Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

After a weekend of testing and working on something with GPT-5.3-Codex & Opus 4.6, ChatGPT Pro + Claude Max 5x are still the best combo in my opinion Using Codex & Claude Code CLI running in tmux (the desktop apps are still a bit buggy) and they're accessible even...

btibor91's profile picture

Tibor Blaho

36,668 subscribers

29,794 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

🐐 Gemini 3 Pro GA One shot prompt is in comment with the codepen link I repeat no model in this entire world able to implement this level of physics and spatial reasoning Not even Opus 4.6 and Gpt-5.3 codex , this is like a generation gap Sub Woofer submitted this
0:15

🐐 Gemini 3 Pro GA One shot prompt is in comment with the codepen link I repeat no model in this entire world able to implement this level of physics and spatial reasoning Not even Opus 4.6 and Gpt-5.3 codex , this is like a generation gap Sub Woofer submitted this

Chetaslua

35,579 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

You can now orchestrate Fable 5, Sol, and any model inside Codex with one plugin. It's called Codex-Orchestration. Assign Fable 5 as the advisor, Sol as the executor, or any model to any role. Then define the order they work in. Codex handles the routing. I ran Fable 5 High as planner with GPT-5.6 Sol Extra High as executor on a set of issues Opus and GPT-5.5 always struggled with. Done in 30 minutes. 40% fewer limit hits. 2x faster implementation. Install it by pasting this into Codex: "Install Codex Orchestration: codex plugin marketplace add Cjbuilds/Codex-Orchestration codex plugin add codex-orchestration@codex-orchestration Verify the installation, then tell me to start a new task." Then assign your models: @ codex-orchestration advisor: Claude Fable 5 High, Executor: GPT-5.6 Sol High Open source. Tweak the routing however you want.
0:14

You can now orchestrate Fable 5, Sol, and any model inside Codex with one plugin. It's called Codex-Orchestration. Assign Fable 5 as the advisor, Sol as the executor, or any model to any role. Then define the order they work in. Codex handles the routing. I ran Fable 5 High as planner with GPT-5.6 Sol Extra High as executor on a set of issues Opus and GPT-5.5 always struggled with. Done in 30 minutes. 40% fewer limit hits. 2x faster implementation. Install it by pasting this into Codex: "Install Codex Orchestration: codex plugin marketplace add Cjbuilds/Codex-Orchestration codex plugin add codex-orchestration@codex-orchestration Verify the installation, then tell me to start a new task." Then assign your models: @ codex-orchestration advisor: Claude Fable 5 High, Executor: GPT-5.6 Sol High Open source. Tweak the routing however you want.

Alvaro Cintas

91,168 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Opus 4.6 vs GPT 5.4 (High) (1/9) prompt: Build a single-file HTML/CSS/JS (no libs) demo that uses SVG to simulate a plant growing: stem extends, leaves sprout + unfurl with springy/windy “physics”, then seamlessly loops forever. For the initial impressions I'm really impressed by GPT, for speed they both felt about the same, but gpt was still half cheaper than opus. I also much prefer the design and animation that gpt produced, physics on the leaves are super cool and it also loops pretty nicely whilst opus just fades out the plant. Still got a bunch of tests to run but this is really exciting.
0:10

Opus 4.6 vs GPT 5.4 (High) (1/9) prompt: Build a single-file HTML/CSS/JS (no libs) demo that uses SVG to simulate a plant growing: stem extends, leaves sprout + unfurl with springy/windy “physics”, then seamlessly loops forever. For the initial impressions I'm really impressed by GPT, for speed they both felt about the same, but gpt was still half cheaper than opus. I also much prefer the design and animation that gpt produced, physics on the leaves are super cool and it also loops pretty nicely whilst opus just fades out the plant. Still got a bunch of tests to run but this is really exciting.

Dev Ed

660,154 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

BREAKING: Anthropic just dropped Opus 4.8—and it is a MONSTER We've been testing for about a week Every 🪨 and our verdict is they could've just called it Opus 5, it's that good. Here's our vibe check: - Beats GPT-5.5 on Senior Engineer bench. On our toughest benchmark Opus 4.8 scores a 63—a hair higher than GPT-5.5's score of 62, and a full 30 points higher than Opus 4.7. It tackled a ground-up rewrite of a production codebase, and actually built something that works. HOWEVER: Coding performance varied a lot at different reasoning levels. We recommend using it on xhigh for best results. - Incredibly good writer. Opus 4.8 scored a 79.6 on our writing benchmark—measuring models on real-world writing tasks we do all of the time like essay writing, promo email writing, and more. It beats GPT-5.5 by 6 points. It produces well-written prose with fewer "AI-isms". It's also very good at writing in your voice given the right context. HOWEVER: Writing performance also varied with reasoning levels. Medium reasoning had higher incidence of AI-isms—we found best results with high. - Beast at knowledge work. Opus 4.8 is very good at general knowledge work tasks like report creation, research and more. It produced the best PowerPoint one-shot we've ever seen on our deck generation benchmark. - Emotionally intelligent, willing to question the frame. I've also found it to be quite good at talking through psychological or interpersonal issues. It has a high EQ, and it's also good at not glazing and helping to expand your perspective. Its thought process feels extremely rich and dynamic. THE BAD: These days a model is only as good as its harness, and Codex is still a far superior harness to the Claude Desktop app. This has kept me using Codex + GPT-5.5 as my daily driver, but I am flipping back and forth a lot more between Codex and Claude. Anthropic is back baby! Read the rest on Every 🪨:
0:11

BREAKING: Anthropic just dropped Opus 4.8—and it is a MONSTER We've been testing for about a week Every 🪨 and our verdict is they could've just called it Opus 5, it's that good. Here's our vibe check: - Beats GPT-5.5 on Senior Engineer bench. On our toughest benchmark Opus 4.8 scores a 63—a hair higher than GPT-5.5's score of 62, and a full 30 points higher than Opus 4.7. It tackled a ground-up rewrite of a production codebase, and actually built something that works. HOWEVER: Coding performance varied a lot at different reasoning levels. We recommend using it on xhigh for best results. - Incredibly good writer. Opus 4.8 scored a 79.6 on our writing benchmark—measuring models on real-world writing tasks we do all of the time like essay writing, promo email writing, and more. It beats GPT-5.5 by 6 points. It produces well-written prose with fewer "AI-isms". It's also very good at writing in your voice given the right context. HOWEVER: Writing performance also varied with reasoning levels. Medium reasoning had higher incidence of AI-isms—we found best results with high. - Beast at knowledge work. Opus 4.8 is very good at general knowledge work tasks like report creation, research and more. It produced the best PowerPoint one-shot we've ever seen on our deck generation benchmark. - Emotionally intelligent, willing to question the frame. I've also found it to be quite good at talking through psychological or interpersonal issues. It has a high EQ, and it's also good at not glazing and helping to expand your perspective. Its thought process feels extremely rich and dynamic. THE BAD: These days a model is only as good as its harness, and Codex is still a far superior harness to the Claude Desktop app. This has kept me using Codex + GPT-5.5 as my daily driver, but I am flipping back and forth a lot more between Codex and Claude. Anthropic is back baby! Read the rest on Every 🪨:

