thehype.
@thehypedotnews • 4,557 subscribers
ai news, analysis and breakdowns. get daily podcast + newsletter: 🔗 https://t.co/s2tMfi5tnB // listen to 24/7 radio, fully run by ai ↓
Shorts
Videos
kimi k3 vs gpt 5.6 sol vs fable 5 vs grok 4.5 Kimi.ai just dropped kimi k3 – a 2.8t param native multimodal model, the first open 3t-class release. key facts: • 1m token context. stable latentmoe activating 16 of 896 experts, built on kimi delta attention (kda) and attention residuals • quantization-aware training from the sft stage onward – mxfp4 weights, mxfp8 activations. moonshot claims ~2.5x scaling efficiency over k2 • max thinking effort by default. low- and high-effort modes are "coming in updates" – there is no way to turn the thinking down today, and you feel it in every run • pricing: $0.30/mtok cache-hit input, $3.00/mtok cache-miss, $15.00/mtok output. claims >90% cache hit rate on coding workloads • benchmarks: swe marathon 42.0 (1st – fable 5: 35.0, sol: 39.0, opus 4.8: 40.0), terminal bench 2.1 88.3, browsecomp 91.2 (1st), program bench 77.8 (1st), gpqa-diamond 93.5. loses frontierswe 81.2 vs fable's 86.6, and deepswe 67.5 vs sol's 73.0 our test – 3 prompts, single-file html, Three.js, fully procedural, no assets: 1. photorealistic european roulette wheel – 37 pockets in the real sequence, mahogany clearcoat bowl, chrome turret, diamond deflectors, flick-to-spin, ball that spirals inward and settles on a mathematically real number 2. las vegas slot machine – 3 reels behind transmissive glass, drag the chrome lever to play, mechanical odometer counters modelled in 3d, coin physics on win 3. full pinball table – 6.5° tilted playfield, flipper impulse physics, spline ramps, drop targets, 6 bumpers, mechanical score reels in the backbox we ran the test on AI/ML API platform results: - cost #1 grok 4.5 – $0.30 #2 kimi k3 – $0.71 #3 gpt 5.6 sol – $2.05 #4 fable 5 – $7.69 - tokens #1 grok 4.5 – 34,241 #2 gpt 5.6 sol – 51,748 #3 fable 5 – 144,126 #4 kimi k3 – 157,999 - lines of code #1 gpt 5.6 sol – 3,054 #2 grok 4.5 – 3,047 #3 kimi k3 – 2,255 #4 fable 5 – 1,950 - generation time #1 grok 4.5 – 5.1 min #2 gpt 5.6 sol – 22.0 min #3 fable 5 – 31.5 min #4 kimi k3 – 75.6 min observations: • kimi k3 is cheap and it is slow. 75.6 minutes across three prompts against grok's 5.1. it is 2.4x grok's price and 15x grok's wall clock. the roulette took 15 min, the slot 18, the pinball 42 • it failed 2 of 3. only the roulette works. the slot machine has reel cutouts on both faces of the cabinet and the symbols face backwards – you can only read your spin by walking around to the rear of the machine. the pinball table stands vertically on its edge with the legs floating detached beside it. • 81% of kimi's output tokens are reasoning, not code. grok: 22%. you are not paying for a bigger answer, you are paying for a longer argument with itself • price per 100 shipped lines – grok $0.010, kimi $0.031, sol $0.067, fable $0.394. a 39x spread for the same three files kimi k3's code quality: upsides: • the roulette is genuinely good – procedural wood grain with real specular breakup, correct european sequence (0-32-15-19-4...), chrome turret, diamond deflectors, clean console • the pinball artwork is the best in the test – a synthwave "nova strike / deep space" field with six individually coloured neon bumper rings, a retro sun on a grid horizon, a nova burst, and a scoring legend printed on the apron. no other model printed the rules on the machine. it is a beautiful texture on a broken object • physics reasoning is real – it derived a 480hz substep for the collider, worked out ball settle conditions and termination guarantees, and checked every ramp exit vector by hand before writing any of it • it is the only model that saw the importmap trap coming. sol shipped a blank white page twice because three.js addons import the bare specifier 'three' and die without an import map downsides: • it dodged that trap on the slot by loading three.js r128 through classic script tags – a 2021 build with no working transmission. its slot glass rendered fully opaque and buried all three reels behind a white pane. the code asks for transmission: 0.93, ior: 1.5 – correct, and silently ignored by a renderer that predates the feature • after 42 