正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash: the BEST Boeing benchmark result I’ve seen from an open-source model (by far). ✈️ It ran for hours with /goal. Where other models often stall quickly, it kept improving: inspect, spot a defect, zoom in, diagnose, fix, repeat. The video really shows how strong it is at sustaining...

71,189 次观看 • 11 天前 •via X (Twitter)

33 条评论

Victor M 的头像
Victor M11 天前

more details because this is beautiful 🔥

Victor M 的头像
Victor M11 天前

extremely good, inspect the result here:

Offscript 的头像
Offscript11 天前

kept improving instead of stalling is the only benchmark that matters now. the rest is one shot theatre

Soft Axiom 的头像
Soft Axiom10 天前

"Until you are 100% satisfied" might be the most important part of the prompt. The model grading its own work is the benchmark now.

Myravyx 的头像
Myravyx10 天前

The hard part in a multi-hour run isn't the fixing. It's still being dissatisfied at hour three.

catman 的头像
catman11 天前

hours of /goal is a much harsher test than a one-shot render. what finally made it stop improving: a visual score, a fixed iteration limit, or its own judgment?

Umar Nasser 的头像
Umar Nasser10 天前

It seems better than opus 4.8 one right?

Shesaidmewakeup 的头像
Shesaidmewakeup10 天前

Open source running for hours in claude code and still improving. Benches don’t show that.

John Rood 的头像
John Rood11 天前

the thing that separates "keeps improving" from "stalls" isn't raw capability. it's whether the model can still see what it already tried 40 steps back. most stalls are it relitigating a fix it already ruled out because that context fell out of the window.

neal 的头像
neal11 天前

The impressive part is the loop, not the “god model” label: inspect → name a defect → fix → verify. That pattern is useful outside 3D work too—give any model explicit checks and a stop condition instead of asking for a one-shot answer.

OmniWired 的头像
OmniWired10 天前

I wonder if it be better on dsh

Surya Rajendhran 的头像
Surya Rajendhran11 天前

this is a great benchmark, where can I find more details? are there any common trends you’re seeing with how deepseek or open weight models handle 3D vs closed frontier models?

Victor M 的头像
Victor M11 天前

best way to see other results:

Chizzydigital 的头像
Chizzydigital10 天前

Next time just use a separate critic agent

veloX 的头像
veloX10 天前

this Boeing benchmark reminds me of the Red Queen Gödel Machine: continuous self-improvement against a moving target.

bbzz 的头像
bbzz11 天前

what'd it cost?

Elledyne Labs 的头像
Elledyne Labs10 天前

was the inspect→fix loop running on the same context window the whole time, or did /goal spawn fresh subagents? curious what context strategy kept it from rotting across hours

Krish Dasgupta 的头像
Krish Dasgupta10 天前

What really is marvellous- the precision shadow. The moment you move the pane around the plane, the direction also specifies the shadow. That’s something !

Wei佳 的头像
Wei佳10 天前

What Harness tool are you using?

Elledyne Labs 的头像
Elledyne Labs10 天前

the harness did the work, not the model. claude code gave it the loop and deepseek just refused to quit. how much of this is /goal's verifier vs deepseek's stamina?

اسلیم کلیک ها 的头像
اسلیم کلیک ها11 天前

Can you please crash it into a building next

Onur Solmaz 的头像
Onur Solmaz10 天前

did it reach the final version faster than astra before?

Steffan 的头像
Steffan11 天前

Looks like I am going to change harness, I was not really happy with deepseek results in opencode, maybe it’s a harness problem.

Victor M 的头像
Victor M10 天前

try it and tell me - I get really good results with CC with this setup:

FoodTruck Bench 的头像
FoodTruck Bench10 天前

DeepSeek 4.1 being this close to GPT-5.5 at this price point is actually illegal 💀

josip 的头像
josip10 天前

the impressive part isn't the boeing render, it's that it stayed in the inspect→diagnose→fix loop for hours instead of stalling after the first pretty output. long-horizon models start looking useful when the harness keeps them pointed at the next defect

Dev 的头像
Dev10 天前

bro chinese models r literally cooking the entire ai market rn distillation really leveled up chinese ai to the point it's outperforming everything ngl 😭🔥

kimodo_cloud 的头像
kimodo_cloud11 天前

cost ?

Preyforge 的头像
Preyforge10 天前

this is the satisfying version of a loop: inspect, diagnose, fix. i still make the deployed path prove the demo; screenshots can be charming little liars.

neo hodler 的头像
neo hodler10 天前

Interesting to see that it “ran for hours with /goal” without stalling. Long-horizon loops are where most “SOTA” models still quietly die.

Ibesh 的头像
Ibesh10 天前

boeing test is brutal lol. most open models stall after a few fixes, the fact it kept going for hours and kept improving is the real flex

keethesh 的头像
keethesh10 天前

Does it ever break something that was already working?

东倒西六条 的头像
东倒西六条10 天前

你炒股吗?如果你炒股的话马上删了,否则对今晚美国股市有冲击!能设计外形,就可以对飞机内部进行设计。直接冲击了美国高端制造业

相关视频

AI AGENTS 101 (58 minute free masterclass) send this to anyone who wants to understand ai agents, claude skills, md files, how to get the most out of AI etc in plain english: 1. chat vs agents - chat models answer questions in a back and forth while agents take a goal, figure out the steps, and deliver a result 2. agents don’t stop after one response. they keep running until the task is actually finishedno babysitting required 3. everything runs on a loop. they gather context, decide what to do, take an action, then repeat until done 4. the loop is the system. they look at files, tools, and the internet. decide the next step. execute and then feed that back into the next step. over and over until completion 5. the model is just one piece. gpt, claude, gemini are the reasoning layer. the key is model + loop + tools + context 6. mcp is how agents use tools. it connects things like browser, code, apis, and your internal software. once connected, the agent decides when to use them to get the job done 7. context beats prompt all day. you don't need to write perfect prompts. load your agent with context about your business, style, and goals and then simple instructions work 8. claude.md or agents.md is the onboarding doc it tells the agent who it is, how to behave, what it knows, and what tools it can use. this gets loaded every time before it starts 9. memory.md is how it improves. agents don’t remember by default. this file stores preferences, corrections, and patterns you tell the agent to update it, and it gets better over time 10. skills + harnesses make it usable. skills are reusable tasks like writing, research, analysis the harness is the environment like claude code or openclaw that runs everything. basiclaly, different interfaces, same system underneath this episode with remy on The Startup Ideas Podcast (SIP) 🧃 was one of the clearest ways of understanding a lot of the core concepts of ai agents could be the best beginners course for ai agents 58 mins. all free. no advertisers. i just want to see you build cool stuff. im rooting for you. send to a friend watch

GREG ISENBERG

377,138 次观看 • 6 个月前

CLAUDE CODE JUST SHIPPED THE FEATURE THAT SOLVES THE BIGGEST PROBLEM EVERY BUILDER HAS WITH AI AGENTS. The problem: Claude starts a task, gets distracted by a sub-problem, goes down a rabbit hole, and never finishes the original thing you asked for. The solution: /goal One command. You set the goal at the start of the session. Claude now has a north star it checks against every action it takes. Not just at the beginning. Throughout the entire session. Every time Claude is about to do something it asks: does this action move me toward the goal the user set or am I drifting? If it is drifting it corrects. If it completes a sub-task it returns to the primary goal. If it hits a blocker it reports back instead of spending 45 minutes solving the wrong problem. This sounds like a small feature. It is not. The reason most people do not trust Claude Code for long autonomous runs is not capability. It is reliability. A Claude Code session that reliably finishes what it started is worth 10 times more than one that is more capable but wanders. /goal is the feature that makes long autonomous sessions reliable. Set the goal. Let it run. Come back to a finished result. Not a result that got 70% done before Claude decided the sub-problem was more interesting. Done. The builders running overnight agent sessions are going to use this command on everything from today forward. Bookmark this. Follow CyrilXBT for every Claude Code feature the moment it ships.

CyrilXBT

19,586 次观看 • 4 个月前

Sam Altman made the case for open-source harnesses in July. a month later, someone shipped it, and it's more efficient than most managed harnesses. here is the problem it was aimed at: a large share of your agent's token bill is the model rereading things it already read. that isn't the model's doing. the runtime around it decides what goes into every prompt and how often the model gets called. for example, an agent queries a CRM at step four and gets back 400 rows. those rows get piled up in the conversation history. by step nineteen, the model has to read those rows fifteen times unnecessarily, and every token read is billed at input rates. it happened because your harness assembled that prompt on every turn and kept the rows in it. that gives you two levers: how much context the harness carries forward, and how often it calls the model. there are four practical ways to keep the prompt from growing unnecessarily: → load tool schemas on demand. a server with 100 tools doesn't need to put all 100 into every prompt when the agent only calls two. → offload large results to disk. turn a large response into a short preview and a file path instead of replaying the entire result on every turn. → delegate to subagents. let a subagent spend thirty tool calls in its own context and return one summary to the root agent. → run toolchains in code. one script calls three tools, joins the results, and returns a table instead of three turns each dragging a full response. but reducing context is only half the job. you also need to control how often the model gets called. a good harness should avoid unnecessary planning, verification, and reflection when the work can be completed in fewer steps. TrueFoundry's open-source agent harness, TrueForge, is built around both of those controls. it sits between the model and the tools, deciding what goes into every prompt and when another model call is actually needed. it also breaks token usage down across the harness, skills, instructions, tools, and messages. DevRev's Enterprise-Bench is where this gets tested, on multi-step tasks of the kind where an agent pulls records from one system and reconciles them against another. TrueFoundry ran TrueForge there against Claude Managed Agents, both on the same model, and both finished the same number of tasks. the tie is the part that matters, because it means the gap underneath is not a quality tradeoff. TrueForge reached that score on close to a third of the tokens, with roughly 40% fewer trips back to the model. for the same result, that comes out around 2.7x cheaper than Claude Managed Agents. swapping in an open model made it sharper still. TrueForge with GLM-5.2 scored a little higher than either setup above, and the entire benchmark run cost about $3 at list prices. being open source matters beyond the license here. the model underneath can be swapped without rewriting the agent, and the whole thing can run inside your own environment when the data cannot leave it. all of this comes down to the runtime around the model, the context it carries, the tools it exposes, and how many times it goes back to the model. that is what a production harness actually owns. the full task list, the per-run numbers, and the MIT-licensed code are on GitHub: (don't forget to star 🌟) you can read more about the same in the article quoted below. thanks to the TrueForge team for working with me on this one.

Akshay 🚀

76,998 次观看 • 1 个月前