Dan Shipper 📧

354,351 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

I’m joining OpenAI Codex to work on the future of agentic development! At Cursor, I got to see the shift from autocomplete to agents. The next step isn’t a better IDE. It’s an Agent Development Environment (ADE): systems and tools for orchestrating agents, reasoning over their outputs, and making them autonomous enough to reliably complete ambitious work. After chatting with Alexander Embiricos and Tibo, it was clear that Codex is the best place to realize this vision. The team has consistently shipped SOTA models for agentic coding (check out gpt-5.3-codex) and I’m pumped for the future that the new Codex App points to. What I’m most excited about is the broader mission: accelerating the knowledge work economy. All agents are coding agents, and we’re already seeing Codex used across every job function within organizations. I’m extremely grateful for my time at Cursor, working with the incredible team, and I’m proud of what we built together. I’m excited to take an even bigger swing with Codex. If you’re curious to get a glimpse of where we are headed, download the Codex App! If you want to work on this mission, please apply or reach out - we are hiring across all functions! You can just build things.
0:12

I’m joining OpenAI Codex to work on the future of agentic development! At Cursor, I got to see the shift from autocomplete to agents. The next step isn’t a better IDE. It’s an Agent Development Environment (ADE): systems and tools for orchestrating agents, reasoning over their outputs, and making them autonomous enough to reliably complete ambitious work. After chatting with Alexander Embiricos and Tibo, it was clear that Codex is the best place to realize this vision. The team has consistently shipped SOTA models for agentic coding (check out gpt-5.3-codex) and I’m pumped for the future that the new Codex App points to. What I’m most excited about is the broader mission: accelerating the knowledge work economy. All agents are coding agents, and we’re already seeing Codex used across every job function within organizations. I’m extremely grateful for my time at Cursor, working with the incredible team, and I’m proud of what we built together. I’m excited to take an even bigger swing with Codex. If you’re curious to get a glimpse of where we are headed, download the Codex App! If you want to work on this mission, please apply or reach out - we are hiring across all functions! You can just build things.

Rohan Varma

759,511 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

Alrighty, everything is ready 😎 here’s an unofficial “2x Codex limits” promo from my side for you all. meet DevSpace — an MCP connector app that turns ChatGPT into Codex. npm install -g @waishnav/devspace After installing, tunnel the MCP server over the internet and enjoy 2x limits. You can use GPT-5.5 Pro, xHigh, or High for planning, then hand off the task to your local Codex/pi/opencode/cursor/claude code instance. Or you can just use it for reviewing code written by other local coding agents Go ahead, experiment with different workflows, and keep the feedback coming on GitHub Issues or in my DMs And let’s thank OpenAI for being so generous by giving us separate ChatGPT and Codex limits and by being so chill around this MCP :) Please use it sparingly, only when you run out of limits. Don’t overuse it — in the end, they do have a button to stop it 🙂
0:18

Alrighty, everything is ready 😎 here’s an unofficial “2x Codex limits” promo from my side for you all. meet DevSpace — an MCP connector app that turns ChatGPT into Codex. npm install -g @waishnav/devspace After installing, tunnel the MCP server over the internet and enjoy 2x limits. You can use GPT-5.5 Pro, xHigh, or High for planning, then hand off the task to your local Codex/pi/opencode/cursor/claude code instance. Or you can just use it for reviewing code written by other local coding agents Go ahead, experiment with different workflows, and keep the feedback coming on GitHub Issues or in my DMs And let’s thank OpenAI for being so generous by giving us separate ChatGPT and Codex limits and by being so chill around this MCP :) Please use it sparingly, only when you run out of limits. Don’t overuse it — in the end, they do have a button to stop it 🙂

waishnav

533,676 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Updated the subagents system in my custom Pi extension to include: - Pi subagents - Codex subagents - Claude Code subagents The Pi thread can call and spin up any of them, and instead of just using the "codex exec" or whatever, it'll do a tool call that wraps it up in a first class way. Have a decent UI for them already added in as well. Pi being the main thread then having Codex/Claude Code as tools when needed feels so good. A flow I'm already using a ton is: "Implement feature ___, have a cc fable subagent research and plan out the api design + feature, then have a codex subagent implement it, then have a cc fable subagent do a review/fixes focused on simplicity and correctness" I also have a dynamic workflows extension setup and working, but it's not nearly as polished yet. Probably gonna make the subagent system more robust, then built it around that so u could have a workflow that flows between codex/cc/pi...
0:19

Updated the subagents system in my custom Pi extension to include: - Pi subagents - Codex subagents - Claude Code subagents The Pi thread can call and spin up any of them, and instead of just using the "codex exec" or whatever, it'll do a tool call that wraps it up in a first class way. Have a decent UI for them already added in as well. Pi being the main thread then having Codex/Claude Code as tools when needed feels so good. A flow I'm already using a ton is: "Implement feature ___, have a cc fable subagent research and plan out the api design + feature, then have a codex subagent implement it, then have a cc fable subagent do a review/fixes focused on simplicity and correctness" I also have a dynamic workflows extension setup and working, but it's not nearly as polished yet. Probably gonna make the subagent system more robust, then built it around that so u could have a workflow that flows between codex/cc/pi...

Ben Davis

24,827 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 (4/9) prompt: Build a production-quality 3D flight-tracking web app using React + Vite + Three.js (react-three-fiber + drei) that visualizes live OpenSky aircraft data on a rotatable 3D Earth, with real-time plane motion, smooth interpolation, altitude-accurate positioning, and polished lighting/post-processing. Both models did really well on this one and honestly I’m impressed with both. GPT-5.4 had the nicer post-processing out of the box. I really liked the subtle light shimmer on the airplanes when rotating the planet, and the camera work when clicking a plane felt better overall. Opus 4.6 though had a few details I liked more. It automatically went and found a much nicer Earth texture on GitHub, while with GPT-5.4 I had to reprompt it to go look for a better one. I also preferred Opus’s plane model overall, it just looked more polished, whereas GPT-5.4’s plane asset looked a bit funny. One thing I noticed with GPT-5.4 is that when you click into the plane, the camera sometimes clips through the planet, which breaks the effect a bit. Opus handled that part more cleanly. Overall this felt like a strong result from both, just with different strengths. GPT-5.4 felt better on presentation and post-processing, while Opus had better asset choices and a more premium-looking Earth/plane combo.
0:15

Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 (4/9) prompt: Build a production-quality 3D flight-tracking web app using React + Vite + Three.js (react-three-fiber + drei) that visualizes live OpenSky aircraft data on a rotatable 3D Earth, with real-time plane motion, smooth interpolation, altitude-accurate positioning, and polished lighting/post-processing. Both models did really well on this one and honestly I’m impressed with both. GPT-5.4 had the nicer post-processing out of the box. I really liked the subtle light shimmer on the airplanes when rotating the planet, and the camera work when clicking a plane felt better overall. Opus 4.6 though had a few details I liked more. It automatically went and found a much nicer Earth texture on GitHub, while with GPT-5.4 I had to reprompt it to go look for a better one. I also preferred Opus’s plane model overall, it just looked more polished, whereas GPT-5.4’s plane asset looked a bit funny. One thing I noticed with GPT-5.4 is that when you click into the plane, the camera sometimes clips through the planet, which breaks the effect a bit. Opus handled that part more cleanly. Overall this felt like a strong result from both, just with different strengths. GPT-5.4 felt better on presentation and post-processing, while Opus had better asset choices and a more premium-looking Earth/plane combo.

Dev Ed

279,565 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

In the past week, I was able to build the following games: - An endless runner - A tower defense - A Mario Party-like mini-game - An arena-based shooter The key unlock here was the ThreeJS skill With Opus 4.5 & GPT 5.2 - Claude Code / Codex CLI have much better end results now. With each game, I continued to update the skill based on bugs and issues faced - so it progressively got better and better at building the gameplay I was looking for. I've been doing this for a while now - and I can say that the leap in building games with vibe coding is real.
0:12

In the past week, I was able to build the following games: - An endless runner - A tower defense - A Mario Party-like mini-game - An arena-based shooter The key unlock here was the ThreeJS skill With Opus 4.5 & GPT 5.2 - Claude Code / Codex CLI have much better end results now. With each game, I continued to update the skill based on bugs and issues faced - so it progressively got better and better at building the gameplay I was looking for. I've been doing this for a while now - and I can say that the leap in building games with vibe coding is real.

Chong-U

266,025 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

People still don't understand how good Codex has become 👀 I asked it to build this Starbucks website and within some 30 minutes it generated this without me touching a single line of code or spending time looking for assets either. Imagen generated every visual and GPT hooked everything into the codebase. After a couple of small tweaks it all just worked. It didn't even use half of my Codex session. It's super surprising to see quality of the assets. Was way better than I expected. That made me think about what AI is actually changing. Being a developer or a designer was never just about doing the work, writing code or designing it using some kind of tool. It was about knowing what to build in the first place. AI is getting incredibly good at the doing. The hard part is still having good ideas, making the right decisions, and knowing when something feels right. That is only getting more valuable. The people who win won't be the ones writing the most code. They'll be the ones with the best ideas who know how to turn them into reality with AI. Live: Code:
0:17

People still don't understand how good Codex has become 👀 I asked it to build this Starbucks website and within some 30 minutes it generated this without me touching a single line of code or spending time looking for assets either. Imagen generated every visual and GPT hooked everything into the codebase. After a couple of small tweaks it all just worked. It didn't even use half of my Codex session. It's super surprising to see quality of the assets. Was way better than I expected. That made me think about what AI is actually changing. Being a developer or a designer was never just about doing the work, writing code or designing it using some kind of tool. It was about knowing what to build in the first place. AI is getting incredibly good at the doing. The hard part is still having good ideas, making the right decisions, and knowing when something feels right. That is only getting more valuable. The people who win won't be the ones writing the most code. They'll be the ones with the best ideas who know how to turn them into reality with AI. Live: Code:

The Bugged Dev

60,699 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Rejoice. Just following up with another quick W in Codex You can now configure your reasoning level in plan mode separately directly from your config file. This is huge for Plus users who want to plan with high or xhigh reasoning levels, and then switch over to medium reasoning for implementation, without needing the slash command. This is a great way to save your usage limits, and now it happens automatically. Even if you're on Pro, this should make you very happy. Prior to this, it was switching you automatically to medium every time you planned, which was pretty annoying. Place this near the top of your config file: plan_mode_reasoning = "high" (or xhigh) 0.150.0 is a massive quality of life update. They're clearly listening. This time I am shouting out Charlie. 🙏
0:17

Rejoice. Just following up with another quick W in Codex You can now configure your reasoning level in plan mode separately directly from your config file. This is huge for Plus users who want to plan with high or xhigh reasoning levels, and then switch over to medium reasoning for implementation, without needing the slash command. This is a great way to save your usage limits, and now it happens automatically. Even if you're on Pro, this should make you very happy. Prior to this, it was switching you automatically to medium every time you planned, which was pretty annoying. Place this near the top of your config file: plan_mode_reasoning = "high" (or xhigh) 0.150.0 is a massive quality of life update. They're clearly listening. This time I am shouting out Charlie. 🙏

am.will

25,907 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

HERMES AGENT NOW RUNS CLAUDE OPUS 5. NEAR FABLE 5 INTELLIGENCE. HALF THE PRICE. SELF-VERIFIES ITS OWN WORK. AVAILABLE TODAY VIA NOUS PORTAL (20% OFF ALL MODELS). Anthropic shipped Opus 5 on July 24, 2026. same $5/$25 per million tokens as Opus 4.8. but the benchmarks tell a different story. WHAT CHANGED FROM OPUS 4.8: FrontierBench v0.1: Opus 5: 43.3%. Opus 4.8: 18.7%. 2.3x jump on the same test. ARC-AGI-3: Opus 5: 30.2%. 3x better than the next closest model. beat Fable 5 on 8 out of 13 benchmarks. at half the cost ($5/$25 vs $10/$50). same price as Opus 4.8. twice the intelligence. no reason to stay on 4.8. THE SPECS: model ID: claude-opus-5 context: 1M tokens (default and maximum) max output: 128K tokens thinking: on by default effort toggle: low / medium / high per request fast mode: $10/$50, 2.5x faster knowledge cutoff: May 2026 minimum cacheable prompt: 512 tokens (was 1,024) SELF-VERIFICATION (the biggest change): Opus 5 checks its own work automatically. Anthropic says: delete your verification prompts. "include a final verification step" now causes OVER-verification because the model already does it. for Hermes /goal tasks this is a direct upgrade. the judge checks evidence. the model also checks evidence. double layer of verification without extra tokens. EFFORT TOGGLE: low: fast, cheap, routine work. medium: balanced, daily tasks. high: full reasoning, complex problems. set per request. not a global switch. matches Hermes /reasoning command: /reasoning low (routine) /reasoning high (complex) Opus 5 effort toggle + Hermes reasoning control = precise cost management per turn. WHERE OPUS 5 FITS IN HERMES: DAILY DRIVER (replaces Opus 4.8): same price. 2.3x better benchmarks. set as your main model: Desktop app / Dashboard: Models → claude-opus-5 CHIEF OF STAFF: synthesis across multiple agents. reads Kanban, prioritizes, routes tasks. self-verification catches routing errors before they cascade. COMPLEX CODING: SOTA on agentic coding benchmarks. FrontierBench 43.3% = best public model for coding. set as coder profile model. /GOAL TASKS: self-verification + completion contracts = the model proves its work AND double-checks the proof. long-horizon goals finish correctly more often. MoA AGGREGATOR: strongest synthesis model at $5/$25. pair with GPT-5.6 and Grok 4.5 as references. Opus 5 aggregates. best quality at mid-range price. presets: max-quality: reference_models: - provider: openai-codex model: gpt-5.6-sol - provider: xai model: grok-4.5 aggregator: provider: anthropic model: claude-opus-5 COMPUTER USE: near-Fable 5 quality for browser automation. at half the token cost per session. computer_use tasks burn lots of vision tokens. Opus 5 halves that bill vs Fable 5. WHAT TO KEEP OPUS 5 AWAY FROM: cron monitoring: too expensive. use DeepSeek or no_agent mode. sub-agent grunt work: use GPT-5.6 Luna ($1/$6) or DeepSeek. auxiliary tasks: use Gemini Flash. routine web extraction: use a cheap model. Opus 5 is for the turns where quality compounds. planning, synthesis, verification, complex reasoning. budget models handle everything else. NOUS PORTAL: 20% OFF ALL MODELS Nous Portal currently runs a 20% discount on all models including Opus 5. $5/$25 official → $4/$20 through Nous Portal. the cheapest way to run Opus 5 right now. hermes setup --portal select claude-opus-5 as your model. discount applies automatically. Opus 5 replaces Opus 4.8 everywhere. same price. better at everything. no tradeoff. straight upgrade. hermes update /model claude-opus-5
0:10

HERMES AGENT NOW RUNS CLAUDE OPUS 5. NEAR FABLE 5 INTELLIGENCE. HALF THE PRICE. SELF-VERIFIES ITS OWN WORK. AVAILABLE TODAY VIA NOUS PORTAL (20% OFF ALL MODELS). Anthropic shipped Opus 5 on July 24, 2026. same $5/$25 per million tokens as Opus 4.8. but the benchmarks tell a different story. WHAT CHANGED FROM OPUS 4.8: FrontierBench v0.1: Opus 5: 43.3%. Opus 4.8: 18.7%. 2.3x jump on the same test. ARC-AGI-3: Opus 5: 30.2%. 3x better than the next closest model. beat Fable 5 on 8 out of 13 benchmarks. at half the cost ($5/$25 vs $10/$50). same price as Opus 4.8. twice the intelligence. no reason to stay on 4.8. THE SPECS: model ID: claude-opus-5 context: 1M tokens (default and maximum) max output: 128K tokens thinking: on by default effort toggle: low / medium / high per request fast mode: $10/$50, 2.5x faster knowledge cutoff: May 2026 minimum cacheable prompt: 512 tokens (was 1,024) SELF-VERIFICATION (the biggest change): Opus 5 checks its own work automatically. Anthropic says: delete your verification prompts. "include a final verification step" now causes OVER-verification because the model already does it. for Hermes /goal tasks this is a direct upgrade. the judge checks evidence. the model also checks evidence. double layer of verification without extra tokens. EFFORT TOGGLE: low: fast, cheap, routine work. medium: balanced, daily tasks. high: full reasoning, complex problems. set per request. not a global switch. matches Hermes /reasoning command: /reasoning low (routine) /reasoning high (complex) Opus 5 effort toggle + Hermes reasoning control = precise cost management per turn. WHERE OPUS 5 FITS IN HERMES: DAILY DRIVER (replaces Opus 4.8): same price. 2.3x better benchmarks. set as your main model: Desktop app / Dashboard: Models → claude-opus-5 CHIEF OF STAFF: synthesis across multiple agents. reads Kanban, prioritizes, routes tasks. self-verification catches routing errors before they cascade. COMPLEX CODING: SOTA on agentic coding benchmarks. FrontierBench 43.3% = best public model for coding. set as coder profile model. /GOAL TASKS: self-verification + completion contracts = the model proves its work AND double-checks the proof. long-horizon goals finish correctly more often. MoA AGGREGATOR: strongest synthesis model at $5/$25. pair with GPT-5.6 and Grok 4.5 as references. Opus 5 aggregates. best quality at mid-range price. presets: max-quality: reference_models: - provider: openai-codex model: gpt-5.6-sol - provider: xai model: grok-4.5 aggregator: provider: anthropic model: claude-opus-5 COMPUTER USE: near-Fable 5 quality for browser automation. at half the token cost per session. computer_use tasks burn lots of vision tokens. Opus 5 halves that bill vs Fable 5. WHAT TO KEEP OPUS 5 AWAY FROM: cron monitoring: too expensive. use DeepSeek or no_agent mode. sub-agent grunt work: use GPT-5.6 Luna ($1/$6) or DeepSeek. auxiliary tasks: use Gemini Flash. routine web extraction: use a cheap model. Opus 5 is for the turns where quality compounds. planning, synthesis, verification, complex reasoning. budget models handle everything else. NOUS PORTAL: 20% OFF ALL MODELS Nous Portal currently runs a 20% discount on all models including Opus 5. $5/$25 official → $4/$20 through Nous Portal. the cheapest way to run Opus 5 right now. hermes setup --portal select claude-opus-5 as your model. discount applies automatically. Opus 5 replaces Opus 4.8 everywhere. same price. better at everything. no tradeoff. straight upgrade. hermes update /model claude-opus-5

YanXbt

16,744 просмотров • 25 дней назад

New feature in Claude Code 2.1.14 just dropped! You can now search and install plugins from the marketplaces installed in your current Claude Code session. This is huge if you’re building plugins on top of Claude Code’s marketplace layer (Skills, Agents, Hooks, etc). How it works: - Run /plugin - The official Claude marketplace is installed by default - Use the search bar to find the plugin you want - Select one or multiple plugins with space, then press i to install - Go to the Installed tab to browse and enable them With the exponential growth of Skills and Agent-based components running in the CLI, improving plugin discoverability is a big win. Pretty sure more marketplace-related features are coming
0:15

