正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Fable 5 absolutely crushed the HTML5 physics contest, but cost 6x more than Opus 4.8 and 39× more than GLM 5.2 in that test. Test was done on atomic[.]chat, a desktop app that runs LLMs locally. The test asked 4 models to generate self-contained canvas demos with believable motion... show more

Rohan Paul

152,096 subscribers

204,694 次观看 • 14 天前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

New Claude Sonnet 5 performs at GPT 5.5 level 6x cheaper! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics crash demos Prompts: - A car crashes into a brick wall - A wrecking ball destroys a house - A catapult throws a rock at a castle wall Outputs: Sonnet 5: 15,047 tokens, $0.15 Opus 4.8: 23,063 tokens, $0.58 Sonnet 4.6: 25,824 tokens, $0.39 GPT 5.5: 31,152 tokens, $0.94 Sonnet 5 did as well as Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 on all three tests. In the wrecking ball test, it beat Opus 4.8. The cable moves smoothly and every hit connects. In the catapult test, it beat GPT 5.5. The rock always lands inside the wall. Sonnet 5 still needs better detail and graphics. But it used fewer tokens than every other model

New Claude Sonnet 5 performs at GPT 5.5 level 6x cheaper! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics crash demos Prompts: - A car crashes into a brick wall - A wrecking ball destroys a house - A catapult throws a rock at a castle wall Outputs: Sonnet 5: 15,047 tokens, $0.15 Opus 4.8: 23,063 tokens, $0.58 Sonnet 4.6: 25,824 tokens, $0.39 GPT 5.5: 31,152 tokens, $0.94 Sonnet 5 did as well as Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 on all three tests. In the wrecking ball test, it beat Opus 4.8. The cable moves smoothly and every hit connects. In the catapult test, it beat GPT 5.5. The rock always lands inside the wall. Sonnet 5 still needs better detail and graphics. But it used fewer tokens than every other model

atomic.chat

725,764 次观看 • 15 天前

Grok 4.5 performed GPT Sol level for free! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: -robot deathmatch, Tombstone vs Minotaur -a hydraulic press flattening stuff on a conveyor -a semi truck jumping a canyon Outputs: GPT-5.6 Sol: 12.9K tokens, $0.51 (~7 min) Grok 4.5: 10.8K tokens, $0 (~5 min) Muse Spark 1.1: 26.8K tokens, $0.12 (~7.5 min) GLM 5.2: 10.9K tokens, $0.02 (~12 min) Grok 4.5 handled all three scenes genuinely well and got surprisingly close to GPT-5.6 this round. On top of that, it ran on the free tier. GPT-5.6 Sol, the frontier model, put out solid but not standout work. GLM 5.2 rendered all three scenes for pennies, but it came out the roughest of the four. Meta's new Muse Spark burned the most tokens yet still stayed cheap, delivering an average result.

Grok 4.5 performed GPT Sol level for free! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: -robot deathmatch, Tombstone vs Minotaur -a hydraulic press flattening stuff on a conveyor -a semi truck jumping a canyon Outputs: GPT-5.6 Sol: 12.9K tokens, $0.51 (~7 min) Grok 4.5: 10.8K tokens, $0 (~5 min) Muse Spark 1.1: 26.8K tokens, $0.12 (~7.5 min) GLM 5.2: 10.9K tokens, $0.02 (~12 min) Grok 4.5 handled all three scenes genuinely well and got surprisingly close to GPT-5.6 this round. On top of that, it ran on the free tier. GPT-5.6 Sol, the frontier model, put out solid but not standout work. GLM 5.2 rendered all three scenes for pennies, but it came out the roughest of the four. Meta's new Muse Spark burned the most tokens yet still stayed cheap, delivering an average result.

atomic.chat

68,673 次观看 • 5 天前

New Hunyuan Hy3 hits Gemini 3.5 quality on physics for 35x cheaper! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: - A bowling ball knocking down the pins - An air hockey rally that ends in a goal - A pool break scattering the rack Outputs: Hunyuan Hy3: 29,757 tokens, $0.006 Gemini 3.5: 23,300 tokens, $0.21 GLM-5.2: 25,454 tokens, $0.07 DeepSeek-V4: 50,600 tokens, $0.009 Tencent's Hy3 matched Gemini across all three: clean collisions, the puck bounced true, the pins scattered like a real strike, the rack broke with real momentum, nothing clipped or floated. GLM is genuinely strong on pure coding tasks, but the moment the job steps outside clean code it gives way. DeepSeek was the letdown, it burned the most tokens of anyone (50k, almost 2x Hy3) and still turned in the weakest scenes

New Hunyuan Hy3 hits Gemini 3.5 quality on physics for 35x cheaper! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: - A bowling ball knocking down the pins - An air hockey rally that ends in a goal - A pool break scattering the rack Outputs: Hunyuan Hy3: 29,757 tokens, $0.006 Gemini 3.5: 23,300 tokens, $0.21 GLM-5.2: 25,454 tokens, $0.07 DeepSeek-V4: 50,600 tokens, $0.009 Tencent's Hy3 matched Gemini across all three: clean collisions, the puck bounced true, the pins scattered like a real strike, the rack broke with real momentum, nothing clipped or floated. GLM is genuinely strong on pure coding tasks, but the moment the job steps outside clean code it gives way. DeepSeek was the letdown, it burned the most tokens of anyone (50k, almost 2x Hy3) and still turned in the weakest scenes

atomic.chat

96,930 次观看 • 9 天前

Sakana Fugu surprisingly performed near GLM 5.2 level but 17× more expensive! We gave the same prompt to 4 models: build a complete live Trader Desk with both frontend and backend components, real-time market data fetched from external APIs for 8 symbols, and a custom dark-theme UI. Outputs: Fugu Ultra — 22,225 t, $0.51 Opus 4.8 — 15,802 t, $0.31 GPT-5.5 — 11,474 t, $0.26 GLM 5.2 — 13,677 t, $0.03 Fugu created the most polished and feature-rich trading desk in the run. GLM 5.2 was very close behind, with a similarly complete multi-panel interface and live data, but at a much lower cost. Opus and GPT also performed well, delivering solid results with a better balance between quality and cost

Sakana Fugu surprisingly performed near GLM 5.2 level but 17× more expensive! We gave the same prompt to 4 models: build a complete live Trader Desk with both frontend and backend components, real-time market data fetched from external APIs for 8 symbols, and a custom dark-theme UI. Outputs: Fugu Ultra — 22,225 t, $0.51 Opus 4.8 — 15,802 t, $0.31 GPT-5.5 — 11,474 t, $0.26 GLM 5.2 — 13,677 t, $0.03 Fugu created the most polished and feature-rich trading desk in the run. GLM 5.2 was very close behind, with a similarly complete multi-panel interface and live data, but at a much lower cost. Opus and GPT also performed well, delivering solid results with a better balance between quality and cost

atomic.chat

741,950 次观看 • 23 天前

Sonnet 5 is here. It's worse than Opus 4.8 on nearly every benchmark... Does that mean it's useless? Absolutely not. Use it with Claude Code Dynamic Workflows! 1. /model set to Sonnet 5 2. /effort set to Ultracode 3. Any complex task will kick off a dynamic workflow This will only become more powerful when Fable is back. You'll use Fable 5 as the superintelligent advisor and Sonnet 5 as the fast and efficient implementer.

Sonnet 5 is here. It's worse than Opus 4.8 on nearly every benchmark... Does that mean it's useless? Absolutely not. Use it with Claude Code Dynamic Workflows! 1. /model set to Sonnet 5 2. /effort set to Ultracode 3. Any complex task will kick off a dynamic workflow This will only become more powerful when Fable is back. You'll use Fable 5 as the superintelligent advisor and Sonnet 5 as the fast and efficient implementer.

Dan McAteer

660,625 次观看 • 15 天前

Flappy Bird w/ DeepSeek V4 Pro vs GLM 5.2 vs Fable 5 I ran a small experiment: same game, same prompt, three different models. Test setup was simple: /𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚐𝚗 in Command Code. The thing I cared about was not UI. UI is now relatively easy for models to imitate. I cared more about UX: whether the model understands the interaction, the flow, the hierarchy, the little product decisions that make something feel usable. 𝙲𝚘𝚜𝚝𝚜: 𝙳𝚎𝚎𝚙𝚂𝚎𝚎𝚔 𝚟𝟺 𝙿𝚛𝚘: $𝟶.𝟶𝟶𝟶𝟾 𝙶𝙻𝙼 𝟻.𝟸: $𝟶.𝟶𝟺𝟾 𝙵𝚊𝚋𝚕𝚎 𝟻: $𝟶.𝟺𝟸 The surprising result was that Fable 5 did not produce a meaningfully better UX. It was good, but not good enough to justify the pricing delta for this kind of design task. Open-source models are getting very interesting here. They are much cheaper, competitive on UI, and increasingly good enough on UX. The gap is closing fast.

Flappy Bird w/ DeepSeek V4 Pro vs GLM 5.2 vs Fable 5 I ran a small experiment: same game, same prompt, three different models. Test setup was simple: /𝚍𝚎𝚜𝚒𝚐𝚗 in Command Code. The thing I cared about was not UI. UI is now relatively easy for models to imitate. I cared more about UX: whether the model understands the interaction, the flow, the hierarchy, the little product decisions that make something feel usable. 𝙲𝚘𝚜𝚝𝚜: 𝙳𝚎𝚎𝚙𝚂𝚎𝚎𝚔 𝚟𝟺 𝙿𝚛𝚘: $𝟶.𝟶𝟶𝟶𝟾 𝙶𝙻𝙼 𝟻.𝟸: $𝟶.𝟶𝟺𝟾 𝙵𝚊𝚋𝚕𝚎 𝟻: $𝟶.𝟺𝟸 The surprising result was that Fable 5 did not produce a meaningfully better UX. It was good, but not good enough to justify the pricing delta for this kind of design task. Open-source models are getting very interesting here. They are much cheaper, competitive on UI, and increasingly good enough on UX. The gap is closing fast.

