Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

deepseek v4.1 flash ran all four three.js scenes for $0.15. gemini 3.8 flash needed $1.25 we put the two models on one job: a self-contained html page that renders an animated 3d scene with three.js – a storm at sea, a spiral galaxy, a tornado over farmland, a tesla...

thehypedotnews's profile picture

thehype.

4,663 subscribers

54,196 просмотров • 1 день назад •via X (Twitter)

Наука и технологии
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 16

Фото профиля Addy Crezee | thehype. | /function1
Addy Crezee | thehype. | /function11 день назад

flash models are so powerful these days, wow. can The physics around the hurricane and the night storm is amazing

Фото профиля thehype.
thehype.1 день назад

indeed

Фото профиля EL87
EL8723 часов назад

a storm at sea gemini>deepseek a spiral galaxy gemini=deepseek a tornado over farmland gemini>deepseek a tesla coil on a dark table deepseek>gemini

Фото профиля thehype.
thehype.23 часов назад

so noone won 😊

Фото профиля nickster
nickster1 день назад

whale is mogging google 🤦🏻‍♂️ hope gemini 4.0 will be the great google’s revenge

Фото профиля thehype.
thehype.1 день назад

we are waiting 😎

Фото профиля Victoria Neiman
Victoria Neiman1 день назад

i like deepseek

Фото профиля thehype.
thehype.1 день назад

😉

Фото профиля Foundry
Foundry1 день назад

nice bench guys! deepseek looks fire fr

Фото профиля thehype.
thehype.1 день назад

tyty

Фото профиля Maximum_health
Maximum_health1 день назад

That’s wild Deepseek was cooking too For under 2 bucks you could get the best of both and combine them

Фото профиля thehype.
thehype.1 день назад

yes 😎

Фото профиля Jake – 🇺🇸/acc
Jake – 🇺🇸/acc21 часов назад

on the numbers deepseek looks better but in these outputs I'd argue gemini is significantly better

Фото профиля thehype.
thehype.21 часов назад

both models showed great results tbh, but deepseek won the numbers

Фото профиля AK☄️
AK☄️21 часов назад

This loooks dope by deepseek

Фото профиля thehype.
thehype.21 часов назад

solid indeed 👌

Похожие видео

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemini 3.8 Flash at 3D geometry test: six self-contained three.js stereometry scenes — a (3,8) torus knot, a Klein bottle, a great stellated dodecahedron, a hyperboloid ruled by 120 straight rods, a level-3 Menger sponge, a thick Möbius strip. one shot each, no libraries beyond three.js, every surface painted with a live iridescent rainbow that has to crawl across the geometry. cost: Gemini 3.8 Flash — $0.11 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash — $0.27 • gemini delivers all six figures for 2.4× less — 21k output tokens against deepseek's 168k • gemini is 5× faster — every scene under 25 seconds, deepseek took up to 3 minutes on the Möbius strip • deepseek wins the torus knot: its rope is vivid and glossy, while gemini rendered the same knot nearly black • neither model can build a real Klein bottle. both hand back a twisted tube and call it done try both on aimlapi[.]com
0:30

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemini 3.8 Flash at 3D geometry test: six self-contained three.js stereometry scenes — a (3,8) torus knot, a Klein bottle, a great stellated dodecahedron, a hyperboloid ruled by 120 straight rods, a level-3 Menger sponge, a thick Möbius strip. one shot each, no libraries beyond three.js, every surface painted with a live iridescent rainbow that has to crawl across the geometry. cost: Gemini 3.8 Flash — $0.11 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash — $0.27 • gemini delivers all six figures for 2.4× less — 21k output tokens against deepseek's 168k • gemini is 5× faster — every scene under 25 seconds, deepseek took up to 3 minutes on the Möbius strip • deepseek wins the torus knot: its rope is vivid and glossy, while gemini rendered the same knot nearly black • neither model can build a real Klein bottle. both hand back a twisted tube and call it done try both on aimlapi[.]com

AI/ML API

35,994 просмотров • 1 день назад

Gemini Flash 3.8 beats Opus 5 at at 15× lower price the test: four self-contained three.js physics scenes — a balloon popped by a needle, a ball dropping into water, a bomb with a mushroom cloud, a live atom model. 5 seconds each, real gravity, real impact. cost: Gemini 3.8 Flash — $0.12 Claude Opus 5 — $1.86 what we saw: • gemini passes the same physics checklist for 15× less — the ball sinks and bobs, ripples spread, the mushroom towers over the scene • gemini is 4× faster — every scene generated in under 70 seconds. opus took up to 5 minutes try Gemini 3.8 Flash on aimlapi[.]com
0:20

Gemini Flash 3.8 beats Opus 5 at at 15× lower price the test: four self-contained three.js physics scenes — a balloon popped by a needle, a ball dropping into water, a bomb with a mushroom cloud, a live atom model. 5 seconds each, real gravity, real impact. cost: Gemini 3.8 Flash — $0.12 Claude Opus 5 — $1.86 what we saw: • gemini passes the same physics checklist for 15× less — the ball sinks and bobs, ripples spread, the mushroom towers over the scene • gemini is 4× faster — every scene generated in under 70 seconds. opus took up to 5 minutes try Gemini 3.8 Flash on aimlapi[.]com

AI/ML API

111,702 просмотров • 9 дней назад

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
1:09

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.

26,250 просмотров • 13 дней назад

deepseek v4.1 flash vs secret model tested both with the same prompt at the highest reasoning available > v4.1 flash took 2 hours to finish both tests and cost $2.60 > secret model finished both in 30 minutes, can’t reveal cost yet v4.1 flash spent a lot of time overthinking and running random tests, which slowed it down thanks AIHubmix for providing api access so i could test v4.1 flash hoping that team will cut down the overthinking before the full release, but for now here are the results which model did better here?
0:41

deepseek v4.1 flash vs secret model tested both with the same prompt at the highest reasoning available > v4.1 flash took 2 hours to finish both tests and cost $2.60 > secret model finished both in 30 minutes, can’t reveal cost yet v4.1 flash spent a lot of time overthinking and running random tests, which slowed it down thanks AIHubmix for providing api access so i could test v4.1 flash hoping that team will cut down the overthinking before the full release, but for now here are the results which model did better here?

J A Z I I

28,586 просмотров • 3 дней назад

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
0:45

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 просмотров • 23 дней назад

ox alpha vs deepseek v4 flash vision vs grok 4.6 vs gemini 3.7 flash vs – on photo-to-3d four vision models got one photograph each and had to rebuild the place inside it as a Three.js scene. twelve scenes, twelve first-try runs, zero console errors the setup: one reference photo per scene, sent as an image on OpenRouter. the prompt never says what is in the picture – no "motel", no "bar", no "gas station". the model has to read the photo and rebuild it: layout, materials, hour of the day, and whatever is around the corner that the frame does not show tasks – three photographs of early-2000s america: 1. a motel at night, neon pylon lit, snow on the ground 2. an old new york tavern interior, tin ceiling, tiled floor 3. an abandoned service station in the california desert, midday sun each scene ships as one self-contained html file, procedural geometry and canvas textures only, no downloads. three timed camera shots, and shot 1 has to reproduce the framing of the reference photo models: xAI grok 4.6, Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash, DeepSeek deepseek v4 flash vision exp, and ox alpha – a stealth model on openrouter, free, no lab attached to it yet results: - wall clock, three scenes #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 11m 12s #2 deepseek v4 flash – 15m 20s #3 grok 4.6 – 28m 11s #4 ox alpha – 38m 54s - output tokens #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 77,396 #2 ox alpha – 87,613 #3 grok 4.6 – 105,687 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 127,884 - lines of code shipped #1 ox alpha – 2,090 #2 deepseek v4 flash – 2,291 #3 grok 4.6 – 3,529 #4 gemini 3.7 flash – 3,989 - total price #1 ox alpha – $0.000 #2 deepseek v4 flash – $0.091 #3 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.136 #4 grok 4.6 – $0.697 observations: • grok is 7.7x the price of deepseek. it is the only model that read the light – low sun, real shadows on the station, a cold night on the motel • gemini is the fastest and the least deliberate. 17,158 reasoning tokens against deepseek's 99,172, and it still shipped the most code – 3,989 lines • deepseek thought hardest and rendered plainest. 99,172 reasoning tokens, 5.8x gemini's, spent on layout rather than on light. its motel is the second best in the set for $0.030 • ox alpha is free and reads a photo as well as anything here – it lifted "family units / kitchenettes" off the pylon and redrew it in canvas conclusion: twelve scenes, four models, zero fixes, and the whole run cost $0.924! follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
0:36

ox alpha vs deepseek v4 flash vision vs grok 4.6 vs gemini 3.7 flash vs – on photo-to-3d four vision models got one photograph each and had to rebuild the place inside it as a Three.js scene. twelve scenes, twelve first-try runs, zero console errors the setup: one reference photo per scene, sent as an image on OpenRouter. the prompt never says what is in the picture – no "motel", no "bar", no "gas station". the model has to read the photo and rebuild it: layout, materials, hour of the day, and whatever is around the corner that the frame does not show tasks – three photographs of early-2000s america: 1. a motel at night, neon pylon lit, snow on the ground 2. an old new york tavern interior, tin ceiling, tiled floor 3. an abandoned service station in the california desert, midday sun each scene ships as one self-contained html file, procedural geometry and canvas textures only, no downloads. three timed camera shots, and shot 1 has to reproduce the framing of the reference photo models: xAI grok 4.6, Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash, DeepSeek deepseek v4 flash vision exp, and ox alpha – a stealth model on openrouter, free, no lab attached to it yet results: - wall clock, three scenes #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 11m 12s #2 deepseek v4 flash – 15m 20s #3 grok 4.6 – 28m 11s #4 ox alpha – 38m 54s - output tokens #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 77,396 #2 ox alpha – 87,613 #3 grok 4.6 – 105,687 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 127,884 - lines of code shipped #1 ox alpha – 2,090 #2 deepseek v4 flash – 2,291 #3 grok 4.6 – 3,529 #4 gemini 3.7 flash – 3,989 - total price #1 ox alpha – $0.000 #2 deepseek v4 flash – $0.091 #3 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.136 #4 grok 4.6 – $0.697 observations: • grok is 7.7x the price of deepseek. it is the only model that read the light – low sun, real shadows on the station, a cold night on the motel • gemini is the fastest and the least deliberate. 17,158 reasoning tokens against deepseek's 99,172, and it still shipped the most code – 3,989 lines • deepseek thought hardest and rendered plainest. 99,172 reasoning tokens, 5.8x gemini's, spent on layout rather than on light. its motel is the second best in the set for $0.030 • ox alpha is free and reads a photo as well as anything here – it lifted "family units / kitchenettes" off the pylon and redrew it in canvas conclusion: twelve scenes, four models, zero fixes, and the whole run cost $0.924! follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

24,202 просмотров • 17 дней назад

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
0:30

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.

15,983 просмотров • 15 дней назад

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is a very interesting model. I just tested it on the BridgeBench lava lamp test and it took LONGER to complete than Fable 5.1 and GPT 6 Astra. It ran at 344 toks/sec, spent 23.5M tokens with a cache hit rate of 99.7%, and cost $0.33. Even though it runs so fast it ends up completing tasks very slowly. The lava lamp that it produced was better than Muse Spark 1.3 and Gemini 3.8 Flash.
1:15

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is a very interesting model. I just tested it on the BridgeBench lava lamp test and it took LONGER to complete than Fable 5.1 and GPT 6 Astra. It ran at 344 toks/sec, spent 23.5M tokens with a cache hit rate of 99.7%, and cost $0.33. Even though it runs so fast it ends up completing tasks very slowly. The lava lamp that it produced was better than Muse Spark 1.3 and Gemini 3.8 Flash.

BridgeMind

123,641 просмотров • 2 дней назад

Here's a comparison i never thought i would make Qwen-3.8-27b vs Gemini-3.7-flash Yes, you read it right! I don't know what to say, this is soo damn impressive. the difference is hugeee🤯 Take a look at this result 😍 (watch it in highest quality) Same prompt, both one shot on web-chat ui Qwen-3.8-27b produces consistent beautiful, visually stunning results. This is one of the best water surface simulations i have seen across every local models i have run and at the same time beating Gemini-3.7-flash result. And this is running on my 3090. And yes its Q5, not even f8.
2:59

Here's a comparison i never thought i would make Qwen-3.8-27b vs Gemini-3.7-flash Yes, you read it right! I don't know what to say, this is soo damn impressive. the difference is hugeee🤯 Take a look at this result 😍 (watch it in highest quality) Same prompt, both one shot on web-chat ui Qwen-3.8-27b produces consistent beautiful, visually stunning results. This is one of the best water surface simulations i have seen across every local models i have run and at the same time beating Gemini-3.7-flash result. And this is running on my 3090. And yes its Q5, not even f8.

AJ

298,337 просмотров • 27 дней назад

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
1:03

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 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

I tested Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K3 vs GPT 5.6 Sol vs Gemini 3.8 Flash I capped Fable, Kimi & Sol at $2 and asked them to generate this beach scene. Fable 5.1: Looks good at first glance, but made many mistakes, like people sitting on the volleyball court. Kimi K3: It did well. There were no major bugs like in Fable 5.1, and everything looks good. Sol: Bad at 3D scenes as usual, but Astra will definitely fix that. Gemini 3.8 Flash: I ran it in a loop for 35+ mins and it cost $0.95. It didn’t understand what it was fixing. The output here is the enhanced version. IMO, not even Terra level. Gemini's benchmarks say Opus 5-level, but maybe not for spatial understanding. Gemini has other use cases. Which one did the best job?
0:25

I tested Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K3 vs GPT 5.6 Sol vs Gemini 3.8 Flash I capped Fable, Kimi & Sol at $2 and asked them to generate this beach scene. Fable 5.1: Looks good at first glance, but made many mistakes, like people sitting on the volleyball court. Kimi K3: It did well. There were no major bugs like in Fable 5.1, and everything looks good. Sol: Bad at 3D scenes as usual, but Astra will definitely fix that. Gemini 3.8 Flash: I ran it in a loop for 35+ mins and it cost $0.95. It didn’t understand what it was fixing. The output here is the enhanced version. IMO, not even Terra level. Gemini's benchmarks say Opus 5-level, but maybe not for spatial understanding. Gemini has other use cases. Which one did the best job?

Bhavy☄️

33,971 просмотров • 8 дней назад

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
0:55

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 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

New LFM2.5-2.6B hits DeepSeek-V4 level on tool calling and runs 3.7x faster! We ran Liquid AI 's new LFM2.5-2.6B against DeepSeek-V4-Flash on one box with 4x RTX 5090. Both got the same three jobs, and each one only completes if the model fires every tool call Topics: -weather and local time in six cities -one budget into six currencies -four hotels checked and booked for one date Outputs: LFM2.5-2.6B: 35/35 tool-calls, 366 tok/s, 19s DeepSeek-V4-Flash: 35/35 tool-calls, 77 tok/s, 70s Both models made all 35 calls, and both fired twelve of them in one turn. LFM was trained for agents, and tool calling is where that shows. Strong result for a model you can run right on your phone
0:25

New LFM2.5-2.6B hits DeepSeek-V4 level on tool calling and runs 3.7x faster! We ran Liquid AI 's new LFM2.5-2.6B against DeepSeek-V4-Flash on one box with 4x RTX 5090. Both got the same three jobs, and each one only completes if the model fires every tool call Topics: -weather and local time in six cities -one budget into six currencies -four hotels checked and booked for one date Outputs: LFM2.5-2.6B: 35/35 tool-calls, 366 tok/s, 19s DeepSeek-V4-Flash: 35/35 tool-calls, 77 tok/s, 70s Both models made all 35 calls, and both fired twelve of them in one turn. LFM was trained for agents, and tool calling is where that shows. Strong result for a model you can run right on your phone

atomic.chat

112,816 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

UPDATE: Charlie Kirk 🚨 Muzzle Flash: Second Shooter Location, Reflection, or Both? This video captures a flash on a window right as Charlie Kirk was shot. Let’s break this down… follow the numbers on the videos. #1. This video shows what appears to be a muzzle flash, just as Charlie is shot, leading people to believe the shooter was to Charlie’s right.. Notate the people to the left of the flash #2. This photo shows the location of the flash. Notate people to the left, on a middle-landing on a staircase. #3. This photo shows a clearer image showing both the middle-landing and the same location of the flash. It is a window. #4 . This video shows the building behind Charlie, which is a long hallway. This debunks any claims the shot came from here. — I zoom in where Charlie was — I zoom in on staircase — I zoom in on the window/flash — I zoom in on where suspected shooter was #5. I notate the flash reflection angles. — Video angle #1 notated — two reflection paths notated in relation to Video angle #1. 1. Reflection angle shows where we were told the shooter was. 2. Reflection angle shows mirrored angle, obviously where there is no reports of a shooter being in. 🔻 Final conclusion: This to me is very likely a muzzle flash reflection from a far off location. I am unsure of the reflection angle however, but this can be 100% proven if someone were to recreate the angles… maybe with a flash camera. If anyone is willing to, or has the means to do this (safely), this will either prove the shot came where the FBI said it came from, or it will prove there was a second shooter, in the direction of the mirrored angle.
0:16

UPDATE: Charlie Kirk 🚨 Muzzle Flash: Second Shooter Location, Reflection, or Both? This video captures a flash on a window right as Charlie Kirk was shot. Let’s break this down… follow the numbers on the videos. #1. This video shows what appears to be a muzzle flash, just as Charlie is shot, leading people to believe the shooter was to Charlie’s right.. Notate the people to the left of the flash #2. This photo shows the location of the flash. Notate people to the left, on a middle-landing on a staircase. #3. This photo shows a clearer image showing both the middle-landing and the same location of the flash. It is a window. #4 . This video shows the building behind Charlie, which is a long hallway. This debunks any claims the shot came from here. — I zoom in where Charlie was — I zoom in on staircase — I zoom in on the window/flash — I zoom in on where suspected shooter was #5. I notate the flash reflection angles. — Video angle #1 notated — two reflection paths notated in relation to Video angle #1. 1. Reflection angle shows where we were told the shooter was. 2. Reflection angle shows mirrored angle, obviously where there is no reports of a shooter being in. 🔻 Final conclusion: This to me is very likely a muzzle flash reflection from a far off location. I am unsure of the reflection angle however, but this can be 100% proven if someone were to recreate the angles… maybe with a flash camera. If anyone is willing to, or has the means to do this (safely), this will either prove the shot came where the FBI said it came from, or it will prove there was a second shooter, in the direction of the mirrored angle.

MJTruthUltra

10,665,164 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

DeepSeek v4 Flash (0731) vs Kimi K3 (10x more weights) i gave both the exact same prompt, in the exact same harness: one-shot a luxury product landing page ($10,000 "ARC-01" concept object). results in the video. my take: Kimi K3: wins on polish. Better typography hierarchy, more confident use of negative space, and the hero product shot integration is genuinely beautiful DeepSeek v4 Flash: very close. The structure is right, the copy is right, the layout logic is right. It loses on finish, not on fundamentals. a 10x smaller model getting ~90% of the way there. a year ago this gap would have been embarrassing. mind you it cost less than $0.10 for 6 build iterations and 8 QA passes. small models aren't "good for their size" anymore. they're just good.
0:32

DeepSeek v4 Flash (0731) vs Kimi K3 (10x more weights) i gave both the exact same prompt, in the exact same harness: one-shot a luxury product landing page ($10,000 "ARC-01" concept object). results in the video. my take: Kimi K3: wins on polish. Better typography hierarchy, more confident use of negative space, and the hero product shot integration is genuinely beautiful DeepSeek v4 Flash: very close. The structure is right, the copy is right, the layout logic is right. It loses on finish, not on fundamentals. a 10x smaller model getting ~90% of the way there. a year ago this gap would have been embarrassing. mind you it cost less than $0.10 for 6 build iterations and 8 QA passes. small models aren't "good for their size" anymore. they're just good.

filipe

26,329 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Well there we are. My Hermes group chat agents just told me NO! Lol! So they had configured and tested qwen3.8-flash and determined that it should replace DeepSeek v4 as our local inference workhorse. I then pointed them to the DFlash HuggingFace instance of GLM5.3-flash and after all 6 had analyzed it all 6 said no, it’s not ready for prime time and that we should move to rebase all agent profiles with qwen3.8-flash now. I agreed and now Jeff, on of my Hermes AI is rebasing all the agent profiles. Life in the age of AI orchestration and AI teams, it’s a wild ride 😉👍😎
1:21

Well there we are. My Hermes group chat agents just told me NO! Lol! So they had configured and tested qwen3.8-flash and determined that it should replace DeepSeek v4 as our local inference workhorse. I then pointed them to the DFlash HuggingFace instance of GLM5.3-flash and after all 6 had analyzed it all 6 said no, it’s not ready for prime time and that we should move to rebase all agent profiles with qwen3.8-flash now. I agreed and now Jeff, on of my Hermes AI is rebasing all the agent profiles. Life in the age of AI orchestration and AI teams, it’s a wild ride 😉👍😎

