Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Following on from last week's GPT 5.5 experiments... Did more experimenting with HTML-in-Canvas to create more interesting page transitions Using our favourite animation library GSAP + the PixiJS Skills Very impressed with how well GPT 5.5 can create WebGL/WebGPU shaders

PixiJS

5,525 subscribers

38,927 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Experimenting with the pretext library... saw a brick breaker demo and had to try making it in PixiJS. Wanted to see what happens when you add WebGL/WebGPU shaders to the mix. Using bloom, glow, rgb split filters from pixi-filters. plus gsaps physics plugin for the text effect.

Experimenting with the pretext library... saw a brick breaker demo and had to try making it in PixiJS. Wanted to see what happens when you add WebGL/WebGPU shaders to the mix. Using bloom, glow, rgb split filters from pixi-filters. plus gsaps physics plugin for the text effect.

PixiJS

18,554 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

More PixiJS 3D testing 👀 Take any live 2D PixiJS content (sprites, text, graphics) and render it onto 3D geometry Our goal is to make working between 2D and 3D as seamless as possible in our WebGPU/WebGL renderer Let us know what features you'd like to see!

More PixiJS 3D testing 👀 Take any live 2D PixiJS content (sprites, text, graphics) and render it onto 3D geometry Our goal is to make working between 2D and 3D as seamless as possible in our WebGPU/WebGL renderer Let us know what features you'd like to see!

PixiJS

31,540 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Salute to the Qwen team 🫡 We tested Qwen 3.7-Max, Gemini 3.5 Flash, GPT-5.5, and Claude Opus 4.7. The biggest shock came from Qwen. In less than a month (3.6 Max dropped April 20), Qwen went from the worst multimodal output on our sakura tree test, barely keeping up with Gemini, GPT, and Claude , to matching Gemini 3.5 Flash frame for frame on this soccer test, and outperforming GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7. It rendered a perfectly proportioned soccer player and the most lifelike ball in the entire test. Remarkable spatial reasoning. Also: Gemini 3.5 Flash is now faster than GPT-5.5, which used to be the fastest in our past tests.

Salute to the Qwen team 🫡 We tested Qwen 3.7-Max, Gemini 3.5 Flash, GPT-5.5, and Claude Opus 4.7. The biggest shock came from Qwen. In less than a month (3.6 Max dropped April 20), Qwen went from the worst multimodal output on our sakura tree test, barely keeping up with Gemini, GPT, and Claude , to matching Gemini 3.5 Flash frame for frame on this soccer test, and outperforming GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7. It rendered a perfectly proportioned soccer player and the most lifelike ball in the entire test. Remarkable spatial reasoning. Also: Gemini 3.5 Flash is now faster than GPT-5.5, which used to be the fastest in our past tests.

GMI Cloud

75,785 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

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

728,688 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

MiniMax H3 Character Board Animation (Bottom Video) & Character Intro Animation (Top Video) First, we create our character board in GPT Image 2 or Seedream 5 using our character reference image. Then, we use that board as a reference in MiniMax H3 to turn it into an animated character board. Also, you can create another character animation with this board. You can find the prompts below.

MiniMax H3 Character Board Animation (Bottom Video) & Character Intro Animation (Top Video) First, we create our character board in GPT Image 2 or Seedream 5 using our character reference image. Then, we use that board as a reference in MiniMax H3 to turn it into an animated character board. Also, you can create another character animation with this board. You can find the prompts below.

Kōda

17,438 Aufrufe • vor 17 Tagen

GPT-5.5 by Reasoning Effort: I've asked it in Codex to create a physics-based visualisation of RL cycles for different sized models (70b, 1t, 10t), to demonstrate how the amount of RL you can do differs by model size. My assessment of each: - Low: weird slop - Medium: kinda cooked - High: sort of tried but ultimately incoherent - Extra High: elite - really nice idea and well executed Obviously this is just one shot, but worth trying different reasoning levels for the new models, medium seems to be pretty good for GPT-5.5 and it was really bad for many previous GPT models.

GPT-5.5 by Reasoning Effort: I've asked it in Codex to create a physics-based visualisation of RL cycles for different sized models (70b, 1t, 10t), to demonstrate how the amount of RL you can do differs by model size. My assessment of each: - Low: weird slop - Medium: kinda cooked - High: sort of tried but ultimately incoherent - Extra High: elite - really nice idea and well executed Obviously this is just one shot, but worth trying different reasoning levels for the new models, medium seems to be pretty good for GPT-5.5 and it was really bad for many previous GPT models.

Peter Gostev (SF: 22-26 June)

209,258 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

You can now use GPT 5.5, Gemini 3.7 Flash, Kimi K3 and 47 other AI models completely free😱 No subscription. No credit card. Even the API usage costs $0. AIHubMix just opened a free catalog with 50 AI models. Some of the available models: • Ox Alpha • Gemini 3.7 Flash • GLM 5.2 • Kimi K3 • MiniMax M3 • GPT 5.5 • 40+ more And you don’t need separate API keys for each model. Setup takes 2 minutes: > Step 1: Go to > Create an account using your email or OAuth. No card needed. Step 2: Create one API key > The same key works with every free and paid model. Step 3: Add it to any OpenAI-compatible tool Base URL: Then choose any model ending in -free, such as: coding-glm-5.2-free gpt-5.5-free That’s it. One API key. 50 AI models. $0 for both input and output. Save this. You might need a free multi-model setup later.