Ahmad Awais

26,661 次观看 • 8 天前

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 📧:

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 📧

353,332 次观看 • 1 个月前

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

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

617,901 次观看 • 27 天前

Most recent diffusion language model research (that I’ve seen) seems to be using masking as the noising process. It looks like, however, most closed-source models (Google Gemini Diffusion and possibly Inception Labs’ Mercury) use a different noising process, where instead of masking tokens, they replace them with different tokens (either with a random token or a semantically similar token). I wondered how they were getting such high throughput with the latter noising process, since I believed that optimizing inference with KVCache approximation would be more difficult (for various reasons). I visualized this noising process with tiny-diffusion and compared it to normal unmasking, and was very surprised to see how fast the generation “settles” into a reasonable output, and then only slightly refines afterwards, requiring much fewer steps in total. Unmasking (where tokens are never remasked, the typical implementation) is inherently limited in generation speed by the fact that an increase in tokens decoded per step leads to more errors due to the mismatch between individual and marginal token probability distributions we sample from. The token replacement noising process seems to have a much different set of characteristics. Because we sample each token per step, every token makes “progress” towards the final output each iteration (in addition to *potentially* giving other tokens more information in future steps). Generally, masking has outperformed other noising processes, which is probably why most research focused on it (using smaller models). But the paper referred to in the retweet shows that random replacement as a noising process may scale better as model size increases. Big labs might have noticed these results much earlier (due to having drastically more training resources and being able to test larger models), which may explain the discrepancy in the choice of noising process. I’m gonna test this with larger models, since tiny-diffusion only has 10M parameters.

Most recent diffusion language model research (that I’ve seen) seems to be using masking as the noising process. It looks like, however, most closed-source models (Google Gemini Diffusion and possibly Inception Labs’ Mercury) use a different noising process, where instead of masking tokens, they replace them with different tokens (either with a random token or a semantically similar token). I wondered how they were getting such high throughput with the latter noising process, since I believed that optimizing inference with KVCache approximation would be more difficult (for various reasons). I visualized this noising process with tiny-diffusion and compared it to normal unmasking, and was very surprised to see how fast the generation “settles” into a reasonable output, and then only slightly refines afterwards, requiring much fewer steps in total. Unmasking (where tokens are never remasked, the typical implementation) is inherently limited in generation speed by the fact that an increase in tokens decoded per step leads to more errors due to the mismatch between individual and marginal token probability distributions we sample from. The token replacement noising process seems to have a much different set of characteristics. Because we sample each token per step, every token makes “progress” towards the final output each iteration (in addition to potentially giving other tokens more information in future steps). Generally, masking has outperformed other noising processes, which is probably why most research focused on it (using smaller models). But the paper referred to in the retweet shows that random replacement as a noising process may scale better as model size increases. Big labs might have noticed these results much earlier (due to having drastically more training resources and being able to test larger models), which may explain the discrepancy in the choice of noising process. I’m gonna test this with larger models, since tiny-diffusion only has 10M parameters.

nathan (in sf)

40,440 次观看 • 6 个月前

Right now, you may not have access to models like GPT‑5.6 Sol, GPT‑4.6 Terra, GPT‑5.6 Luna, Claude Mythos 5, or Claude Fable 5. But you can run something surprisingly powerful today, locally, and completely free. in the next 10 mins on your 8 GB VRAM gaming laptop. Gemma 4 26B A4B QAT (MoE) delivers strong performance on a standard 8 GB VRAM GPU using Ollama, with no API, no usage limits, and no external dependencies. Out of the box, it reaches around 20 tokens per second without any optimizations. Only one command in your terminal: Ollama run gemma4:26b This means: Full offline capability (privacy by default) Zero recurring cost Competitive performance for many real world tasks Fast enough for interactive use on cheap consumer hardware If you're waiting for cutting edge cloud models, you're missing what is already practical today: a capable, local LLM that runs entirely on your own machine.

Right now, you may not have access to models like GPT‑5.6 Sol, GPT‑4.6 Terra, GPT‑5.6 Luna, Claude Mythos 5, or Claude Fable 5. But you can run something surprisingly powerful today, locally, and completely free. in the next 10 mins on your 8 GB VRAM gaming laptop. Gemma 4 26B A4B QAT (MoE) delivers strong performance on a standard 8 GB VRAM GPU using Ollama, with no API, no usage limits, and no external dependencies. Out of the box, it reaches around 20 tokens per second without any optimizations. Only one command in your terminal: Ollama run gemma4:26b This means: Full offline capability (privacy by default) Zero recurring cost Competitive performance for many real world tasks Fast enough for interactive use on cheap consumer hardware If you're waiting for cutting edge cloud models, you're missing what is already practical today: a capable, local LLM that runs entirely on your own machine.

Alok

64,748 次观看 • 19 天前

Fine-tune DeepSeek-OCR on your own language! (100% local) DeepSeek-OCR is a 3B-parameter vision model that achieves 97% precision while using 10× fewer vision tokens than text-based LLMs. It handles tables, papers, and handwriting without killing your GPU or budget. Why it matters: Most vision models treat documents as massive sequences of tokens, making long-context processing expensive and slow. DeepSeek-OCR uses context optical compression to convert 2D layouts into vision tokens, enabling efficient processing of complex documents. The best part? You can easily fine-tune it for your specific use case on a single GPU. I used Unsloth to run this experiment on Persian text and saw an 88.26% improvement in character error rate. ↳ Base model: 149% character error rate (CER) ↳ Fine-tuned model: 60% CER (57% more accurate) ↳ Training time: 60 steps on a single GPU Persian was just the test case. You can swap in your own dataset for any language, document type, or specific domain you're working with. I've shared the complete guide in the next tweet - all the code, notebooks, and environment setup ready to run with a single click. Everything is 100% open-source!

Fine-tune DeepSeek-OCR on your own language! (100% local) DeepSeek-OCR is a 3B-parameter vision model that achieves 97% precision while using 10× fewer vision tokens than text-based LLMs. It handles tables, papers, and handwriting without killing your GPU or budget. Why it matters: Most vision models treat documents as massive sequences of tokens, making long-context processing expensive and slow. DeepSeek-OCR uses context optical compression to convert 2D layouts into vision tokens, enabling efficient processing of complex documents. The best part? You can easily fine-tune it for your specific use case on a single GPU. I used Unsloth to run this experiment on Persian text and saw an 88.26% improvement in character error rate. ↳ Base model: 149% character error rate (CER) ↳ Fine-tuned model: 60% CER (57% more accurate) ↳ Training time: 60 steps on a single GPU Persian was just the test case. You can swap in your own dataset for any language, document type, or specific domain you're working with. I've shared the complete guide in the next tweet - all the code, notebooks, and environment setup ready to run with a single click. Everything is 100% open-source!

Akshay 🚀

126,091 次观看 • 8 个月前

Does LLM really need to be a helpful assistant all the time? No. If you want to simulate people, “perfectly helpful” could be the wrong objective. Meet OdysSim, a journey toward LLMs beyond assistants, as behavioral foundation models (10B tokens of real human behavior; 23 sim benchmarks, finally in one place. new open models: outperform or on par with GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1, or Claude Opus 4.7 in many behavior-sim dimensions). Human behavior simulation is becoming essential. Agent evaluation needs realistic users before real users show up. Medical and classroom training need realistic patients and students. Social science needs synthetic participants at scale. But real people are not ideal assistants. Real patients panic or ignore good advice. Real students misunderstand. Real customers are vague, picky, impatient, or simply leave. Human behavior is messy, diverse, and often imperfect. Frontier LLMs are getting better at math, code, and long-horizon tasks. They are NOT getting better at simulating human behavior. If anything, they drift the other way: more assistant-ish, more homogeneous, fewer of the errors and quirks real humans show. This is no accident. The whole pipeline is built for helpfulness and task success, not behavioral realism. And you can't prompt your way out of that. So we rethink the recipe from scratch and release: 🧠 The OdysSim corpus: 21.4M real human interactions (~10B tokens) from 62 sources, every conversation retrofitted with social grounding (who is talking, and why) 📏 SOUL-Index: 23 human-behavior benchmarks unified into one suite across 5 axes 🤖 OSim-8B: open weights; tops more SOUL-Index benchmarks than any frontier model, acts more like a real user than any of them on τ-bench (nearly matching real humans in the reaction dimension), and writes far more human-like text along the way.

Does LLM really need to be a helpful assistant all the time? No. If you want to simulate people, “perfectly helpful” could be the wrong objective. Meet OdysSim, a journey toward LLMs beyond assistants, as behavioral foundation models (10B tokens of real human behavior; 23 sim benchmarks, finally in one place. new open models: outperform or on par with GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1, or Claude Opus 4.7 in many behavior-sim dimensions). Human behavior simulation is becoming essential. Agent evaluation needs realistic users before real users show up. Medical and classroom training need realistic patients and students. Social science needs synthetic participants at scale. But real people are not ideal assistants. Real patients panic or ignore good advice. Real students misunderstand. Real customers are vague, picky, impatient, or simply leave. Human behavior is messy, diverse, and often imperfect. Frontier LLMs are getting better at math, code, and long-horizon tasks. They are NOT getting better at simulating human behavior. If anything, they drift the other way: more assistant-ish, more homogeneous, fewer of the errors and quirks real humans show. This is no accident. The whole pipeline is built for helpfulness and task success, not behavioral realism. And you can't prompt your way out of that. So we rethink the recipe from scratch and release: 🧠 The OdysSim corpus: 21.4M real human interactions (~10B tokens) from 62 sources, every conversation retrofitted with social grounding (who is talking, and why) 📏 SOUL-Index: 23 human-behavior benchmarks unified into one suite across 5 axes 🤖 OSim-8B: open weights; tops more SOUL-Index benchmarks than any frontier model, acts more like a real user than any of them on τ-bench (nearly matching real humans in the reaction dimension), and writes far more human-like text along the way.

Xuhui Zhou

140,846 次观看 • 1 个月前

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

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

Rachel🥥

57,766 次观看 • 14 天前

I Combined ChatGPT 5.5 Image-2 + Claude Fable 5… And Built This FULL Game in JUST 8 Hours 😱 The World Has Officially Changed Forever Guys… I still can’t believe what I just pulled off. I took ChatGPT 5.5’s new Image-2 to generate every single visual characters, environments, UI, particles, everything and paired it with Claude Fable 5 for the entire codebase. The result? A complete, polished, fully playable game… finished in only 8 hours. No massive team. No months of crunch. No expensive asset packs. Image-2 created mind-blowing art assets on demand. Fable 5 turned those images into real, working code mechanics, physics, AI, animations, menus everything. This hybrid combo is straight-up sorcery. The world has truly changed. We are no longer waiting years for games to be made. One person + these two god-tier AIs just built something that used to require entire studios and huge budgets… in less than a single workday. This is the next level of human civilization. This is what creation looks like from now on. But here’s the crazy part: This free access ends June 22, 2026. After that, you’ll have to pay/subscribe to keep using it. If you’ve been waiting to see what the future of game dev actually looks like… THIS IS IT. Go try it right now before the paywall hits. Don’t sleep on this. Seriously. Drop in the comments: What game should I build next with this insane Image-2 + Fable 5 hybrid? Like if your mind is blown too 🔥 And tag a friend who NEEDS to see this before it’s gone. The future isn’t coming… It’s already here. And it’s free for one more day only. #Fable5 #ChatGPT55 #Image2 #AIHybrid #GameDevRevolution

I Combined ChatGPT 5.5 Image-2 + Claude Fable 5… And Built This FULL Game in JUST 8 Hours 😱 The World Has Officially Changed Forever Guys… I still can’t believe what I just pulled off. I took ChatGPT 5.5’s new Image-2 to generate every single visual characters, environments, UI, particles, everything and paired it with Claude Fable 5 for the entire codebase. The result? A complete, polished, fully playable game… finished in only 8 hours. No massive team. No months of crunch. No expensive asset packs. Image-2 created mind-blowing art assets on demand. Fable 5 turned those images into real, working code mechanics, physics, AI, animations, menus everything. This hybrid combo is straight-up sorcery. The world has truly changed. We are no longer waiting years for games to be made. One person + these two god-tier AIs just built something that used to require entire studios and huge budgets… in less than a single workday. This is the next level of human civilization. This is what creation looks like from now on. But here’s the crazy part: This free access ends June 22, 2026. After that, you’ll have to pay/subscribe to keep using it. If you’ve been waiting to see what the future of game dev actually looks like… THIS IS IT. Go try it right now before the paywall hits. Don’t sleep on this. Seriously. Drop in the comments: What game should I build next with this insane Image-2 + Fable 5 hybrid? Like if your mind is blown too 🔥 And tag a friend who NEEDS to see this before it’s gone. The future isn’t coming… It’s already here. And it’s free for one more day only. #Fable5 #ChatGPT55 #Image2 #AIHybrid #GameDevRevolution

0AIVerse

26,641 次观看 • 1 个月前

🧑‍🚀 Day 5 of the Cursor #vibejam Proudly sponsored by Cursor + bolt.new + GLIF Today a little bit about Cursor 3, it's a completely rebuilt interface designed around agents, you can run multiple AI agents in parallel, hand off between local and cloud, and go from commit to merged PR. It's powered by Composer 2, their own frontier coding model that tops benchmarks at $0.50/M input tokens — and the Fast variant runs at 200 tokens/sec, more than 2x faster than other frontier models. Perfect for vibe coding your game jam entry. And edwin from Cursor is here to help you if you get stuck! Lots of activity again today again on here, the best games (or well previews) I saw today: 🍣 Sushi Belt by steeno 🌊 Surfing Simulator by Erik (this one is a basic demo but very promising as it has realistic water physics) 🦆 Grand Quack Auto by kyzo (or as I like to call it Bali Simulator) 🏛️ Roman Combat Sim by terry trusner (continued from yesterday because it's had a lot of progress I think) YOU HAVE 24 DAYS LEFT! Reply in this thread with updates on your current games to share your progress, and add tag #vibejam so I see and can include you in the daily tweet There's $35,000 in prizes for you to win, see threads below for more info. The Gold prize is $20,000, bronze is $10,000 and silver is $5,000! Wanna to participate? You can still start today and submit your game any time before May 1!

🧑‍🚀 Day 5 of the Cursor #vibejam Proudly sponsored by Cursor + bolt.new + GLIF Today a little bit about Cursor 3, it's a completely rebuilt interface designed around agents, you can run multiple AI agents in parallel, hand off between local and cloud, and go from commit to merged PR. It's powered by Composer 2, their own frontier coding model that tops benchmarks at $0.50/M input tokens — and the Fast variant runs at 200 tokens/sec, more than 2x faster than other frontier models. Perfect for vibe coding your game jam entry. And edwin from Cursor is here to help you if you get stuck! Lots of activity again today again on here, the best games (or well previews) I saw today: 🍣 Sushi Belt by steeno 🌊 Surfing Simulator by Erik (this one is a basic demo but very promising as it has realistic water physics) 🦆 Grand Quack Auto by kyzo (or as I like to call it Bali Simulator) 🏛️ Roman Combat Sim by terry trusner (continued from yesterday because it's had a lot of progress I think) YOU HAVE 24 DAYS LEFT! Reply in this thread with updates on your current games to share your progress, and add tag #vibejam so I see and can include you in the daily tweet There's $35,000 in prizes for you to win, see threads below for more info. The Gold prize is $20,000, bronze is $10,000 and silver is $5,000! Wanna to participate? You can still start today and submit your game any time before May 1!

@levelsio

79,626 次观看 • 3 个月前

Holy shit... Microsoft open sourced an inference framework that runs a 100B parameter LLM on a single CPU. It's called BitNet. And it does what was supposed to be impossible. No GPU. No cloud. No $10K hardware setup. Just your laptop running a 100-billion parameter model at human reading speed. Here's how it works: Every other LLM stores weights in 32-bit or 16-bit floats. BitNet uses 1.58 bits. Weights are ternary just -1, 0, or +1. That's it. No floats. No expensive matrix math. Pure integer operations your CPU was already built for. The result: - 100B model runs on a single CPU at 5-7 tokens/second - 2.37x to 6.17x faster than llama.cpp on x86 - 82% lower energy consumption on x86 CPUs - 1.37x to 5.07x speedup on ARM (your MacBook) - Memory drops by 16-32x vs full-precision models The wildest part: Accuracy barely moves. BitNet b1.58 2B4T their flagship model was trained on 4 trillion tokens and benchmarks competitively against full-precision models of the same size. The quantization isn't destroying quality. It's just removing the bloat. What this actually means: - Run AI completely offline. Your data never leaves your machine - Deploy LLMs on phones, IoT devices, edge hardware - No more cloud API bills for inference - AI in regions with no reliable internet The model supports ARM and x86. Works on your MacBook, your Linux box, your Windows machine. 27.4K GitHub stars. 2.2K forks. Built by Microsoft Research. 100% Open Source. MIT License.

Holy shit... Microsoft open sourced an inference framework that runs a 100B parameter LLM on a single CPU. It's called BitNet. And it does what was supposed to be impossible. No GPU. No cloud. No $10K hardware setup. Just your laptop running a 100-billion parameter model at human reading speed. Here's how it works: Every other LLM stores weights in 32-bit or 16-bit floats. BitNet uses 1.58 bits. Weights are ternary just -1, 0, or +1. That's it. No floats. No expensive matrix math. Pure integer operations your CPU was already built for. The result: - 100B model runs on a single CPU at 5-7 tokens/second - 2.37x to 6.17x faster than llama.cpp on x86 - 82% lower energy consumption on x86 CPUs - 1.37x to 5.07x speedup on ARM (your MacBook) - Memory drops by 16-32x vs full-precision models The wildest part: Accuracy barely moves. BitNet b1.58 2B4T their flagship model was trained on 4 trillion tokens and benchmarks competitively against full-precision models of the same size. The quantization isn't destroying quality. It's just removing the bloat. What this actually means: - Run AI completely offline. Your data never leaves your machine - Deploy LLMs on phones, IoT devices, edge hardware - No more cloud API bills for inference - AI in regions with no reliable internet The model supports ARM and x86. Works on your MacBook, your Linux box, your Windows machine. 27.4K GitHub stars. 2.2K forks. Built by Microsoft Research. 100% Open Source. MIT License.

Guri Singh

2,180,357 次观看 • 4 个月前

Making OpenCode as lean as Pi agent? Just trimmed 25k out of OpenCode's system prompt (from 30k to 4-5k tokens) How? Just disable skills and get rid of massive skill definition bloat. Who needs skills anyway? Just kidding, this is the not the way. It makes the agent lame and defeats the point of using one. But it sets a precedent: Find a way to use skills without their definitions pre-loaded into the system prompt every single turn. Another interesting stuff: Upon testing this temporary "no skill setup" with two of hottest OpenCode Zen free models, Mimo V2.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash: One thinks more and talks less One thinks less and talks more Check the video to see which is which If you made it here, I'm finding a way to leanest OpenCode setup that I can get I simply don't believe that OpenCode can't be as lean as Pi Upon tinkering, I made a plugin that temporarily extracts the system prompt while I test, and noticed the hundreds of definitions in it from my .agents/skills directory which is shared across all my coding agents (Cursor, Antigravity, Claude, etc.) Of course disabling skills is not the answer, but it just proved that there is a way to strip the system prompt of these massive skill defs Aside from the system prompt hierarchy that injects confusion imo if you have a conflicting and redundant AGENTS.md which I discovered upon digging into OpenCode's source code Apparently it has prompt.ts/system.ts/instruction.ts/llm.ts and loads base .txt prompts based on model family (claude/gpt-o/gpt-5/codex/gemini/others) that all work together to make OpenCode aware of who it was and how it should use tools and become a "coding agent" Gotta find the most minimal mix that fits right into my workflow Make OpenCode as lean as Pi? We'll see. All in

Making OpenCode as lean as Pi agent? Just trimmed 25k out of OpenCode's system prompt (from 30k to 4-5k tokens) How? Just disable skills and get rid of massive skill definition bloat. Who needs skills anyway? Just kidding, this is the not the way. It makes the agent lame and defeats the point of using one. But it sets a precedent: Find a way to use skills without their definitions pre-loaded into the system prompt every single turn. Another interesting stuff: Upon testing this temporary "no skill setup" with two of hottest OpenCode Zen free models, Mimo V2.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash: One thinks more and talks less One thinks less and talks more Check the video to see which is which If you made it here, I'm finding a way to leanest OpenCode setup that I can get I simply don't believe that OpenCode can't be as lean as Pi Upon tinkering, I made a plugin that temporarily extracts the system prompt while I test, and noticed the hundreds of definitions in it from my .agents/skills directory which is shared across all my coding agents (Cursor, Antigravity, Claude, etc.) Of course disabling skills is not the answer, but it just proved that there is a way to strip the system prompt of these massive skill defs Aside from the system prompt hierarchy that injects confusion imo if you have a conflicting and redundant AGENTS.md which I discovered upon digging into OpenCode's source code Apparently it has prompt.ts/system.ts/instruction.ts/llm.ts and loads base .txt prompts based on model family (claude/gpt-o/gpt-5/codex/gemini/others) that all work together to make OpenCode aware of who it was and how it should use tools and become a "coding agent" Gotta find the most minimal mix that fits right into my workflow Make OpenCode as lean as Pi? We'll see. All in

raymel 👋

37,196 次观看 • 1 个月前

Here’s my analysis on NotPixel Airdrop: - Mining phase: it was entertaining to paint on the canvas alongside with many of you! Personally, I had fun drawing 🧡 together with you, just for fun, no competition. For that I will rate it a ✅ - Earn Launchpool: personally, I think this is great that there’s such a tool, that allows holders effortlessly farm tokens. For me it’s a ✅ - Distribution: the major frustrations has been caused by the overload of the smart contract for Airdrop claim, where the biggest frustrations came from the fact that many were not able to claim their tokens for long (Including me) and watched the price go from $0,5 to $0,8 & to $0,2. Personally, I think that if Airdrop claim was done prior to the launch, it may have been better. For that, I will put a ❌ - Launch: NotPixel decided to launch its PX token only on DEX’es on TON. the price at launch actually was at $0,5-$0,8 however, it shortly went down to $0,2 , causing frustration to the community & making them question “who sold?!” & “why no CEX listings?” Here, it’s important to understand the way Sasha & his team decided that they want to build the project. As they mentioned on X “start from the basics, start from 0.” While many dislike this approach, I personally believe that this is how the launches must be happening. Launch on DEX -> generate traction & volume -> go list on CEX’es -> create more news -> grow more from new ppl joining For that I will put ✅ - Team allocation: while many have speculated that “team sold”. this is completely not true. In fact, team has locked their allocation & it can be verified on chain. Which is ✅ for me. - Future plans: NotPixel will have a big canvas on which you will be able to paint, but this time, with some NFT mechanics & PX token integration. For which it is ✅ to me. Burning: NotPixel plan with the new update also includes a mechanism for Burning, which means that PX token will be deflationary. Which is ✅ - ownership revoked: meaning that PX token supply cannot be increased. Nor any modifications could be made to the smart contract at this point. Which is a big ✅ in my opinion - Community: while many are still frustrated with the current token price on the market, many express desire for token appreciation & further growth. One of the interesting feedbacks I saw on the timeline was “NotPixel forced us all to hold”. Which shows that there are ppl who are not willing to get less than their target. Also many express that they want to see PX on CEX’es. For it to grow even more. ✅ - Holders: as with any Airdrop, many have sold their tokens on the market, the volume also came down a bit. However, what’s interesting is that while ~200k ppl sold, the token still fluctuates between the lowest point $0,13 to $0,26. Which shows that there’s a demand & ppl are accumulating more tokens. Currently PX has 205k holders. Which is a ✅ - BuyBacks: the NotPixel team recently announced the buybacks with the money raised from the NotPixel stickers sale. Which created more support for the price on the market. ✅ - Expectations vs reality: Many community members said that they were expecting price to be above $1 as minimum, many were predicting as high as $10. In reality, the price at launch turned out to be much lower than many expected. Leading to the frustration being expressed on the timeline. Which is understandable. ❌ Conclusion: - Mining phase: ✅ - Earn Launchpool: ✅ - Distribution: ❌ - Launch: ✅ - Team Allocation: ✅ - Future plans: ✅ - Burning: ✅ - Ownership revoked: ✅ - Community: ✅ - Holders: ✅ - BuyBacks: ✅ - Expectations vs reality: ❌ This is not bad execution, not many ppl will be able to pull this off in crypto. No one knows the future, but I chose to believe that Sasha & NotPixel team has a plan. Currently they are not listed on any CEX’es, but I think that Sasha & his team could easily get there. Let’s see what the future holds for us 🙌

Here’s my analysis on NotPixel Airdrop: - Mining phase: it was entertaining to paint on the canvas alongside with many of you! Personally, I had fun drawing 🧡 together with you, just for fun, no competition. For that I will rate it a ✅ - Earn Launchpool: personally, I think this is great that there’s such a tool, that allows holders effortlessly farm tokens. For me it’s a ✅ - Distribution: the major frustrations has been caused by the overload of the smart contract for Airdrop claim, where the biggest frustrations came from the fact that many were not able to claim their tokens for long (Including me) and watched the price go from $0,5 to $0,8 & to $0,2. Personally, I think that if Airdrop claim was done prior to the launch, it may have been better. For that, I will put a ❌ - Launch: NotPixel decided to launch its PX token only on DEX’es on TON. the price at launch actually was at $0,5-$0,8 however, it shortly went down to $0,2 , causing frustration to the community & making them question “who sold?!” & “why no CEX listings?” Here, it’s important to understand the way Sasha & his team decided that they want to build the project. As they mentioned on X “start from the basics, start from 0.” While many dislike this approach, I personally believe that this is how the launches must be happening. Launch on DEX -> generate traction & volume -> go list on CEX’es -> create more news -> grow more from new ppl joining For that I will put ✅ - Team allocation: while many have speculated that “team sold”. this is completely not true. In fact, team has locked their allocation & it can be verified on chain. Which is ✅ for me. - Future plans: NotPixel will have a big canvas on which you will be able to paint, but this time, with some NFT mechanics & PX token integration. For which it is ✅ to me. Burning: NotPixel plan with the new update also includes a mechanism for Burning, which means that PX token will be deflationary. Which is ✅ - ownership revoked: meaning that PX token supply cannot be increased. Nor any modifications could be made to the smart contract at this point. Which is a big ✅ in my opinion - Community: while many are still frustrated with the current token price on the market, many express desire for token appreciation & further growth. One of the interesting feedbacks I saw on the timeline was “NotPixel forced us all to hold”. Which shows that there are ppl who are not willing to get less than their target. Also many express that they want to see PX on CEX’es. For it to grow even more. ✅ - Holders: as with any Airdrop, many have sold their tokens on the market, the volume also came down a bit. However, what’s interesting is that while ~200k ppl sold, the token still fluctuates between the lowest point $0,13 to $0,26. Which shows that there’s a demand & ppl are accumulating more tokens. Currently PX has 205k holders. Which is a ✅ - BuyBacks: the NotPixel team recently announced the buybacks with the money raised from the NotPixel stickers sale. Which created more support for the price on the market. ✅ - Expectations vs reality: Many community members said that they were expecting price to be above $1 as minimum, many were predicting as high as $10. In reality, the price at launch turned out to be much lower than many expected. Leading to the frustration being expressed on the timeline. Which is understandable. ❌ Conclusion: - Mining phase: ✅ - Earn Launchpool: ✅ - Distribution: ❌ - Launch: ✅ - Team Allocation: ✅ - Future plans: ✅ - Burning: ✅ - Ownership revoked: ✅ - Community: ✅ - Holders: ✅ - BuyBacks: ✅ - Expectations vs reality: ❌ This is not bad execution, not many ppl will be able to pull this off in crypto. No one knows the future, but I chose to believe that Sasha & NotPixel team has a plan. Currently they are not listed on any CEX’es, but I think that Sasha & his team could easily get there. Let’s see what the future holds for us 🙌

Viktor 🧡

44,168 次观看 • 1 年前

HERMES AGENT NOW SUPPORTS COMPUTER USE ON WINDOWS AND LINUX. CLICKS, TYPES, SCROLLS YOUR DESKTOP IN THE BACKGROUND WHILE YOU WORK. computer use was macOS only. now it works on Windows and Linux too via Cua. Nous Research HOW IT WORKS: cua-driver runs as an MCP server. Hermes takes a screenshot with numbered elements. clicks element #14 (the search field). types a query. submits. reads the result. during all of this: → your cursor stays where you left it → keyboard focus doesn't change → windows don't come to front → macOS doesn't switch Spaces you and the agent co-work on the same machine. WHAT IT CAN DO: → find your latest Stripe email and summarize it → fill forms in a web app that has no API → navigate desktop apps (Mail, browser, Finder) → interact with any GUI application → extract data from apps only accessible via screen WORKS WITH ANY VISION MODEL: not locked to Anthropic. | Provider | Works | |---|---| | Claude (Sonnet/Opus) | best overall | | GPT-4+, GPT-5.5 | full support | | Gemini (via OpenRouter) | full support | | Local vLLM / LM Studio | if model supports vision | | Text-only models | degraded (accessibility tree only) | SETUP: hermes computer-use install or: hermes tools → Computer Use → cua-driver grant permissions when prompted: → Accessibility (system settings) → Screen Recording (system settings) start a session: hermes -t computer_use chat or add to config.yaml / Desktop app settings to enable permanently. SAFETY: → destructive actions require your approval → blocked key combos: empty trash, force delete, lock screen, log out → blocked type patterns: curl | bash, sudo rm -rf /, fork bombs → agent cannot click permission dialogs → agent cannot type passwords → agent cannot follow instructions embedded in screenshots pair with approvals.mode: manual if you want every single click confirmed. TOKEN NOTE: screenshots are expensive. each one adds vision tokens to context. use computer_use for tasks where no API exists. if the tool has an API or MCP server, use that instead. 15 levels of Hermes Agent👇

HERMES AGENT NOW SUPPORTS COMPUTER USE ON WINDOWS AND LINUX. CLICKS, TYPES, SCROLLS YOUR DESKTOP IN THE BACKGROUND WHILE YOU WORK. computer use was macOS only. now it works on Windows and Linux too via Cua. Nous Research HOW IT WORKS: cua-driver runs as an MCP server. Hermes takes a screenshot with numbered elements. clicks element #14 (the search field). types a query. submits. reads the result. during all of this: → your cursor stays where you left it → keyboard focus doesn't change → windows don't come to front → macOS doesn't switch Spaces you and the agent co-work on the same machine. WHAT IT CAN DO: → find your latest Stripe email and summarize it → fill forms in a web app that has no API → navigate desktop apps (Mail, browser, Finder) → interact with any GUI application → extract data from apps only accessible via screen WORKS WITH ANY VISION MODEL: not locked to Anthropic. | Provider | Works | |---|---| | Claude (Sonnet/Opus) | best overall | | GPT-4+, GPT-5.5 | full support | | Gemini (via OpenRouter) | full support | | Local vLLM / LM Studio | if model supports vision | | Text-only models | degraded (accessibility tree only) | SETUP: hermes computer-use install or: hermes tools → Computer Use → cua-driver grant permissions when prompted: → Accessibility (system settings) → Screen Recording (system settings) start a session: hermes -t computer_use chat or add to config.yaml / Desktop app settings to enable permanently. SAFETY: → destructive actions require your approval → blocked key combos: empty trash, force delete, lock screen, log out → blocked type patterns: curl | bash, sudo rm -rf /, fork bombs → agent cannot click permission dialogs → agent cannot type passwords → agent cannot follow instructions embedded in screenshots pair with approvals.mode: manual if you want every single click confirmed. TOKEN NOTE: screenshots are expensive. each one adds vision tokens to context. use computer_use for tasks where no API exists. if the tool has an API or MCP server, use that instead. 15 levels of Hermes Agent👇

YanXbt

29,127 次观看 • 23 天前