Ricursive releases Ripple-65B Preview, claiming US open-weight SOTA on agentic coding from a $32M training run
- Ricursive Intelligence released Ripple-65B Preview, a dense 65B open-weight model pretrained on 12 trillion tokens with up to 1M context, scoring 80.52 on TerminalBench 2.1 and claiming US open-weight state of the art.
- The company says it built and trained the model for $32M in total R&D cost, which it calls one-tenth the cost of the previous open-weight SOTA on agentic coding, though it names no Chinese models such as Qwen in its comparison charts.
- Training hit the score with 1.4M RL rollouts, about 70x fewer than Reflection Beam, using truncated importance sampling, score centering, and a linear length penalty instead of a brute-force RL climb.
- The architecture is a dense Transformer rather than MoE, thin and deep with d_model 5120 and 80 layers, held at 40% MFU through pretraining and posttraining with simple sharding, no custom kernels, and no quantization.
- Ripple-65B Preview is up on Hugging Face, Together AI, GMI Cloud, and OpenRouter, with Fireworks following later the same day.
Hacker News opinions
Congrats I guess, but not even mentioning the other open weight models is a bad look. The comparison chart just leaves them out.
Those comparisons wouldn't mean anything to anyone except the authors. And they cherry-picked twice: they used Inkling for the size comparison instead of Beam 1.0, which is smaller and better, and Nemotron 3 Ultra instead of Nemotron 3.5 Super.
It's just easier to pretend China doesn't exist when it's stomping us this badly. We've always been at war with Eurasia.
Do other model releases usually list all their competition? I haven't noticed that being the norm.
The people who'd actually use this won't consider those models anyway. This is the right chart for US government agencies and chip design shops.
Chinese models lean hard on distillation and act strangely on public benchmarks, scoring way better there than in private evals. Hard to say how competitive Moonshot would be without distilling from OpenAI.
The comparison chart is befuddling.
So we have a Recursive and a Ricursive both doing LLMs? One is doing self-improving AI through chip co-design, the other is software only.
When a release doesn't mention Qwen anywhere, you already know the numbers aren't great. Qwen 3.8 27B hits 73% on TB2.1 and 42.2% on DeepSWE.
Ripple gets 80.5 on Terminal Bench 2.1. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next gets 84.3 and Qwen 3.8-27B gets 73.0, so Qwen is bigger but probably cheaper to serve as MoE. Whether Ripple is competitive depends on how benchmaxxed it is.
Narrowing the category this far has diluted SOTA to nothing. It's state of the art for US-made open-weight models, which is a very small club.
The term is well defined, it means being on the Pareto curve of performance against size.
The US part got me too, though it makes sense. There's a real segment of users who need a domestic frontier LLM.
They overreach even in the headline, calling it a frontier open-weight model. It's frontier only among US open-weight models, and it leads the second-best by 0.42 points on their chosen benchmark.
There are situations where we're explicitly banned from using models from companies outside US jurisdiction, so the label isn't irrelevant even if the model isn't globally competitive. Mistral runs the same positioning.
I'd love a 27B version. Wonder if we'll get a distillation.
What is US even implying here? Did the government sponsor it, is it US-only data, does it only work in the US? Sounds like it just means an American lab built it.
Great to see another competitive open weight model, but a 65B dense model will be painfully slow on consumer hardware. Reading the mission, this is for chip design shops running air-gapped with server-grade inference hardware.
What'll be interesting is how it does against Qwen3.8 27B quantized to the same size. That's the comparison they clearly don't want to run.
Plenty of people have the RAM for a 40GB Q4 quant. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next GGUFs at 2 and 3 bit are pulling 3.5M downloads a month, so hobbyists will run this if it's actually good.
These are odd benchmarks to pick. Terminal Bench 2.1 is old, OpenAI disavowed SWE-bench, and DeepSWE is benchmark-hacked by Gemini.
High-memory Mac Studios finally get a model that runs at usable speed with high quality. The sweet spot for Mac clusters is around 200GB of weights and this sits well under that. It'll still be slow though, it's dense.