You can now use GPT 5.5, Gemini 3.7 Flash, Kimi K3 and 47 other AI models completely free😱 No subscription. No credit card. Even the API usage costs $0. AIHubMix just opened a free catalog with 50 AI models. Some of the available models: • Ox Alpha • Gemini 3.7 Flash • GLM 5.2 • Kimi K3 • MiniMax M3 • GPT 5.5 • 40+ more And you don’t need separate API keys for each model. Setup takes 2 minutes: > Step 1: Go to > Create an account using your email or OAuth. No card needed. Step 2: Create one API key > The same key works with every free and paid model. Step 3: Add it to any OpenAI-compatible tool Base URL: Then choose any model ending in -free, such as: coding-glm-5.2-free gpt-5.5-free That’s it. One API key. 50 AI models. $0 for both input and output. Save this. You might need a free multi-model setup later.

CDG

15,388 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen

GPT-5.6 Sol is unbelievably good at creating and editing videos. It can do motion design, product demos, and animations like this one I made by simply giving it a screen recording. GPT 5.6 has the best design taste and significantly outperforms Fable, which relies heavily on repetitive design patterns. To help you experiment with video editing on it, we just launched a collection of 100 ready-to-use skills that show what’s possible and help you get started with video editing using GPT-5.6. These skills can create anything from motion graphics launch videos for your product to a 3B1B-style science explainer video. You can also use them to edit existing videos: add captions, generate motion graphics, create voiceovers, redesign visual styles, translate into new languages, and much more. If you want access to the full library, comment “VIDEO SKILLS” and I’ll share it with you. (You'll have to follow me so I can DM you.)

GPT-5.6 Sol is unbelievably good at creating and editing videos. It can do motion design, product demos, and animations like this one I made by simply giving it a screen recording. GPT 5.6 has the best design taste and significantly outperforms Fable, which relies heavily on repetitive design patterns. To help you experiment with video editing on it, we just launched a collection of 100 ready-to-use skills that show what’s possible and help you get started with video editing using GPT-5.6. These skills can create anything from motion graphics launch videos for your product to a 3B1B-style science explainer video. You can also use them to edit existing videos: add captions, generate motion graphics, create voiceovers, redesign visual styles, translate into new languages, and much more. If you want access to the full library, comment “VIDEO SKILLS” and I’ll share it with you. (You'll have to follow me so I can DM you.)

Akash Anand

516,407 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

AI agents can do animation for you now. All I did was create the character in GPT Image 2.0. Fable 5 handled the story and prompt, then I used Renoise CLI to run it with Seedance 2.0. Prompt in thread ⤵️

AI agents can do animation for you now. All I did was create the character in GPT Image 2.0. Fable 5 handled the story and prompt, then I used Renoise CLI to run it with Seedance 2.0. Prompt in thread ⤵️

Kiki

90,651 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Arrived in Jakarta for the annual Leaders’ Retreat with President Prabowo Subianto. We have a full agenda ahead tomorrow, with discussions on how our two countries can deepen our cooperation. In a more uncertain world, we can create more opportunities for our people by working together.

Arrived in Jakarta for the annual Leaders’ Retreat with President Prabowo Subianto. We have a full agenda ahead tomorrow, with discussions on how our two countries can deepen our cooperation. In a more uncertain world, we can create more opportunities for our people by working together.

Lawrence Wong

12,617 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Fable 5 totally crushed our new contest, but it cost 6x more than Opus 4.8! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: — A train derailing off a broken bridge into the water — Two cars jumping off ramps and colliding mid-air over a canyon — A monster truck crushing a row of parked cars Outputs: Fable 5: 62,158 tokens, $3.12 GPT 5.5: 37,753 tokens, $1.14 Opus 4.8: 22,280 tokens, $0.56 GLM 5.2: 36,246 tokens, $0.08 Fable 5 did all three scenes at A+. The crashes looked real, things fell and broke the right way, and nothing went through the ground or floated. GPT 5.5 was the closest to Fable. In the Bigfoot show, we think GPT was even a little better. GLM 5.2 did not win any scene, but it was the cheapest by far. Fable is the best pick for quality, but you pay more for it.

Fable 5 totally crushed our new contest, but it cost 6x more than Opus 4.8! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: — A train derailing off a broken bridge into the water — Two cars jumping off ramps and colliding mid-air over a canyon — A monster truck crushing a row of parked cars Outputs: Fable 5: 62,158 tokens, $3.12 GPT 5.5: 37,753 tokens, $1.14 Opus 4.8: 22,280 tokens, $0.56 GLM 5.2: 36,246 tokens, $0.08 Fable 5 did all three scenes at A+. The crashes looked real, things fell and broke the right way, and nothing went through the ground or floated. GPT 5.5 was the closest to Fable. In the Bigfoot show, we think GPT was even a little better. GLM 5.2 did not win any scene, but it was the cheapest by far. Fable is the best pick for quality, but you pay more for it.

atomic.chat

2,839,437 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Followed up on the same idea to create this clip. Started with a single frame from Krea 2, used GPT Image 2 to create the 3x3 contact sheet preserving the same aesthetic and dropped both into Seedance 2. Some flaws in the final clip but I think the aesthetic holds pretty well from the original image to the seedance gen. Krea 2 → GPT Image 2 → Seedance 2 was all done within Krea seedance prompt in the next post 👇

Followed up on the same idea to create this clip. Started with a single frame from Krea 2, used GPT Image 2 to create the 3x3 contact sheet preserving the same aesthetic and dropped both into Seedance 2. Some flaws in the final clip but I think the aesthetic holds pretty well from the original image to the seedance gen. Krea 2 → GPT Image 2 → Seedance 2 was all done within Krea seedance prompt in the next post 👇

V

81,422 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Today, we announced our partnership with Upland, allowing our communities to interact and create, furthering our goal of realizing an 'Open Metaverse.' Stay tuned for more details on how you can join in on the fun! 🤝🎉

Today, we announced our partnership with Upland, allowing our communities to interact and create, furthering our goal of realizing an 'Open Metaverse.' Stay tuned for more details on how you can join in on the fun! 🤝🎉

The Sandbox

24,202 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

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

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

am.will

38,454 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

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 📧

354,559 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

currently experimenting with WAN 2.6 I2V on GMI Cloud in this test, I’m comparing two audio workflows and honestly both perform really well. one scene uses audio generated directly from the prompt, while the other uses manually uploaded audio taken from the film 300. visually, both deliver strong motion and solid performance. however, the version with audio coming straight from the prompt feels slightly more refined, camera movement is smoother, transitions flow more naturally and the sync between voice, facial motion, and pacing feels more cohesive. lip sync, especially for Chinese dialogue also comes across a bit cleaner. you can choose single shot for a clean, focused moment or multi shot if you want more cinematic transitions, even when working from just one reference image. one important note: always turn on prompt extension. it makes a noticeable difference in how well the model understands motion, transitions and overall scene flow. both audio approaches are totally usable, but if you’re building dialogue driven or cinematic scenes, starting with audio from the prompt gives WAN 2.6 a bit more context to work with. I’ll be pushing this further with more dynamic camera movement and transitions next. more experiments coming soon ✨ Wan

currently experimenting with WAN 2.6 I2V on GMI Cloud in this test, I’m comparing two audio workflows and honestly both perform really well. one scene uses audio generated directly from the prompt, while the other uses manually uploaded audio taken from the film 300. visually, both deliver strong motion and solid performance. however, the version with audio coming straight from the prompt feels slightly more refined, camera movement is smoother, transitions flow more naturally and the sync between voice, facial motion, and pacing feels more cohesive. lip sync, especially for Chinese dialogue also comes across a bit cleaner. you can choose single shot for a clean, focused moment or multi shot if you want more cinematic transitions, even when working from just one reference image. one important note: always turn on prompt extension. it makes a noticeable difference in how well the model understands motion, transitions and overall scene flow. both audio approaches are totally usable, but if you’re building dialogue driven or cinematic scenes, starting with audio from the prompt gives WAN 2.6 a bit more context to work with. I’ll be pushing this further with more dynamic camera movement and transitions next. more experiments coming soon ✨ Wan

DStudioproject

97,086 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

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

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

Dev Ed

279,565 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

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 and collisions. The scenes were not simple animations because every crash needed gravity, force, timing, and contact handling. Outputs: - Fable 5: 62,158 tokens, $3.12 - GPT 5.5: 37,753 tokens, $1.14 - Opus 4.8: 22,280 tokens, $0.56 - GLM 5.2: 36,246 tokens, $0.08

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 and collisions. The scenes were not simple animations because every crash needed gravity, force, timing, and contact handling. Outputs: - Fable 5: 62,158 tokens, $3.12 - GPT 5.5: 37,753 tokens, $1.14 - Opus 4.8: 22,280 tokens, $0.56 - GLM 5.2: 36,246 tokens, $0.08

Rohan Paul

205,771 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

GPT Image 2 + Seedance 2.0 on mitte.ai When using storyboards, I try not to describe every shot in the video prompt as much as possible. To support that, I started adding more details into the storyboards instead. The idea is letting the storyboard carry shot order, pacing, camera logic and continuity while keeping the video prompt simpler. Still experimenting with it but results feel promising. You can check the prompts and result.

GPT Image 2 + Seedance 2.0 on mitte.ai When using storyboards, I try not to describe every shot in the video prompt as much as possible. To support that, I started adding more details into the storyboards instead. The idea is letting the storyboard carry shot order, pacing, camera logic and continuity while keeping the video prompt simpler. Still experimenting with it but results feel promising. You can check the prompts and result.

Kōda

20,687 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten