Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

1/3 🤖 Meet AgentOS: A Token-efficient, Microkernel AI agent with on-device model routing across CLI, Web UI, and chat. A local router reads every message on your device and sends it to the cheapest model that can still do the job well. You stop overpaying for AI. ⚡ What...

203,810 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

New open-source agent harness just landed! I got early access to TrueForge by TrueFoundry and have been running it locally for the past few days. The harness layer deserves as much attention as the model, and open source matters here because you can inspect the loop, run it on your own infrastructure, and swap to the latest or cheaper models. TrueForge handles the runtime work that makes an agent reliable. It drives the tool-calling loop, manages context, coordinates subagents, and executes code in a sandbox, with any model you choose. Every tool call re-sends the growing context to the model, so in practice the harness controls most of what an agent costs to run. A few things stood out from my testing and their published benchmarks. Vendor-Neutral by design. It runs OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google models alongside open-weight models like Kimi, GLM, and DeepSeek. Model routing is a setting, and you can send each task to the model that fits it. On a 14-task enterprise agent benchmark, it matched the accuracy of Claude Managed Agents running the same Opus 4.8 model at roughly 30% lower cost per run (3.8M tokens vs 10M for the same answers). Routing the same tasks to GLM-5.2 held accuracy and brought cost down by about 75%, around $3 per run instead of $12. Fully self-hosted and Open Source (MIT License). I had it running locally with one command, with sandboxed code execution working out of the box. It's time to own your agent harness. Thanks to TrueFoundry for partnering on this post.

elvis

11,303 views • 12 days ago

Introducing Pods Hyperspace Pods lets a small group of people - a family, a startup, a few friends, to pool their laptops and desktops into one AI cluster. Everyone installs the CLI, someone creates a pod, shares an invite link, and the machines form a mesh. Models like Qwen 3.5 32B or GLM-5 Turbo that need more memory than any single laptop has get automatically sharded across the group's devices - layers split proportionally, inference pipelined through the ring. From the outside it looks like one OpenAI-compatible API endpoint with a pk_* key that drops straight into your AI tools and products. No configuration beyond pasting the key and changing the base URL. A team of five paying for cloud AI burns $500–2,000 a month on API calls. The same team's existing machines can serve Qwen 3.5 (competitive on SWE-bench) and GLM-5 Turbo (#1 on BrowseComp for tool-calling and web research) for free - the hardware is already on their desks. When a query genuinely needs a frontier model nobody has locally, the pod falls back to cloud at wholesale rates from a shared treasury. But for the daily work - code reviews, refactors, research, drafting - local models handle it and nobody gets billed. And when it is idle, you can rent out your pod on the compute marketplace, with fine-grained permissions for access management. There's no central server involved in inference. Prompts go from your machine to your pod members' machines and back: all of this enabled by the fully peer-to-peer Hyperspace network. Pod state - who's a member, which API keys are valid, how much treasury is left - is replicated across members with consensus, so the whole thing works on a local network. Members behind home routers don't need port forwarding either. The practical setup for most pods is three models covering different jobs: Qwen 3.5 32B for code and reasoning, GLM-5 Turbo for browsing and research, Gemma 4 for fast lightweight tasks. All running on hardware you already own. Pods ship today in Hyperspace v5.19. Model sharding, API keys, treasury, and Raft coordinator are all live. What Makes This Different - No middleman. Your prompts travel from your IDE to your pod members' hardware and back. There is no server in between reading your data. - No vendor lock-in. Pod membership, API keys, and treasury are replicated across your own machines using Raft consensus. If the internet goes down, your local network keeps working. There is no database in someone else's cloud that your pod depends on. - Automatic sharding. You don't configure layer ranges or calculate VRAM budgets. Tell the pod which model you want. It figures out how to split it across whatever hardware is online. - Real NAT traversal. Your friend behind a home router with a dynamic IP? Works. No VPN, no Tailscale, no port forwarding. The nodes handle it. - Free when local. This is the part that matters most. Cloud AI bills scale with usage. Pod inference on local hardware scales with nothing. The marginal cost of your 10,000th prompt is the electricity your laptop was already using. Coming soon: - Pod federation: pods form alliances with other pods. - Marketplace: pods with spare capacity can sell inference to other pods.

Varun

309,460 views • 4 months ago

Fable 5 comes back!It can now build playable game prototypes. I think it is actually a signal for where AI coding is going. Making a game is not just “write some code.” Even a small browser game needs: game loop;character movement;collision logic;scoring system;UI states;physics tuning;visual feedback;bug fixing;playtesting This is why game prototyping is a great test for AI models. A model cannot fake it with a pretty answer. Either the game runs, or it does not. What impressed me about Fable 5 is that it is useful for the messy middle: turning an idea into mechanics, turning mechanics into code, debugging broken interactions, and iterating until the prototype feels playable. But here is the practical part: I would not use the strongest model for every step. For game building, I would split the workflow: 1. Fable 5 for game design + architecture 2. a fast coding model for routine implementation 3. a vision-capable model for screenshot/UI feedback 4. a cheaper model for docs, test cases, and small fixes 5. fallback when latency, cost, or output quality becomes a problem That is the real AI coding stack. Not “one magic model does everything.” More like: the right model, for the right task, at the right cost, with fallback when things break. This is why I’ve been looking at ZenMux ZenMux. ZenMux gives developers one gateway to access multiple leading AI models, with OpenAI / Anthropic / Google Vertex compatible APIs, cost tracking, quality benchmarks, auto-routing, and compensation when output quality, latency, or throughput falls short. If AI can now make games, the next question is not just “which model is strongest?” It is:how do we manage the whole model workflow Fable 5 shows the creative ceiling. ZenMux is closer to the infrastructure layer you need when AI coding becomes a real production habit.

Rachel🥥

61,441 views • 2 months ago

If you think this is just another silly demo made with AI, read this post. You might change your mind, because this demo is about MATH. What you see on the screen is not a render from Blender (obviously, it’s not that good). It’s a three.js app built with Toolcraft. Available on the web and rendered in real time(link in the comments). But Blender still has a lot to do with it. Blender has Geometry Nodes - a powerful node-based system for creating and manipulating procedural geometry. In other words, it’s math. And math is a universal language. And who do you think is pretty good at math? >>> AI. Now you can download or buy Blender files from marketplaces, and when they contain Geometry Nodes for procedural animations, objects, surfaces, or effects, you can transfer that logic to the web. Make it real-time, make it interactive. Materials are a separate story, of course. They can still suck unless you use the right tricks: PBR, HDRIs, material blending, displacement, and faked surface relief. So why is Blender important here? Blender is open source, and many tools around it are open source too. An AI trained on their code. That means it can translate the math from one environment to another quite accurately. If you’ve been struggling to reproduce some idea with AI that you had in your head or seen in some references, and it has something to do with Geometry Nodes, and you can find that idea or a close one in the Blender ecosystem - it means you can transfer it to the web. Thank me later.

Alex Barashkov

28,300 views • 1 month ago

Introducing Glidepath. A new way for builders on Bankr to take profit -- without nuking their own chart, or their reputation. The problem: Builders earn fees in their own token. The second they sell into the pool, the chart craters, holders get wrecked, and trust evaporates. And they torch their own long-term upside doing it. First -- what Glidepath is not: It doesn't pull liquidity. It never touches your pool's LP. Pulling liquidity makes trading your token inefficient and unappealing. It's your own tokens, fed back into the pool in slices so small the market barely registers them, each one sized by the Bankr AI agent to live conditions. Why that's healthy for the chart, not harmful: Every slice is a tiny fraction of pool depth, spread over time. Organic buy volume absorbs it, price can keep trending instead of taking a wick. A small, steady, absorbable flow is nothing like a full clip. It actually gets better. Once "the dev might dump" is off the table, buyers price in less risk. The overhang that caps every launch disappears. Less rug risk → stronger bid. Committing to a Glidepath can be bullish. And it's not opt‑in. Selling your fee token straight into the pool through Bankr is now turned off -- Glidepath is the only way to sell it on Bankr. So "the dev might dump" stops being a promise holders have to trust, and becomes a rule they can see. Credible commitment -- enforced, not just offered. And here's the part builders sleep on: Before you commit, Glidepath shows what that same stack is worth at higher market caps. You don't have to dump to fund your project. Grind the coin up, and the same tokens fund you many times over. Your treasury grows with your chart, not against it. Once you commit: → tokens are locked to a vesting wallet → after a short heads-up window (48hr), they exit in small slices using the AI generated sell plan → each slice capped to a fraction of real liquidity -- the AI can size under the cap, never over And it's all in the open. Your token page shows a live exit plan for everyone to see -- committed, sold, remaining -- with the exact timing fuzzed so it can't be front-run. Holders see a capped, transparent glide. No hidden float. No 3am chart nuke. Bottom line: Creators -- take profit on your terms, chart and reputation intact. Holders -- "the dev might dump" becomes a known, capped, visible number known up front. For once, you and your holders want the exact same thing: number go up. This is what launching on Bankr should mean: credible commitment, built in. Glidepath now live in your Bankr terminal

bankrbot

98,140 views • 2 months ago