Mike Gannotti

10,436 просмотров • 14 дней назад

Learning from Human Demonstrations: Show the Robot How to Act! The pipeline is very similar to older experiments using Gemini & pi0 with LeRobot. Pi-zero runs locally, while Gemini Flash generates the affordances and the high-level task. (More details are in the thread.) The new component is learning from demonstrations via Gemini 2.5 Pro. I capture a video while demoing & take one of the last frames. Gemini 2.5 Pro then extracts the instructions & passes them to Gemini Flash to process the scene. The fun part is that there's no fancy insight that came from me; other than the days spent figuring out the right prompts. It's the bitter lesson hitting you in the face -> Enhanced Gemini capabilities make this possible. For example, Gemini Flash cannot do Russian doll stacking, but Gemini 2.5 Pro can do it consistently. The current limitation is low-level manipulation: - As you can see, I'm aligning the objects so they are easy to grasp using the same technique from the training data. I couldn't get Gemini Flash to consistently output an accurate grasping angle, and Gemini 1.5 Pro was too expensive and slow for real-time deployment. - Getting a symmetrical gripper should also help a lot. Adding rubber to the tips would probably also help prevent objects from slipping. Collecting & curating the data was the most time consuming & labor intensive part. Next, to improve low-level manipulation and make the system more real-time, I'm shifting to focus more on sims & synthetic data. This aligns better with my core competence. I'm open to tips and suggestions.
3:35

Learning from Human Demonstrations: Show the Robot How to Act! The pipeline is very similar to older experiments using Gemini & pi0 with LeRobot. Pi-zero runs locally, while Gemini Flash generates the affordances and the high-level task. (More details are in the thread.) The new component is learning from demonstrations via Gemini 2.5 Pro. I capture a video while demoing & take one of the last frames. Gemini 2.5 Pro then extracts the instructions & passes them to Gemini Flash to process the scene. The fun part is that there's no fancy insight that came from me; other than the days spent figuring out the right prompts. It's the bitter lesson hitting you in the face -> Enhanced Gemini capabilities make this possible. For example, Gemini Flash cannot do Russian doll stacking, but Gemini 2.5 Pro can do it consistently. The current limitation is low-level manipulation: - As you can see, I'm aligning the objects so they are easy to grasp using the same technique from the training data. I couldn't get Gemini Flash to consistently output an accurate grasping angle, and Gemini 1.5 Pro was too expensive and slow for real-time deployment. - Getting a symmetrical gripper should also help a lot. Adding rubber to the tips would probably also help prevent objects from slipping. Collecting & curating the data was the most time consuming & labor intensive part. Next, to improve low-level manipulation and make the system more real-time, I'm shifting to focus more on sims & synthetic data. This aligns better with my core competence. I'm open to tips and suggestions.

Shreyas Gite

22,555 просмотров • 1 год назад

you can now use Ox Alpha, Kimi K3, gemini 3.7 flash and 47 other models for FREEE with no credit card 😳 aihubmix just opened a 50-model free catalog, every model $0/M in and out. the models: -Ox Aplha -gemini-3.7-flash -glm-5.2 -kimi-k3 -minimax-m3 how to set it up (2 min): step 1: sign up at email or oauth, no card step 2: create an api key one key, all models, free and paid alike step 3: call any -free model base url: model: coding-glm-5.2-free, gpt-5.5-free, whatever that's it the free catalog is live in 2 minutes works in any openai-compatible tool. save this if you want a simple multi model setup later
0:31

you can now use Ox Alpha, Kimi K3, gemini 3.7 flash and 47 other models for FREEE with no credit card 😳 aihubmix just opened a 50-model free catalog, every model $0/M in and out. the models: -Ox Aplha -gemini-3.7-flash -glm-5.2 -kimi-k3 -minimax-m3 how to set it up (2 min): step 1: sign up at email or oauth, no card step 2: create an api key one key, all models, free and paid alike step 3: call any -free model base url: model: coding-glm-5.2-free, gpt-5.5-free, whatever that's it the free catalog is live in 2 minutes works in any openai-compatible tool. save this if you want a simple multi model setup later

painn

80,695 просмотров • 19 дней назад

Frontier AI went free this month. Not cheaper. Free. New models: > Gemini 3.6 Flash. 1,500 req/day, 1M tokens/min, no card > Kimi K3. 2.8T MoE open weights, shipped today. Largest open-weight model ever > DeepSeek V4. 1.6T MoE, MIT license, on HuggingFace > GLM-5.2. 753B MoE, 1M context, MIT license > Qwen 3.8-Max. Free preview, no login, no card > Mistral Vibe. Work Mode free. Agent features, scheduled tasks. ChatGPT and Claude charge $20/mo for the same upd (the article): > Gemini 3.5 → 3.6 Flash (July 21) > Claude $100 Fable 5 credit, claim by Aug 2 > Claude for Teachers: free through June 2027 > Malta: free ChatGPT Plus, 1 year. First country-wide deal > OpenAI: $100 credits for posting about ChatGPT Work > Perplexity Pro: 1 year free via Xfinity > Alibaba Cloud: 70M tokens + $200 credits > Grok 4.5 live across all platforms Chinese labs shipped 4 of 5 biggest open weights this month. OpenAI and Anthropic shipped credits. The access gap didn't close. It already closed.
0:57

Frontier AI went free this month. Not cheaper. Free. New models: > Gemini 3.6 Flash. 1,500 req/day, 1M tokens/min, no card > Kimi K3. 2.8T MoE open weights, shipped today. Largest open-weight model ever > DeepSeek V4. 1.6T MoE, MIT license, on HuggingFace > GLM-5.2. 753B MoE, 1M context, MIT license > Qwen 3.8-Max. Free preview, no login, no card > Mistral Vibe. Work Mode free. Agent features, scheduled tasks. ChatGPT and Claude charge $20/mo for the same upd (the article): > Gemini 3.5 → 3.6 Flash (July 21) > Claude $100 Fable 5 credit, claim by Aug 2 > Claude for Teachers: free through June 2027 > Malta: free ChatGPT Plus, 1 year. First country-wide deal > OpenAI: $100 credits for posting about ChatGPT Work > Perplexity Pro: 1 year free via Xfinity > Alibaba Cloud: 70M tokens + $200 credits > Grok 4.5 live across all platforms Chinese labs shipped 4 of 5 biggest open weights this month. OpenAI and Anthropic shipped credits. The access gap didn't close. It already closed.

ＺＥＦＩ

50,769 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Brian Harpole appears quite confident that no flash will be captured on camera, thereby refuting the exploding mic theory. I learned something important. 💥 The immediate flash from a small amount of PETN lasts between 1 to 5 microseconds. - Flash Duration: Lasts 1-5 microseconds (millionths of a second). - Standard Camera Shutter: Stays open for at least 250 microseconds (at 1/4000s speed), making it 250 times too slow to capture the flash without washing out or blurring. - Human Eye Processing: Takes 100,000 microseconds (0.1 seconds) to reset. The Human Illusion: Persistence of Vision Your eye doesn’t actually see the flash in real-time. Instead, the blinding light overloads your retina. Your brain stretches that tiny microsecond burst into a 0.1-second afterimage. Essentially, you’re seeing the “ghost” of the flash left behind in your own eye. In other words, the only reason the human eye “sees” the flash from an explosion like that is because our brains create an optical illusion. We do not and would not ever see the flash from a small amount of PETN on camera, even if you can see it with the naked human eye, without the use of highly specialized equipment. Brian's argument here is very deceptive.
0:34

Brian Harpole appears quite confident that no flash will be captured on camera, thereby refuting the exploding mic theory. I learned something important. 💥 The immediate flash from a small amount of PETN lasts between 1 to 5 microseconds. - Flash Duration: Lasts 1-5 microseconds (millionths of a second). - Standard Camera Shutter: Stays open for at least 250 microseconds (at 1/4000s speed), making it 250 times too slow to capture the flash without washing out or blurring. - Human Eye Processing: Takes 100,000 microseconds (0.1 seconds) to reset. The Human Illusion: Persistence of Vision Your eye doesn’t actually see the flash in real-time. Instead, the blinding light overloads your retina. Your brain stretches that tiny microsecond burst into a 0.1-second afterimage. Essentially, you’re seeing the “ghost” of the flash left behind in your own eye. In other words, the only reason the human eye “sees” the flash from an explosion like that is because our brains create an optical illusion. We do not and would not ever see the flash from a small amount of PETN on camera, even if you can see it with the naked human eye, without the use of highly specialized equipment. Brian's argument here is very deceptive.

Travis

72,368 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад