On October 19, 2026, MiniMax released its low-cost large model, M3.1Flash, which scored 42 points in comprehensive evaluations and boasts a 70% reduction in cost compared to the previous generation. However, it immediately faced accusations of “cheating on exam questions”: on AA’s publicly available past papers, it nearly achieved a perfect score, yet continued to produce the original answers even after the question stems were rewritten. Reviewers such as Cat Boss and Binkg pointed out that its performance on old and new questions is sharply divided, token consumption is abnormal, and its hallucination rate in knowledge tests reaches as high as 92.8%. On October 23, MiniMax open-sourced the model weights for independent verification, but the mechanisms behind its question-identification capabilities and the reasons for discrepancies in Chinese–English responses remain unresolved.
Why it mattersThis report is based on multi‑party empirical testing (including Binkg’s re‑title experiment, the author’s replication, and a dual evaluation comparison between AA and Plotly‑Mila), verifiable data (token counts, prices, accuracy/hallucination rates), and contradictions in model behavior (English errors vs. Chinese correctness, stable performance on old tasks vs. collapse on new ones). It systematically lays out the core symptoms of the current credibility crisis in large‑model evaluations: high scores do not necessarily equate to strong generalization, and low‑price advantages create tension with the reality of model capabilities. The information source is a deep investigation authorized for publication by Titanium Media, complete with original test procedures, screenshot evidence, and timestamps, offering both timeliness and rich detail.