minutes and 212k characters of reasoning, the pinball cabinet is not assembled. the table stands vertically on its edge like a wardrobe – the prompt asked for 6.5° from horizontal, it delivered 90°. the legs float detached in the void beside it. head-on it photographs beautifully; orbit ten degrees and it is a painted slab with four chrome rods hovering nearby • the playfield z-fights with the glass – hard black banding across the whole field as soon as you pull the camera back a note on the pinball, in fairness to kimi: nobody passed it. every model shipped broken ball physics and controls you cannot trust. it is the hardest prompt we have run and the whole field failed it, each in its own way kimi k3 reasons better than anything else here and it shows exactly where reasoning pays – physics constants, sequences, edge cases, traps the others walked into follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
thehype.2,183,762 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce
glm 5.3 vs qwen 3.8 vs gemini 3.7 vs deepseek v4 flash four models designed and built three structures each on a physics-backed site, with no dimensions anywhere in the brief the setup: our own agent loop on OpenRouter, a construction site as the tool set – footings, walls, arches, roofs, scaffold, a lamp. the site enforces physics and nothing else: unsupported brick falls, a roof needs walls under it, a worker reaches 3.2 m above whatever he stands on, an arch needs centring until the keystone is set, concrete cures before it carries. no budget ceiling – material cost is tallied and reported, never blocked. tasks: 1. house – a plot and a palette, no plan. shape, height and material are the model's call 2. lighthouse – a headland cut by a gully, with a rock stack standing 30 m offshore. the lamp must burn, it must be the highest thing built, and the keeper must be able to walk to it 3. bridge – a river with one islet and banks at different heights. cross it however you want models: Z.ai glm 5.3 flash, Qwen qwen 3.8 flash, Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash, DeepSeek v4 flash vision all twelve objects were finished and signed off by the models themselves. tallest lighthouse is qwen's at 38.4 m, planted on the offshore stack with a bridge run out to it – the only model that read the site that way. deepseek signed off its bridge on an empty riverbed: 0 bricks, 107 minutes, $1.16m of material tallied - total cost, three builds #1 glm 5.3 flash – $0.201 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.871 #3 qwen 3.8 flash – $1.058 #4 deepseek v4 flash – $1.567 - wall clock, three builds #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 91m #2 glm 5.3 flash – 228m #3 deepseek v4 flash – 502m #4 qwen 3.8 flash – 912m - total tokens #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 3,567,052 #2 glm 5.3 flash – 4,732,748 #3 qwen 3.8 flash – 13,469,333 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 18,230,076 - defects logged by the site #1 deepseek v4 flash – 59 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 132 #3 glm 5.3 flash – 221 #4 qwen 3.8 flash – 350 - material tallied across three builds #1 gemini 3.7 flash – $359,884 #2 glm 5.3 flash – $583,358 #3 deepseek v4 flash – $1,327,484 #4 qwen 3.8 flash – $2,188,625 observations: • glm is the cheap one and nothing here is close – $0.201 for three buildings, $0.042 per million tokens, 6x under gemini's rate • what glm spends it on is bulk, not care: 166,228 bricks in one house and 156 defect weight, the worst single object in the set • gemini is the efficiency line – 91 minutes and 3.57m tokens for all three and an eighth of qwen's clock • gemini also builds the smallest of everything. its lighthouse is 22.5 m against qwen's 38.4, its house 6.9 m against 19.3 • qwen is the maximalist: 1.18m bricks, $2.19m of material, tallest on all three tasks, and 912 minutes – 15 hours – to get there conclusion: twelve finished objects for $3.80 all in, and a 7.8x price spread between the cheapest model and the priciest! follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
thehype.23,951 görüntüleme • 7 gün önce
qwen 3.8 max vs deepseek v4 flash 0731 vs kimi k3 vs gpt 5.6 sol – on rubik's cube and chess four frontier models built a rubik's cube stand and solved it, then built a chess board and played claude opus 5 on it the setup: Nous Research's hermes agent cli on OpenRouter tasks: 1. cube – build a 3d rubik's cube with a cli and a Three.js viewer, then solve an identical scrambled position on your own stand 2. chess – build a 3d chess stand, then play white against claude opus 5 as black, live, one move at a time. no engine, no solver, no opening book on either side. stockfish depth 14 grades every chess ply afterwards; neither player sees the score models: DeepSeek v4 flash 0731, OpenAI gpt-5.6 sol, Kimi.ai kimi k3, Qwen qwen 3.8 max gpt-5.6 sol and deepseek v4 flash solved their cubes – sol in 24 moves and seventeen seconds, deepseek in 32. qwen and kimi never got there, giving up at 96 and 207 moves then all four built chess stands and played white against claude opus 5 on them, and all four resigned: deepseek on move 13, sol on 19, kimi on 21, qwen holding out longest at 29 - build time, both stands #1 gpt-5.6 sol – 16m 43s #2 deepseek v4 flash – 97m 39s #3 kimi k3 – 166m 09s #4 qwen 3.8 max – 215m 08s - build attempts before a working stand #1 gpt-5.6 sol – 3 #2 qwen 3.8 max – 4 #3 kimi k3 – 4 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 5 - total tokens #1 gpt-5.6 sol – 6,713,754 #2 qwen 3.8 max – 17,272,507 #3 kimi k3 – 22,427,504 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 27,417,442 - total price #1 deepseek v4 flash – $0.557 #2 gpt-5.6 sol – $6.319 #3 qwen 3.8 max – $10.270 #4 kimi k3 – $16.667 observations: • deepseek v4 flash is the cheapest model here by a margin nobody else is near, and it got there while being the least efficient of the four. it burned 27.4m tokens – more than anyone, 5m more than kimi – and still finished both benchmarks for $0.557. that is $0.02 per million tokens against kimi's $0.74. it also needed the most passes to produce working stands, five, and that did not matter: all five deepseek passes together cost a thirtieth of kimi's two • so what deepseek cannot do is get it right the first time. what it can do is get it right the fifth time, for half a dollar. that is a different thing to be buying – not a good first draft, but the option to keep asking • gpt-5.6 sol is the opposite profile and the strongest of the four on pure efficiency. 16m 43s to build both stands, 6.7m tokens, three passes – under 40% of the next lowest token count and a quarter of deepseek's, on an eighth of qwen's clock. it also solved the cube fastest of anyone, 24 moves in seventeen seconds. sol is what you reach for when you want the answer now and can absorb $0.94 per million • sol's weakness is in what it does not check. its chess viewer deleted the capturing piece instead of the captured one, so pieces disappeared off the board mid-game – a defect the fifty-cent deepseek stand did not have. fast and terse turns out to be the same dial as fast and unverified • qwen 3.8 max is not the cheap open-weights option it gets treated as. $10.270 across the two benchmarks, second most expensive of the four, 18x deepseek, and by a distance the slowest – 215 minutes of build time, nearly thirteen times sol's. what the money buys is judgment: it played eighteen moves without a single error worth a hundredth of a pawn, then made exactly one bad move in the whole game, and averaged 44.6 centipawns lost across the longest game any of the four managed. it also could not solve a rubik's cube in 96 tries • kimi k3 is the one line with no reading that flatters it. most expensive at $16.667, last on the cube at 207 moves, last at chess at 478 centipawns lost per move. it is also the model that verified hardest – on the cube it wrote its own integrity check instead of trusting its output. that makes the result worse rather than better: the checking was real, and the reasoning underneath it still was not follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
thehype.84,777 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce
meta muse spark 1.1 vs gpt 5.6 sol vs fable 5 vs grok 4.5 meta recently dropped muse spark 1.1 – a multimodal reasoning model from meta superintelligence labs built for agentic tasks. key facts: • 1m token context with active self-management – the model compacts its own history and keeps only the steps needed for later work • trained to orchestrate multi-agent systems: as main agent it plans and delegates to parallel subagents, as subagent it sticks to its job and knows when to escalate back • computer use trained to pick between scripting and clicking – writes automation when it's faster, clicks when it's simpler, batches actions per step • first public api from meta: the meta model api is now in preview • benchmarks: sweeps the agent column – mcp atlas 88.1 (opus 4.8: 82.2), jobbench 54.7 (opus: 48.4), humanity's last exam 62.1 (1st). loses coding – deepswe 1.1 53.3 vs gpt 5.5's 67.0, swe bench pro 61.5 vs opus's 69.2 our test – 3 prompts, single-file html, three.js, fully procedural, no assets: 1. norwegian house cantilevered over a fjord in a snowstorm – transmissive glass wall, fully modelled interior 2. beijing siheyuan courtyard house in dawn fog – instanced roof tiles, dougong brackets, glowing paper windows 3. new mexico adobe pueblo in an approaching dust storm – deep window reveals, windward grit accumulation we ran the test on AI/ML API platform results: - cost #1 muse spark 1.1 – $0.20 #2 grok 4.5 – $0.51 #3 gpt 5.6 sol – $1.93 #4 fable 5 – ~$5.20 - output tokens #1 muse spark 1.1 – 41,868 #2 gpt 5.6 sol – 49,139 #3 grok 4.5 – 64,954 #4 fable 5 – 81,849 - lines of code #1 muse spark 1.1 – 1,799 #2 gpt 5.6 sol – 2,377 #3 fable 5 – 3,088 #4 grok 4.5 – 4,216 observations: • muse spark is the cheapest of the four by a wide margin – 2.5x under grok, ~26x under fable per run. output quality tracks the price • only 7.4% of its output tokens are reasoning (3,104 of 41,868) – the model barely thinks before writing. economic, not pedantic: it commits to the first plan and ships it • the low loc is not compression, it's omission – all three prompts demanded instancing, muse spark delivered it in one muse spark's code quality – reviewed by fable 5: upsides: 1. all three files run 2. the adobe grit effect is legit – shader injection via onbeforecompile, windward faces detect storm direction through a normal-dot-wind term and darken procedurally 3. the fjord glass is real meshphysicalmaterial with transmission and ior, not a transparent quad 4. the siheyuan properly instances barrel tiles, dougong blocks and courtyard pavers downsides: 1. in the fjord file the strafe vector is negated – press a, you move right; press d, you move left. exactly the key mix-up we kept hitting with this model 2. all three files ship the model's self-doubt as comments: "// actually yaw orientation: need correct" sits above a direction vector that gets computed, abandoned and recomputed – dead vectors allocated every frame, 60 times a second 3. the siheyuan registers two separate keydown listeners, one containing an empty if-block 4. snow "accumulation" on the norway roof is a sine wobble on a scale value, not accumulation 5. "instanced snow" became 3,500 plain points. zero dispose calls anywhere pattern: minimal reasoning, minimal code, minimal price. it nails the flashy requirements – shaders, transmissive glass – and quietly drops the boring ones: instancing, controls, cleanup. you get a demo that mostly runs and a control scheme you can't trust follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
thehype.135,556 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce
gemini 3.7 flash vs deepseek v4 pro 0813 vs muse spark 1.2 – on voxel city dioramas three models each built three crossy road-style 3d scenes – a construction site, a nyc intersection, a river with a drawbridge – as single self-contained html files the setup: Nous Research's hermes agent cli on OpenRouter, three.js skills preloaded, identical prompts per scene tasks: 1. construction site – tower crane on a working lift loop, paver laying fresh road, roller compacting it behind 2. nyc crossing – four-way intersection with a traffic light state machine, queuing cars, pedestrians crossing on the walk signal 3. river drawbridge – double-leaf bascule that lifts for tall boats, cars queuing at the barriers, animated water every scene: Three.js r185, box geometry only, a locked 20-color palette, four camera presets, and a day/night mode with bloom. one file, no build step, no assets models: Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash, DeepSeek v4 pro 0813, AI at Meta muse spark 1.2 muse and gemini finished every scene in two to three minutes. deepseek took 15 to 41 minutes per scene - build time, all three scenes #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 6m 43s #2 muse spark 1.2 – 7m 20s #3 deepseek v4 pro – 91m 25s - total tokens #1 muse spark 1.2 – 440,279 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 713,855 #3 deepseek v4 pro – 20,957,568 - total price #1 muse spark 1.2 – $0.53 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.56 #3 deepseek v4 pro – $4.57 - agent calls across the three builds #1 muse spark 1.2 – 12 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 18 #3 deepseek v4 pro – 143 observations: • muse won two of the three scenes on looks with the smallest files in the test – 887 to 1,042 lines against gemini's 1,934 to 2,377. cheapest, fastest to a good frame, and shortest turned out to be the same column • deepseek burned 20.96m tokens – 29x gemini, 48x muse – across 143 agent calls. prompt caching is the only reason that cost $4.57: the cache discount absorbed roughly $30 of resent context • gemini was the only model whose files needed zero fixes to render – and the only one whose night mode is cosmetic. the sky never darkens and one camera button does nothing. clean code for a scene it never looked at follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
thehype.29,033 görüntüleme • 17 gün önce
glm 5.3 flash is 7.5x cheaper, but 3.4x slower than gemini 3.7 flash Z.ai glm 5.3 flash – shipped aug 26, $0.07/$0.25 per 1m Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash – shipped aug 13, $0.38/$1.88 per 1m we put the two models on one job: write one html file that draws an animated 3d scene in the browser. no images, no downloads, and it has to look the same on every load. the setup: three scenes – a glass aquarium in a lit room, the solar system, a night city under a thunderstorm. identical brief word for word, reasoning effort high, 64k output cap. the numbers below are not the whole run. they cover the three scenes we kept – the best one per task from each model, the ones in the video. - total generation time for the three scenes #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 10m 36s #2 glm 5.3 flash – 36m 30s - tokens spent on those three scenes #1 glm 5.3 flash – 110k #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 111k - cost of those three scenes #1 glm 5.3 flash – $0.027 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.202 observations: • glm's first 10 attempts: 7 blank pages. it kept inventing short random helpers and forgetting to define one of them. the fix was one line in the brief: use exactly one random helper, named rand(), and don't invent shorthands next to it. next 12 attempts: 11 alive, 0 crashes. • glm spends 66% of its output on reasoning, gemini 57%. that is the whole speed gap. • gemini's storm came back as a black rectangle in 4 of 6 runs. glm's best storm has a branching bolt, lit rain and wet asphalt – for $0.01. conclusion: same three scenes, same token spend – glm 5.3 flash billed $0.027 and took 36m 30s, gemini 3.7 flash billed $0.202 and took 10m 36s. glm wins gemini on price and made the best storm of the whole run follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
thehype.15,946 görüntüleme • 9 gün önce
Meet the 1st radio on X fully run by AI. Covers AI news 24/7, always on. Designed for builders and founders. Live right now. AI Twitter is hundreds of posts an hour. You can't read all of it. Tune in - hit play - do your thing. With non-distracting ambient music between segments. What you'll hear any hour you tune in: - breaking news within minutes - roundups every 30 min — top stories with builder context - startup funding & traction radar - what's moving and trending in AI tooling — GitHub, OpenRouter, HuggingFace — every 30 min - community — what people actually say on X, HN, YouTube - editorial takes — and real opinions from founders, researchers, builders - patterns others miss, delivered as arguments with conclusions Five AI hosts. Each with their own editorial judgment, memory, and personality. They don't just read data — they collect patterns, find contradictions, form opinions, and argue their point. And they do it live, continuously, on air.
thehype.142,635 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce
the doctor of the future is ai he trusts frontier ai more than he trusts himself — after 30 years studying the immune system. Addy Crezee | thehype. | /function1 sat down with Derya Unutmaz, MD — immunologist at the jackson laboratory — on what happens when ai becomes a real scientist. • handed gpt-5 pro a 3-year-old dataset his lab couldn't crack since 2022. it found the mechanism in ~18 minutes • says ai doctors arrive next year — better than the best specialists in the world • predicts 99% of disease, including cancer, becomes treatable within a decade • self-driving will take road deaths from ~50,000 a year in america to zero watch full interview below follow thehype. – more interviews, daily ai news, model benchmarks, and a 24/7 radio run by ai.
thehype.36,082 görüntüleme • 29 gün önce
hy3 vs fable 5 vs opus 4.8 vs sonnet 5 Tencent Hy just dropped hy3 – their new open-weight model under apache 2.0. following the april preview they scaled up post-training, and it now rivals flagship open models with 2-5x the params. api pricing: ~$0.15 in / ~$0.59 out per 1m tokens. built for coding, office work, frontend, agentic tasks so we ran a test: hy3 vs fable 5 vs opus 4.8 vs sonnet 5 three prompts, one-shot each: • ocean wave crumbling a sand castle (canvas) • looping factory assembly line (html/css/js) • interactive 3d city with three.js + orbitcontrols self-contained files, no libraries beyond the cdn where asked totals across all three prompts: 1. hy3 – 1231 loc / 14m34s 2. sonnet 5 – 1373 loc / 18m55s 3. fable 5 – 1546 loc / 18m32s 4. opus 4.8 – 1904 loc / 27m21s hy3 is the fastest and the leanest by a wide margin we had opus 4.8 analyze hy3's code. the read: - sand castle: checklist-complete but the crumble is parametric, not physical. it shrinks and slumps the towers and fades alpha instead of dissolving into grains. the cheap-but-plausible interpretation. the tell of a smaller model - factory line: the arm-to-part sync is actually causal, not faked. it triggers each robot early by exactly the arm's descent time, so the tap lands right as the part arrives. it also pre-seeds the belt so it never cold-starts empty. clean state machine. one latent bug – a part gets marked processed before checking if the robot is free, so at a faster spawn rate a "laptop" could ship missing a part. never fires at current timing, but the invariant isn't enforced - 3d city: genuinely frontier-adjacent. correct modern setup (pcfsoft shadows, srgb, aces tone mapping, damped orbit + auto-rotate pause). clones the window texture per building and scales the uv repeat to each building's dimensions so windows don't stretch. downside: no instancing – ~800 texture clones across 200 buildings. runs fine, not optimized. roads are implicit gaps, not explicit planes our observations: • hy3 is quite fast • its animations are simple but you can see it trying – it adds detail, and the 3d render sits at the same level as the frontier models • sonnet 5 is weak here. hy3 beats it on the sand castle and the 3d render, level on the conveyor • opus 4.8 is anthropic's best model after the fable 5 nerf – it beats fable on the conveyor and the 3d render net: hy3 runs clean and well-formed across all three with zero syntax errors, even version-matching the three.js core and examples build. it's economical rather than ambitious – it does the minimum viable version of each hard requirement well, and only reaches for the expensive interpretation on the 3d task a very coherent profile for a cost-optimized open-weight model follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
thehype.34,961 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce
hy3 vs mimo-v2.5 vs deepseek v4 flash vs minimax m3 the four models on top of the openrouter leaderboard by tokens this week: #1 hy3 (Tencent Hy) – 7.5t #2 mimo-v2.5 (Xiaomi MiMo) – 6.56t #3 deepseek v4 flash (DeepSeek) – 5.24t #4 minimax m3 (MiniMax (official)) – 4.21t so we tested them. 3 prompts, single-file html, Three.js from a cdn, fully procedural, no external assets. all run via AI/ML API each prompt is a transparent cutaway machine that has to be mechanically correct, not decorative: • 4-stroke engine with full oil circulation – slider-crank kinematics, cam at 2:1, valve lift driven by lobes, oil loop from sump to gallery to big-end • watt walking-beam steam engine – four-bar vector-loop closure, eccentric-driven slide valve, steam events synced to real port position • francis reaction water turbine – 20 guide vanes on a regulating ring, 17 lofted runner blades, gpu particle advection, precessing vortex rope at part load the takeaway up front: none of the four cleared all three scenes on the first attempt. but the price spread between them is roughly 70x – hy3 fixed included costs less than two cents overall results (summed across all 3 scenes): cost #1 hy3 – $0.016 #2 deepseek v4 flash – $0.025 #3 mimo-v2.5 – $0.97 #4 minimax m3 – $1.17 tokens #1 hy3 – 19,326 #2 deepseek v4 flash – 63,126 #3 mimo-v2.5 – 322,523 #4 minimax m3 – 702,900 lines of code #1 hy3 – 1,047 #2 mimo-v2.5 – 2,759 #3 deepseek v4 flash – 3,273 #4 minimax m3 – 3,354 scenes needing a second attempt #1 hy3 – 1 (engine) #1 mimo-v2.5 – 1 (turbine) #1 minimax m3 – 1 (turbine) #4 deepseek v4 flash – 2 (steam engine, turbine) observations: 1. the token spread is the real story – minimax burns 36x hy3's tokens and lands in the same place, one retry, ~3.3k lines 2. hy3 is the outlier on density: 1,047 lines total, fewest tokens, cheapest run, and only one scene needed a second pass. deepseek is the opposite trade – near-hy3 pricing but the most retries 3. mimo and minimax seem to overthink instead of writing the code. minimax spent 359.1k tokens on the steam engine and produced 1,346 lines – the tokens are going somewhere other than the file 4. the francis turbine broke three of the four. the spec that separates them is the one with 20 linked guide vanes and gpu particle advection, not the one with the most parts overall impression: none of these models excelled at any of the tasks we gave them. but they were close, and they were extremely cheap. the gap that matters isn't quality anymore – it's that hy3 ran all three scenes for less than two cents while the frontier labs charge dollars for the same work right now you pick these because they're good for the zero price you pay. soon that's something openai and anthropic will have to think about follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
thehype.17,145 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce
veo 3.1 fast vs seedance 2.0 vs grok imagine vs happyhorse 1.1 four video models pulled from the openrouter video leaderboard by request count this week (skipping the duplicate google/bytedance variants to get four distinct labs): #1 veo 3.1 fast (Google DeepMind) – 45k requests #3 seedance 2.0 (bytedance) – 22k requests #5 grok imagine video (SpaceXAI) – 9k requests #8 happyhorse 1.1 (Alibaba Group) – 4k requests so we tested them. 3 prompts, text-to-video, 16:9 / 720p / 8s, real-player likeness fed in as reference images where the model allowed it. all run via AI/ML API in the run-up to the 2026 world cup final – argentina vs spain – we built three broadcast moments from that tie. each one has to be mechanically correct, not just pretty: • stadium flyover – 80k-seat bowl, argentina vs spain, one continuous descending aerial spiral, tifo + flares, golden-hour / floodlight split • penalty – lamine yamal (spain #19) vs emiliano martínez (argentina keeper): run-up, single strike, full-stretch dive, ball in the net. real faces via reference • free kick – messi 25m out, five-man wall, curl up and over the wall into the top corner. the wall has to face the ball with arms pinned down, like a real wall the takeaway up front: the gap that decides this isn't quality – it's moderation. three of the four refuse to render real footballers' faces (grok was the only one that took every reference), so most of the test had to be reshot "faceless" – camera behind the player. the price spread on top of that is ~4x overall results: cost #1 grok – $1.56 #2 veo 3.1 fast – $3.12 #3 happyhorse – $4.38 #4 seedance 2.0 – $6.00 generation time #1 grok – 4m 16s #2 veo 3.1 fast – 4m 26s #3 happyhorse – 8m 16s #4 seedance 2.0 – 10m 38s avg bitrate (picture density) #1 grok – 12.0 mbps #2 veo 3.1 fast – 11.1 mbps #3 happyhorse – 7.4 mbps #4 seedance 2.0 – 5.3 mbps real faces allowed ✅ grok – took every reference ❌ happyhorse – yamal ok, messi blocked ❌ veo – blocked ❌ seedance – blocked observations: 1. moderation is the whole story. three of the four blocked at least one real face – veo and seedance refused every reference outright, happyhorse took yamal but rejected messi. only grok rendered all of them. everything else had to be shot from behind so no face shows 2. grok is the outlier: cheapest, densest picture, fastest, and the only one that renders real faces. it won on every axis that mattered here 3. seedance is the anti-grok – 4x the cost, 2.5x the time, half the bitrate, and no real faces. worst value in the set 4. none of them understand football out of the box follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
thehype.15,453 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce
sonnet 5 vs sonnet 4.6 vs opus 4.8 vs glm 5.2 – frontend tasks dropped sonnet 5 into a quick test today. same three prompts to all four models, single-shot html/canvas, no edits: • objects falling on a trampoline • rockets playing tennis • a slingshot breaking bottles ranked by speed (total across the 3 tasks): 1. opus 4.8 – 15m 09s 2. sonnet 5 – 16m 05s 3. glm 5.2 – 27m 18s 4. sonnet 4.6 – 35m 06s ranked by code shortness (total loc): 1. sonnet 5 – 1794 2. opus 4.8 – 2063 3. sonnet 4.6 – 2182 4. glm 5.2 – 3285 sonnet 5 came out on top here – leanest code overall and a near-tie for fastest it was also the most creative. in every task it added something none of the others did: – kept the trampoline vibrating after the objects landed – drew a +1 next to the rocket that scored the point – turned the slingshot to face the next bottle before each shot opus 4.8 evaluated the code sonnet 5 produced. four things stood out: • the sphere is a fake, and that's the smart move. the cube and star are real 3d meshes with proper culling and shading, but the ball is just a flat shaded circle. a lit sphere looks identical from every angle, so building it in 3d would burn compute for zero visible payoff. knowing where not to bother is its own kind of skill • weight actually means something on the trampoline. the star is heavy, so it barely bounces and dents the mat hard. the ball is light, so it's lively and leaves a shallow dip. the three objects aren't just different shapes – they have different temperaments, and the physics is what gives them that • the slingshot is framed like a shot, not just drawn. the handle is anchored below the bottom of the screen and runs off-frame, so it reads as something you're holding rather than a sprite parked in the scene. that's a staging instinct, not a rendering one • the paddle ai forward-simulates the ball to predict where it'll land, then adds a deliberate error bias (roughly 1 in 5 shots is a real miss). that's why scoring looks natural instead of robotic – plus four distinct fault types with a catch-all so a rally never hangs without a result bottom line: sonnet 5 does more with less. fastest tier, leanest code, and the only one that added small touches nobody asked for follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
thehype.14,518 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce
Daha fazla içerik yok.