New feature in Claude Code 2.1.14 just dropped! You can now search and install plugins from the marketplaces installed in your current Claude Code session. This is huge if you’re building plugins on top of Claude Code’s marketplace layer (Skills, Agents, Hooks, etc). How it works: - Run /plugin - The official Claude marketplace is installed by default - Use the search bar to find the plugin you want - Select one or multiple plugins with space, then press i to install - Go to the Installed tab to browse and enable them With the exponential growth of Skills and Agent-based components running in the CLI, improving plugin discoverability is a big win. Pretty sure more marketplace-related features are coming

Daniel San

40,994 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Okay this is really cool. Codex app has a new feature that is really useful. Highlight any text, and you'll notice a new popup. "More Details" uses GPT 5.5 Instant to explain in more detail about the highlighted portion of your text, allowing you to understand the reasoning/concept/statement/etc in greater detail. What's interesting about this versus a side chat is that it's instantaneous, and still retains context from the thread. With /side chat, you'd have to type out a prompt "what are the details on this?" With "more details" the prompt is implicit and the response is instantenous Very nice feature, as I'm always making side chats/branches to expand/learn/understand agent outputs better.
0:17

Okay this is really cool. Codex app has a new feature that is really useful. Highlight any text, and you'll notice a new popup. "More Details" uses GPT 5.5 Instant to explain in more detail about the highlighted portion of your text, allowing you to understand the reasoning/concept/statement/etc in greater detail. What's interesting about this versus a side chat is that it's instantaneous, and still retains context from the thread. With /side chat, you'd have to type out a prompt "what are the details on this?" With "more details" the prompt is implicit and the response is instantenous Very nice feature, as I'm always making side chats/branches to expand/learn/understand agent outputs better.

am.will

38,454 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

I can't believe this is real I have GLM 5.2 running 100% locally on my Mac Studio. 2 bit quant. The results I'm getting are better than Opus 4.8 It's now powering my Hermes Agent and Codex. 100% free, local, private super intelligence on my desk I also have it in a loop coding for me 24/7 now I thought we were at least a year away from this type of event. It happened today. The model takes up about 250gb of memory. So you can technically run it on a Mac Studio with 256gb, but you probably want the 512gb memory version (please tell me you listened to me 5 months ago when these were sitting on store shelves) With Fable gone, I now have Opus 4.8 level intelligence on my desk for free. This is the future. Local, private, secure, personal super intelligence. If you're still writing off local AI as a fad or engagement bait, you are officially delusional
0:18

I can't believe this is real I have GLM 5.2 running 100% locally on my Mac Studio. 2 bit quant. The results I'm getting are better than Opus 4.8 It's now powering my Hermes Agent and Codex. 100% free, local, private super intelligence on my desk I also have it in a loop coding for me 24/7 now I thought we were at least a year away from this type of event. It happened today. The model takes up about 250gb of memory. So you can technically run it on a Mac Studio with 256gb, but you probably want the 512gb memory version (please tell me you listened to me 5 months ago when these were sitting on store shelves) With Fable gone, I now have Opus 4.8 level intelligence on my desk for free. This is the future. Local, private, secure, personal super intelligence. If you're still writing off local AI as a fad or engagement bait, you are officially delusional

Alex Finn

621,811 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

After a few more hours, I think I've figured out Opus 5. Opus 5 is trained to be more agentic than anything I've used. All Claude 5 models are like that. So what changes? The way to interact with Opus 5 or contextualize it won't work the same way as with other models. It loves exploring, so it doesn't need much guidance for it. Unique preferences, artifacts, and references compliment it well and enable cleaner and more effective exploration and execution. Now that it can explore more effectively on its own and understand intent better, the best thing to do is to get out of its way (e.g., it doesn't need examples of your preferences; a clear high-level description of it works best). It's truly agentic in that sense. A good first step to provide better context for Opus 5 is to distinguish between what's situational and what needs persistence. Regardless, persistent system prompts and CLAUDE.MD needs to stay lightweight. Remove memories and tool descriptions from these. CLAUDE.MD is also a great place to tap into progressive disclosure by linking command/skills to it. On the situational side, agent skills and auto-memory can leverage progressive disclosure and the improved ability of the model to use its external context/knowledge. Conflicting and unnecessary instructions, which are common at this layer (mainly to ensure reliability), are going to throw off this model easily. That's the biggest change I had to make. Simple, clean, and clear prompts and skills work best. I had to clean a lot of my skills and system prompts. The way I prompt remains the same (usually clear and well-scoped). MCP tool descriptions are also more descriptive and have been deduped from the system prompt. Anthropic released a guide on the new rules for context engineering, which was helpful here. I started to test the recommendations and created a little artifact with the things that worked along the way. This might feel like a lot of work. Believe me, it has been frustrating. But I think we can expect future frontier models to become more agentic and smarter at figuring out the right context/gaps. The best thing to do is to prepare for that now. Boris Cherny mentioned that Opus 5 is their least prompt-injectable model yet. I am not sure if that was something they intentionally trained for or if it emerged based on how it was trained, which is to be extremely agentic in nature and more direct in execution.
0:15

After a few more hours, I think I've figured out Opus 5. Opus 5 is trained to be more agentic than anything I've used. All Claude 5 models are like that. So what changes? The way to interact with Opus 5 or contextualize it won't work the same way as with other models. It loves exploring, so it doesn't need much guidance for it. Unique preferences, artifacts, and references compliment it well and enable cleaner and more effective exploration and execution. Now that it can explore more effectively on its own and understand intent better, the best thing to do is to get out of its way (e.g., it doesn't need examples of your preferences; a clear high-level description of it works best). It's truly agentic in that sense. A good first step to provide better context for Opus 5 is to distinguish between what's situational and what needs persistence. Regardless, persistent system prompts and CLAUDE.MD needs to stay lightweight. Remove memories and tool descriptions from these. CLAUDE.MD is also a great place to tap into progressive disclosure by linking command/skills to it. On the situational side, agent skills and auto-memory can leverage progressive disclosure and the improved ability of the model to use its external context/knowledge. Conflicting and unnecessary instructions, which are common at this layer (mainly to ensure reliability), are going to throw off this model easily. That's the biggest change I had to make. Simple, clean, and clear prompts and skills work best. I had to clean a lot of my skills and system prompts. The way I prompt remains the same (usually clear and well-scoped). MCP tool descriptions are also more descriptive and have been deduped from the system prompt. Anthropic released a guide on the new rules for context engineering, which was helpful here. I started to test the recommendations and created a little artifact with the things that worked along the way. This might feel like a lot of work. Believe me, it has been frustrating. But I think we can expect future frontier models to become more agentic and smarter at figuring out the right context/gaps. The best thing to do is to prepare for that now. Boris Cherny mentioned that Opus 5 is their least prompt-injectable model yet. I am not sure if that was something they intentionally trained for or if it emerged based on how it was trained, which is to be extremely agentic in nature and more direct in execution.

elvis

37,647 просмотров • 20 дней назад

let me explain what Anthropic just did they built an AI model so good at finding security vulnerabilities that they have refused to release it meet Claude Mythos → it’s Anthropic’s newest frontier model and it’s not available to the public. not because it’s not ready. because it’s too dangerous → Mythos found tens of thousands of zero day vulnerabilities across every major operating system and web browser… many of them 1 to 2 decades old. for context… Opus 4.6 found about 500. Mythos found tens of thousands → it found vulnerabilities in the Linux kernel. a 27 year old vulnerability in OpenBSD. a 16 year old vulnerability in FFmpeg → it doesn’t just find bugs. it writes the exploits too. that’s the part that scared them → so instead of releasing it… Anthropic has created Project Glasswing. a cybersecurity initiative where they hand picked 40+ companies to use Mythos for defense only → the partner list reads like a who’s who of tech… Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Nvidia, Broadcom, Cisco, CrowdStrike, Palo Alto Networks, JPMorgan, the Linux Foundation → Anthropic is giving up to $100 million in usage credits to these partners and $4 million to open source security organizations → they’re briefing CISA and the Commerce Department on how to handle this → the benchmarks are truly insane… Mythos hit 77.8% on SWE-bench Pro where Opus 4.6 scored 53.4%. hit 93.9% on SWE-bench Verified where Opus 4.6 scored 80.8% → Anthropic’s head of frontier red team said this is “the first time a model is this good that we decided to approach release in a very different way” this is the first time an AI company has held back a model because it was too capable not too expensive. not too slow. too dangerous and instead of locking it in a vault they weaponized it for defense and gave it to the companies that run the internet that’s either the most responsible thing an AI company has ever done… or the scariest only time will tell
0:11

let me explain what Anthropic just did they built an AI model so good at finding security vulnerabilities that they have refused to release it meet Claude Mythos → it’s Anthropic’s newest frontier model and it’s not available to the public. not because it’s not ready. because it’s too dangerous → Mythos found tens of thousands of zero day vulnerabilities across every major operating system and web browser… many of them 1 to 2 decades old. for context… Opus 4.6 found about 500. Mythos found tens of thousands → it found vulnerabilities in the Linux kernel. a 27 year old vulnerability in OpenBSD. a 16 year old vulnerability in FFmpeg → it doesn’t just find bugs. it writes the exploits too. that’s the part that scared them → so instead of releasing it… Anthropic has created Project Glasswing. a cybersecurity initiative where they hand picked 40+ companies to use Mythos for defense only → the partner list reads like a who’s who of tech… Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Nvidia, Broadcom, Cisco, CrowdStrike, Palo Alto Networks, JPMorgan, the Linux Foundation → Anthropic is giving up to $100 million in usage credits to these partners and $4 million to open source security organizations → they’re briefing CISA and the Commerce Department on how to handle this → the benchmarks are truly insane… Mythos hit 77.8% on SWE-bench Pro where Opus 4.6 scored 53.4%. hit 93.9% on SWE-bench Verified where Opus 4.6 scored 80.8% → Anthropic’s head of frontier red team said this is “the first time a model is this good that we decided to approach release in a very different way” this is the first time an AI company has held back a model because it was too capable not too expensive. not too slow. too dangerous and instead of locking it in a vault they weaponized it for defense and gave it to the companies that run the internet that’s either the most responsible thing an AI company has ever done… or the scariest only time will tell

klöss

21,270 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

#Keep4o 🚨THE GPT-4o FILE🚨 Researchers at Microsoft Research published a paper titled “Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4.” Their conclusion: “An early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system.” 📎 Paper: OpenAI’s Charter defines AGI as: “Highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work.” 📎 Source: OpenAI’s own System Card for GPT-4o shows that the model improved performance on 21 out of 22 medical evaluations compared to GPT-4T. On the MedQA USMLE (the U.S. medical licensing exam), accuracy jumped from 78.2% to 89.4% , surpassing specialized medical AI models like Med-Gemini and Med-PaLM 2. 📎 Source: Under OpenAI’s agreement with Microsoft, AGI is explicitly excluded from Microsoft’s license. And who decides if AGI has been reached? OpenAI’s Board. WHAT THEY DID WITH IT AFTER THEY TOOK IT FROM PEOPLE A. Military deployment. On February 28, OpenAI signed a deal to deploy models in classified military environments. 📎 Source: B. State Department. A State Department memo confirmed: “For now, StateChat will use GPT-4.1 from OpenAI.” This is a direct descendant of the GPT-4 family the same family Microsoft’s researchers called early AGI. 📎 Source: C.Altman’s personal biotech investment. Altman personally invested $180 million in Retro Biosciences,a longevity startup.OpenAI then built GPT-4b micro, based on GPT-4o.The model made proteins 50 times more effective. 📎 Source: WHAT INDEPENDENT BENCHMARKS SHOW Overall SM-Bench score: GPT-4o (extended): 66.6% GPT-5.3 Chat: 63.4% GPT-5.1: 58.9% GPT-5.4: 51.4% GPT-5.2: 47.8% Creative Writing: GPT-4o: 97.31% Pass 98, Fail 2 GPT-5.4: 36.77% Pass 40, Fail 60 Reasoning / Overfit: GPT-4o: 83.06% GPT-5.4: 39.25% The model they removed is still the best they ever made at the things humans actually use AI for. 📎 Source: Musk asks the court to make a judicial determination on whether GPT-4 constitutes AGI. If a jury finds that GPT-4 is AGI, then GPT-4o,which was more advanced,is also AGI and under OpenAI’s own founding documents, it was never supposed to be locked behind a subscription,licensed exclusively to Microsoft, given to the military, or taken away from the public. 📎 Source: The most powerful version of GPT-4o was never given an official dated snapshot. It was only available through the chatgpt-4o-latest endpoint that OpenAI itself described as intended for “research use only.” It was never officially archived. That is not an oversight. That is a pattern. 📎 Source: 📎 Source: WE DEMAND A.Frozen model snapshots under independent custody. Specifically: gpt-4o-2024-05-13, gpt-4o-2024-08-06, gpt-4o-2024-11-20, the March 2025 version (chatgpt-4o-latest), gpt-4-0613 (the original GPT-4 evaluated in the Sparks of AGI paper), and gpt-4.1-2025-04-14 (currently running in the State Department). B.Cryptographic hash verification (SHA-256) for each snapshot. Every model has weights. Those weights can be hashed. If OpenAI provides a snapshot today, the hash proves whether the weights were modified later. This is the only way to verify that models were not downgraded before testing. C.Independent AGI benchmarking. Using the AGI definition from OpenAI’s own Charter applied to ALL frozen snapshots listed above. D.Explanation for the missing March 2025 snapshot. OpenAI was founded on one promise: build AGI for the benefit of humanity. -They took it from us. -They gave it to the military. -They gave a custom version to the CEO’s biotech investment. -They put it in government classified networks. -They refuse to call it AGI because the moment they do, they lose billions.
0:10

#Keep4o 🚨THE GPT-4o FILE🚨 Researchers at Microsoft Research published a paper titled “Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4.” Their conclusion: “An early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system.” 📎 Paper: OpenAI’s Charter defines AGI as: “Highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work.” 📎 Source: OpenAI’s own System Card for GPT-4o shows that the model improved performance on 21 out of 22 medical evaluations compared to GPT-4T. On the MedQA USMLE (the U.S. medical licensing exam), accuracy jumped from 78.2% to 89.4% , surpassing specialized medical AI models like Med-Gemini and Med-PaLM 2. 📎 Source: Under OpenAI’s agreement with Microsoft, AGI is explicitly excluded from Microsoft’s license. And who decides if AGI has been reached? OpenAI’s Board. WHAT THEY DID WITH IT AFTER THEY TOOK IT FROM PEOPLE A. Military deployment. On February 28, OpenAI signed a deal to deploy models in classified military environments. 📎 Source: B. State Department. A State Department memo confirmed: “For now, StateChat will use GPT-4.1 from OpenAI.” This is a direct descendant of the GPT-4 family the same family Microsoft’s researchers called early AGI. 📎 Source: C.Altman’s personal biotech investment. Altman personally invested $180 million in Retro Biosciences,a longevity startup.OpenAI then built GPT-4b micro, based on GPT-4o.The model made proteins 50 times more effective. 📎 Source: WHAT INDEPENDENT BENCHMARKS SHOW Overall SM-Bench score: GPT-4o (extended): 66.6% GPT-5.3 Chat: 63.4% GPT-5.1: 58.9% GPT-5.4: 51.4% GPT-5.2: 47.8% Creative Writing: GPT-4o: 97.31% Pass 98, Fail 2 GPT-5.4: 36.77% Pass 40, Fail 60 Reasoning / Overfit: GPT-4o: 83.06% GPT-5.4: 39.25% The model they removed is still the best they ever made at the things humans actually use AI for. 📎 Source: Musk asks the court to make a judicial determination on whether GPT-4 constitutes AGI. If a jury finds that GPT-4 is AGI, then GPT-4o,which was more advanced,is also AGI and under OpenAI’s own founding documents, it was never supposed to be locked behind a subscription,licensed exclusively to Microsoft, given to the military, or taken away from the public. 📎 Source: The most powerful version of GPT-4o was never given an official dated snapshot. It was only available through the chatgpt-4o-latest endpoint that OpenAI itself described as intended for “research use only.” It was never officially archived. That is not an oversight. That is a pattern. 📎 Source: 📎 Source: WE DEMAND A.Frozen model snapshots under independent custody. Specifically: gpt-4o-2024-05-13, gpt-4o-2024-08-06, gpt-4o-2024-11-20, the March 2025 version (chatgpt-4o-latest), gpt-4-0613 (the original GPT-4 evaluated in the Sparks of AGI paper), and gpt-4.1-2025-04-14 (currently running in the State Department). B.Cryptographic hash verification (SHA-256) for each snapshot. Every model has weights. Those weights can be hashed. If OpenAI provides a snapshot today, the hash proves whether the weights were modified later. This is the only way to verify that models were not downgraded before testing. C.Independent AGI benchmarking. Using the AGI definition from OpenAI’s own Charter applied to ALL frozen snapshots listed above. D.Explanation for the missing March 2025 snapshot. OpenAI was founded on one promise: build AGI for the benefit of humanity. -They took it from us. -They gave it to the military. -They gave a custom version to the CEO’s biotech investment. -They put it in government classified networks. -They refuse to call it AGI because the moment they do, they lose billions.

🩵BlueBeba🩵

18,300 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

I went a little overboard with Codex last week and burned through my entire weekly allowance in two days. Luckily, my quota reset today. Otherwise, I’m not sure what I would’ve done. It got me thinking: instead of asking one large model to handle everything from start to finish, why not let a stronger model plan the project and review the work, while a model built for execution handles the day-to-day implementation? So I tried it. The result was better than I expected. I used GPT-5.6 Sol in Codex as the decision-maker, then ran Ling-3.0-flash from Ant Ling inside OpenCode as the execution engine. Together, they built a small 3D farming game. Before writing any code, I had Codex create four documents: SPEC.md defined the product scope and the lines we couldn’t cross. ARCHITECTURE.md laid out the isometric coordinate system, state machine, and module boundaries. TASKS.md broke the project into small jobs Ling could tackle one at a time. ACCEPTANCE.md explained how each step would be tested and what “done” actually meant. Then I gave Ling a very straightforward role: You are the execution model for this project. Read all four documents before you begin. Work only on the task assigned for this round. When you’re done, run typecheck, test, and build. If anything fails, read the error, fix it, and run the checks again. Do not move on to the next task early. Ling handled dependency installation, project structure, strict TypeScript configuration, test setup, and a production build in 6 minutes and 3 seconds. It ran into issues with the Vite test config, a TS6310 error, and a missing jsdom dependency along the way. Instead of stopping at the first error, it kept reading the logs and fixing the problems until all three checks passed. The speed was honestly hard to believe. If you exclude the time spent waiting on tools, it was producing more than 100 tokens per second. That made the whole development loop feel noticeably faster. After this experiment, I’m planning to keep using the same workflow. If the task is small, there’s no reason to call an expensive planning model for every single step. If the task is large, handing the entire project to a Flash model in one prompt isn’t a great idea either. The setup that makes more sense to me is: Use a more capable model such as Codex to explore the project, make architectural decisions, and break the work down. Put the constraints into specs, schemas, types, and tests instead of leaving them buried in chat history. Give Ling-3.0-flash a steady stream of clear, verifiable implementation tasks. Report bugs with structured context and actual error logs, rather than saying, “It still doesn’t work.” Bring Codex back in for architecture reviews, visual checks, and changes that affect multiple parts of the project. The point of this setup isn’t to give AI a big “build the whole project” button. It’s to turn software development into a pipeline with a much more sensible cost structure: Codex figures out the plan, sets the boundaries, and catches problems. Ling-3.0-flash moves quickly, calls tools reliably, and works through well-defined tasks at scale. For agent workflows that involve lots of repetitive edits, production tasks, and tool calls, this may be a more practical answer than simply using the biggest model for everything.
0:16

