was completed in just two days. Since getting the GLM Coding plan, other developers have noted being able to operate more freely and focus on core development without worrying about resource shortages hindering progress.
On social media, the launch announcement generated over 46,000 views in its first hour, with users captivated by the eight-hour autonomous claim. The sentiment among early adopters is that Z.ai has successfully moved past the hallucination-heavy era of AI into a period where models can be trusted to optimize themselves through repeated iteration.
Advertisement
The ability to build four applications rapidly through correct prompting and structured planning has been cited by multiple users as a game-changing development for individual developers.
The implications of long-horizon work
The release of GLM-5.1 suggests that the next frontier of AI competition will not be measured in tokens per second, but in autonomous duration.
If a model can work for eight hours without human intervention, it fundamentally changes the software development lifecycle.
However, Z.ai acknowledges that this is only the beginning. Significant challenges remain, such as developing reliable self-evaluation for tasks where no numeric metric exists to optimize against.
Advertisement
Escaping local optima earlier when incremental tuning stops paying off is another major hurdle, as is maintaining coherence over execution traces that span thousands of tool calls.
For now, Z.ai has placed a marker in the sand. With GLM-5.1, they have delivered a model that doesn’t just answer questions, but finishes projects. The model is already compatible with a wide range of developer tools including Claude Code, OpenCode, Kilo Code, Roo Code, Cline, and Droid.
For developers and enterprises, the question is no longer, “what can I ask this AI?” but “what can I assign to it for the next eight hours?”
The focus of the industry is clearly shifting toward systems that can reliably execute multi-step work with less supervision. This transition to agentic engineering marks a new phase in the deployment of artificial intelligence within the global economy.
Cisco CEO Chuck Robbins says he’s already exploring how to send data centers to space
OpenAI’s Sam Altman sees it as a “pipe dream,” Elon Musk is optimistic
Space-bound data centers would tackle a lot of the current issues
Cisco CEO Chuck Robbins has revealed his company execs are already discussing plans to put data centers in space.
Robbins clearly backs the idea, noting that space could remove some of Earth’s key constraints like power, cooling and land availability. Abundant solar energy and fewer community objections are among the highlights (though a different type of objection would likely occur).
And Robbins isn’t the only person with influence over data centers who believes this: “Sam Altman is one who says, ‘I don’t think they should be in their backyards’,” he told Nilay Patel of The Verge.
Article continues below
Advertisement
Cisco is actively exploring putting data centers in space
Although Altman may be sceptical of locating data centers in space, SpaceX’s Elon Musk is a major supporter. When asked whether he would believe Altman, who claims space-bound data centers are a “pipe dream,” or Elon Musk, Robbins stated: “I wouldn’t bet against Elon.”
These campuses are generally seen as noisy, energy-intensive operations that are especially unpopular locally. Hyperscalers face increasing public opposition and concerns over environmental impacts, however soaring usage is a conflicting trend that’s requiring ongoing buildouts.
Advertisement
However, Cisco is still figuring out some of the technical challenges relating to temperature, atmospheric conditions and launch logistics.
There’s also a growing demand for data sovereignty, and it’s unclear at best how space-located data centers would play into this with infrastructure design shifting from global systems to localized deployments.
Sign up to the TechRadar Pro newsletter to get all the top news, opinion, features and guidance your business needs to succeed!
As for the next steps, there are clearly a lot of them. “We’re in the early stages of just making sure the atmospheric issues, the temperatures, all of those things are taken into consideration,” the CEO stated, noting “we don’t even know everything we need to do yet.”
Advertisement
“Absolutely,” Robbins concluded when asked whether we should put data centers in space.
Tired of solicitors knocking on your front door trying to sell you junk while you’re relaxing? You can grab the Google Nest Doorbell, our favorite video doorbell, from Amazon for just $140, a $40 discount from its usual price, and turn them away without getting off the couch. This attractive and elegant video doorbell has a variety of smart features, full Google integration, and hooks up to a powered source so you never have to charge the battery. I have the wireless version at home and found it extremely useful for spotting packages, talking to neighbors, or just snooping on my house while I’m away.
Photograph: Julian Chokkattu
Photograph: Julian Chokkattu
Google
Nest Doorbell (Wired, 3rd Gen)
The video quality is excellent, with a huge 166-degree field of view that easily captures both your front yard and any packages that might be sitting on the ground close to the door. If you have other Nest displays, like the Nest Hub, they’ll show video alerts, and you can even turn on automatic picture-in-picture on your Google TV. When people speak to the doorbell the quality is nice and crisp, and you can even talk to delivery drivers or friends who stop by when you aren’t home.
Advertisement
You don’t need a subscription to use the basic video capture and doorbell features on the Nest Doorbell, but there is an upgraded plan available that adds in a longer video history, as well as more advanced detection features. While it hasn’t been the most consistent for me, it attempts to differentiate between familiar and unfamiliar faces, so it doesn’t bother pinging my phone when it sees me getting home. Depending on which plan you choose, you can get up to 60 days of video history, so I’ve been able to look back weeks into the past to look for packages, or spot if something happened to my neighbor’s car.
For the $40 discount on the wired Google Nest Doorbell, head over to Amazon to grab one in Snow, Hazel, or Linen. If you aren’t sure about the Nest Doorbell, or you aren’t invested in the Google Home ecosystem, we have a full roundup of the best video doorbells from brands like Google, Arlo, and Eufy.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login