CU

CUA-S1 – A System One Model for Computer Use

Hacker News

CUA-S1 – A System One Model for Computer Use

Hello HN! We're Dillon and Francesco from Cua. We were wondering how many computer use tasks actually need a full general purpose LLM (e.g. gpt-6-astra, claude-opus-5 etc.) to think through all their decisions and steps. Some tasks require thinking about a plan, exploring different paths, recovering from failure. Other tasks are a question of making local decisions, like this value should go in this box, or should I check this box, or this element should be ignored. We wondered how far we could go with a small model trained to only make these kinds of decisions. Our inspiration was Typesafe's Jev and its System One Model framing. This is a nod to the dichotomy between thinking quickly, automatically, and intuitively (system 1) vs. thinking slowly, analytically (system 2), as described by Daniel Kahneman. The interesting question for us was: what happens if you give a model an interface of current context, and a set of possible choices, and you ask it to return a probability for each choice? This kind of model does not generate output token by token like most LLMs do, but rather scores the options you give it, which you can check, trust, and use to drive your app's behavior. CUA-S1 is our answer for narrow, specialized decision models for computer use. Our first release is CUA-S1-FORMS. We built this from ideas and code in jevlike, and then trained a second model just to handle form interactions. It has 706k parameters, and the original checkpoint is 2.8 MB. The first training iteration took less than 30 minutes on synthetic data. Given a set of structured elements and values extracted from a document, it predicts whether to use the given value, CHECK, CLICK, or SKIP for each element. It does not predict new values for text fields, and does not consider screenshots. Element decisions are scored together, and your code can order the actions, and Cua Driver will execute them one at a time. A first evaluation of this specialist vs. hosted Jev on our form task: - For the whole decision set: 99.7% correct vs 83.6%. - For the subset of steps that require an action: 100% correct vs 96%. - For the subset of steps that are just leaving already-filled fields alone: 100% correct vs 74%. The specialist was trained specifically for this task and convention (just press skip for already filled boxes), while hosted Jev has not been fine-tuned for it, so this is an experiment in scoped specialization. We measured 7-9 ms to score a form locally vs. 260-280 ms per call to hosted Jev including network latency, though those samples measure different things and are not end-to-end form completion times. Our interest here is in the space between a brittle script and a general agent loop. The content and layout of form fields vary enough that scripts get unwieldy, but the set of available decisions can remain narrow and well scoped. We want to explore the possibility of a general agent encountering something novel, and passing well understood decisions over to specialists like this. That is a direction we are looking into. The current release is for forms only. We're open sourced the synthetic data generation, training, evaluation, and Driver integration under libs/cua-s1 with an MIT license. Comments welcome! Especially if you are building computer-use agents and have run into a recurring decision that is too variable to script but is too narrow to call another LLM for.

Share card

Actual performance

90points
10comments
Made the leaderboard

Launch Intel predictions

Analyze your own launch →
Product HuntOn track for Day 1 leaderboard · Strong signals: agents, agent, claude · Missing: mac, macos, cursor
94%94% predicted probability of success on Product Hunt, based on ML models trained on real launch data.
best fitHighest predicted score across all platforms for this description.
Indie HackersFits the IH revenue-focused audience · Strong signals: para, including · Missing: supports, reddit linkedin, podcasting
85%85% predicted probability of success on Indie Hackers, based on ML models trained on real launch data.
TrustMRRLess likely to generate early MRR · Strong signals: para · Missing: mobile apps, ios, personal
47%47% predicted probability of success on TrustMRR, based on ML models trained on real launch data.
Hacker NewsMay not resonate with HN audience · Strong signals: lua, open source, ide · Missing: https docs, excited, just released
42%42% predicted probability of success on Hacker News, based on ML models trained on real launch data.
nativeThis product was originally launched on this platform.
AppSumoMay struggle as an AppSumo deal · Strong signals: intuitive, host, interface · Missing: plus, platform, reviews
35%35% predicted probability of success on AppSumo, based on ML models trained on real launch data.
Acquire.comPre-revenue stage for this audience · Strong signals: arr, recurring, training · Missing: mrr, revenue, profit
15%15% predicted probability of success on Acquire.com, based on ML models trained on real launch data.
BetaListMay not resonate with beta-testers · Missing: web3, chat, crypto
0%0% predicted probability of success on BetaList, based on ML models trained on real launch data.

Incorrect prediction on native model

Similar products

Op
Open Computer Use83%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

Open Computer Use

Hacker News9
Claude Computer use
Claude Computer use86%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

Computer use for automating operations

Product Hunt+641Artificial Intelligence
We
Web interface for the Gemini 2.5 Computer Use model45%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

Web interface for the Gemini 2.5 Computer Use model

Hacker News1
"C
"Computer use" mcp for webapps and Electron apps33%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

"Computer use" mcp for webapps and Electron apps

Hacker News2
Po
Polaris – Toolbox for AI computer use50%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

Polaris – Toolbox for AI computer use

Hacker News1
Au
AutoBrowser – Automate your browser with Claude Computer Use56%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

AutoBrowser – Automate your browser with Claude Computer Use

Hacker News4
Clevrr Computer
Clevrr Computer95%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

Computer use but with OpenAI and Gemini models

Product Hunt+195Open Source
A
A computer-use Mac client for Claude Opus 4.538%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

A computer-use Mac client for Claude Opus 4.5

Hacker News3
Cua
Cua88%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

Docker for computer-use agents

Product Hunt+389Open Source
Op
Open-Cowork – an open-source, model-agnostic computer-use agent46%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

Open-Cowork – an open-source, model-agnostic computer-use agent

Hacker News2