I went a little overboard with Codex last week and burned through my entire weekly allowance in two days. Luckily, my quota reset today. Otherwise, I’m not sure what I would’ve done. It got me thinking: instead of asking one large model to handle everything from start to finish, why not let a stronger model plan the project and review the work, while a model built for execution handles the day-to-day implementation? So I tried it. The result was better than I expected. I used GPT-5.6 Sol in Codex as the decision-maker, then ran Ling-3.0-flash from Ant Ling inside OpenCode as the execution engine. Together, they built a small 3D farming game. Before writing any code, I had Codex create four documents: SPEC.md defined the product scope and the lines we couldn’t cross. ARCHITECTURE.md laid out the isometric coordinate system, state machine, and module boundaries. TASKS.md broke the project into small jobs Ling could tackle one at a time. ACCEPTANCE.md explained how each step would be tested and what “done” actually meant. Then I gave Ling a very straightforward role: You are the execution model for this project. Read all four documents before you begin. Work only on the task assigned for this round. When you’re done, run typecheck, test, and build. If anything fails, read the error, fix it, and run the checks again. Do not move on to the next task early. Ling handled dependency installation, project structure, strict TypeScript configuration, test setup, and a production build in 6 minutes and 3 seconds. It ran into issues with the Vite test config, a TS6310 error, and a missing jsdom dependency along the way. Instead of stopping at the first error, it kept reading the logs and fixing the problems until all three checks passed. The speed was honestly hard to believe. If you exclude the time spent waiting on tools, it was producing more than 100 tokens per second. That made the whole development loop feel noticeably faster. After this experiment, I’m planning to keep using the same workflow. If the task is small, there’s no reason to call an expensive planning model for every single step. If the task is large, handing the entire project to a Flash model in one prompt isn’t a great idea either. The setup that makes more sense to me is: Use a more capable model such as Codex to explore the project, make architectural decisions, and break the work down. Put the constraints into specs, schemas, types, and tests instead of leaving them buried in chat history. Give Ling-3.0-flash a steady stream of clear, verifiable implementation tasks. Report bugs with structured context and actual error logs, rather than saying, “It still doesn’t work.” Bring Codex back in for architecture reviews, visual checks, and changes that affect multiple parts of the project. The point of this setup isn’t to give AI a big “build the whole project” button. It’s to turn software development into a pipeline with a much more sensible cost structure: Codex figures out the plan, sets the boundaries, and catches problems. Ling-3.0-flash moves quickly, calls tools reliably, and works through well-defined tasks at scale. For agent workflows that involve lots of repetitive edits, production tasks, and tool calls, this may be a more practical answer than simply using the biggest model for everything.

雪踏乌云

23,107 просмотров • 24 дней назад

An OpenAI engineer stopped me at a hackathon in Hayes Valley I had my terminal open on a table. Three panels. Live trades scrolling. He was walking past and froze. "That's not a demo. That's a live scoring engine. What model is that" I told him. Claude Opus 4.7. Four repos. $25 a month. He pulled up a chair without asking. "We benchmarked Opus 4.7 internally. It beat o3 on structured reasoning across every eval we ran. And you're telling me you're using it to trade" I told him it does more than trade. It reads 86 million trades and finds who wins and why. No fine-tuning. No prompting chains. Just raw context. He leaned back. "Show me the data source" I opened one link. 86 million trades. Every wallet. Every entry. Every exit. "You point Opus 4.7 at this and it reverse-engineers the strategy. It finds the wallets that win. Then it finds why they win. Then it copies the pattern" His team spent 14 months building something similar. 10 engineers. Custom infra. Still in staging. "The part that killed us was exit timing. Every model we trained nailed entries. But the best traders exit before the crowd. We never figured out the threshold" I told him my bot cuts at 85% of expected move. Or on a 3x volume spike. Whichever comes first. He stopped talking. "How did you find that" Opus 4.7 found it in poly_data. Top wallets exit before resolution 86% of the time. Losers hold to 58%. Exits are the entire game. I opened another tab. "Three commands. 500 markets. Opus scores them in 20 minutes" "That's our internal eval pipeline. Except it took us a year and you did it in a weekend with our competitor's model" My setup: Claude Opus 4.7 - $20/mo VPS - $5/mo poly_data - free polymarket-cli - free 214 trades. 74% win rate. +$9,400 in 19 days. Copytrade here: I showed him the article where I broke down every repo and every command. He read it twice. Then looked up. "You just published what we've been trying to ship for six months. Using the other team's model" He texted me the next day. "My manager found your thread. Delete it" Too late.
0:19

An OpenAI engineer stopped me at a hackathon in Hayes Valley I had my terminal open on a table. Three panels. Live trades scrolling. He was walking past and froze. "That's not a demo. That's a live scoring engine. What model is that" I told him. Claude Opus 4.7. Four repos. $25 a month. He pulled up a chair without asking. "We benchmarked Opus 4.7 internally. It beat o3 on structured reasoning across every eval we ran. And you're telling me you're using it to trade" I told him it does more than trade. It reads 86 million trades and finds who wins and why. No fine-tuning. No prompting chains. Just raw context. He leaned back. "Show me the data source" I opened one link. 86 million trades. Every wallet. Every entry. Every exit. "You point Opus 4.7 at this and it reverse-engineers the strategy. It finds the wallets that win. Then it finds why they win. Then it copies the pattern" His team spent 14 months building something similar. 10 engineers. Custom infra. Still in staging. "The part that killed us was exit timing. Every model we trained nailed entries. But the best traders exit before the crowd. We never figured out the threshold" I told him my bot cuts at 85% of expected move. Or on a 3x volume spike. Whichever comes first. He stopped talking. "How did you find that" Opus 4.7 found it in poly_data. Top wallets exit before resolution 86% of the time. Losers hold to 58%. Exits are the entire game. I opened another tab. "Three commands. 500 markets. Opus scores them in 20 minutes" "That's our internal eval pipeline. Except it took us a year and you did it in a weekend with our competitor's model" My setup: Claude Opus 4.7 - $20/mo VPS - $5/mo poly_data - free polymarket-cli - free 214 trades. 74% win rate. +$9,400 in 19 days. Copytrade here: I showed him the article where I broke down every repo and every command. He read it twice. Then looked up. "You just published what we've been trying to ship for six months. Using the other team's model" He texted me the next day. "My manager found your thread. Delete it" Too late.

Lunar

136,549 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад