正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

🚨 GMI estimated ~$0.11 in savings on one 3-step Python coding workflow. I gave GMI Router the same e-commerce codebase and split the work into 3 requests: 👉 Code analysis → Cost Mode → DeepSeek-V4-Flash → ~$0.046 saved 👉 Debugging → Balanced Mode → DeepSeek-V4-Flash → ~$0.042 saved 👉...

anthara_ai's profile picture

Anthara Fairooz

41,577 subscribers

28,246 次观看 • 2 天前 •via X (Twitter)

科学技术教育财经
LIVE

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

FREE DeepSeek V4 Pro and V4 Flash API. Runtime by Bad Theory Labs just dropped it. Same platform, new free model, same 2-minute setup. > Runtime already gave you free Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 access. Now they added DeepSeek V4 Pro and V4 Flash to the free tier. Absolutely FREE, YES. Same exact flow as before: → Go to runtime(.)badtheorylabs(.)com → Sign up with Google → Fill in your details during onboarding → Free balance lands automatically(But you don't need it to use DeepSeek - it's completely free right now) → Grab your API key from the dashboard → Plug into OpenCode, OpenClaw, or Hermes - done DeepSeek V4 Pro is one of the strongest coding and reasoning models available right now. Free tier also includes btl-2 - auto-routes between GLM, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Gemma. 10 million tokens per month at zero cost. 344 models total. One OpenAI-compatible endpoint. No code rebuild, no card, no limits hunting. >> Just start using the API, and when choosing a provider, select DeepSeek I tested it myself - fully working. Bookmark this before the free tier fills up.
0:23

FREE DeepSeek V4 Pro and V4 Flash API. Runtime by Bad Theory Labs just dropped it. Same platform, new free model, same 2-minute setup. > Runtime already gave you free Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 access. Now they added DeepSeek V4 Pro and V4 Flash to the free tier. Absolutely FREE, YES. Same exact flow as before: → Go to runtime(.)badtheorylabs(.)com → Sign up with Google → Fill in your details during onboarding → Free balance lands automatically(But you don't need it to use DeepSeek - it's completely free right now) → Grab your API key from the dashboard → Plug into OpenCode, OpenClaw, or Hermes - done DeepSeek V4 Pro is one of the strongest coding and reasoning models available right now. Free tier also includes btl-2 - auto-routes between GLM, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Gemma. 10 million tokens per month at zero cost. 344 models total. One OpenAI-compatible endpoint. No code rebuild, no card, no limits hunting. >> Just start using the API, and when choosing a provider, select DeepSeek I tested it myself - fully working. Bookmark this before the free tier fills up.

Atenov int.

26,920 次观看 • 2 个月前

HERMES AGENT NOW RUNS A FULL BUSINESS FOR $8/MONTH. CONTENT. CODE. INBOX. ALL AGENTS. EVERYTHING WHILE YOU SLEEP. one user built this in one session. zero terminal commands. browser only. the team: → content agent: finds video topics, writes first drafts, helps with animations → code builder: writes website and SaaS code → ops agent: organizes and answers email total setup cost: $1. monthly runtime: $8 VPS + cheap model API. the trick is matching model to task. frontier models (Opus 4.8, GPT-5.5) for complex /goals only. $5/million tokens. mid-tier (Claude Sonnet, Haiku, Kimiko 2.6) for daily content and research work. budget (DeepSeek V4 Flash, MiniMax 2.7, Gemma 4, Qwen 3) for cron jobs and routine. run the initial setup on Opus. switch to DeepSeek for everything after. your bill drops 90% with zero quality loss on routine work. the agent team picks up tasks from kanban. each completed task creates a skill. week 3 the same workflows run faster than week 1. full breakdown on Hermes Os in the article 👇
14:53

HERMES AGENT NOW RUNS A FULL BUSINESS FOR $8/MONTH. CONTENT. CODE. INBOX. ALL AGENTS. EVERYTHING WHILE YOU SLEEP. one user built this in one session. zero terminal commands. browser only. the team: → content agent: finds video topics, writes first drafts, helps with animations → code builder: writes website and SaaS code → ops agent: organizes and answers email total setup cost: $1. monthly runtime: $8 VPS + cheap model API. the trick is matching model to task. frontier models (Opus 4.8, GPT-5.5) for complex /goals only. $5/million tokens. mid-tier (Claude Sonnet, Haiku, Kimiko 2.6) for daily content and research work. budget (DeepSeek V4 Flash, MiniMax 2.7, Gemma 4, Qwen 3) for cron jobs and routine. run the initial setup on Opus. switch to DeepSeek for everything after. your bill drops 90% with zero quality loss on routine work. the agent team picks up tasks from kanban. each completed task creates a skill. week 3 the same workflows run faster than week 1. full breakdown on Hermes Os in the article 👇

YanXbt

30,910 次观看 • 2 个月前

gemini 3.7 flash vs deepseek v4 pro 0813 vs muse spark 1.2 – on voxel city dioramas three models each built three crossy road-style 3d scenes – a construction site, a nyc intersection, a river with a drawbridge – as single self-contained html files the setup: Nous Research's hermes agent cli on OpenRouter, three.js skills preloaded, identical prompts per scene tasks: 1. construction site – tower crane on a working lift loop, paver laying fresh road, roller compacting it behind 2. nyc crossing – four-way intersection with a traffic light state machine, queuing cars, pedestrians crossing on the walk signal 3. river drawbridge – double-leaf bascule that lifts for tall boats, cars queuing at the barriers, animated water every scene: Three.js r185, box geometry only, a locked 20-color palette, four camera presets, and a day/night mode with bloom. one file, no build step, no assets models: Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash, DeepSeek v4 pro 0813, AI at Meta muse spark 1.2 muse and gemini finished every scene in two to three minutes. deepseek took 15 to 41 minutes per scene - build time, all three scenes #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 6m 43s #2 muse spark 1.2 – 7m 20s #3 deepseek v4 pro – 91m 25s - total tokens #1 muse spark 1.2 – 440,279 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 713,855 #3 deepseek v4 pro – 20,957,568 - total price #1 muse spark 1.2 – $0.53 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.56 #3 deepseek v4 pro – $4.57 - agent calls across the three builds #1 muse spark 1.2 – 12 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 18 #3 deepseek v4 pro – 143 observations: • muse won two of the three scenes on looks with the smallest files in the test – 887 to 1,042 lines against gemini's 1,934 to 2,377. cheapest, fastest to a good frame, and shortest turned out to be the same column • deepseek burned 20.96m tokens – 29x gemini, 48x muse – across 143 agent calls. prompt caching is the only reason that cost $4.57: the cache discount absorbed roughly $30 of resent context • gemini was the only model whose files needed zero fixes to render – and the only one whose night mode is cosmetic. the sky never darkens and one camera button does nothing. clean code for a scene it never looked at follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
0:45

gemini 3.7 flash vs deepseek v4 pro 0813 vs muse spark 1.2 – on voxel city dioramas three models each built three crossy road-style 3d scenes – a construction site, a nyc intersection, a river with a drawbridge – as single self-contained html files the setup: Nous Research's hermes agent cli on OpenRouter, three.js skills preloaded, identical prompts per scene tasks: 1. construction site – tower crane on a working lift loop, paver laying fresh road, roller compacting it behind 2. nyc crossing – four-way intersection with a traffic light state machine, queuing cars, pedestrians crossing on the walk signal 3. river drawbridge – double-leaf bascule that lifts for tall boats, cars queuing at the barriers, animated water every scene: Three.js r185, box geometry only, a locked 20-color palette, four camera presets, and a day/night mode with bloom. one file, no build step, no assets models: Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash, DeepSeek v4 pro 0813, AI at Meta muse spark 1.2 muse and gemini finished every scene in two to three minutes. deepseek took 15 to 41 minutes per scene - build time, all three scenes #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 6m 43s #2 muse spark 1.2 – 7m 20s #3 deepseek v4 pro – 91m 25s - total tokens #1 muse spark 1.2 – 440,279 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 713,855 #3 deepseek v4 pro – 20,957,568 - total price #1 muse spark 1.2 – $0.53 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.56 #3 deepseek v4 pro – $4.57 - agent calls across the three builds #1 muse spark 1.2 – 12 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 18 #3 deepseek v4 pro – 143 observations: • muse won two of the three scenes on looks with the smallest files in the test – 887 to 1,042 lines against gemini's 1,934 to 2,377. cheapest, fastest to a good frame, and shortest turned out to be the same column • deepseek burned 20.96m tokens – 29x gemini, 48x muse – across 143 agent calls. prompt caching is the only reason that cost $4.57: the cache discount absorbed roughly $30 of resent context • gemini was the only model whose files needed zero fixes to render – and the only one whose night mode is cosmetic. the sky never darkens and one camera button does nothing. clean code for a scene it never looked at follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

28,407 次观看 • 10 天前

HERMES AGENT SUPPORTS 300+ MODELS. PICKING THE RIGHT ONE PER TASK IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN $5/MONTH AND $50. STARTING OUT: Claude Sonnet 4.6. official recommendation from Nous Research. "the model this project was built and tested with." strong reasoning. reliable tool calling. mid-range pricing. PREMIUM TIER: Claude Opus 4.8. best coding benchmarks available. self-correcting reasoning. catches its own mistakes. 1M context. use for demanding tasks where quality matters. GPT-5.5. #1 Chatbot Arena. #1 GPQA Diamond reasoning (94.1%). #1 creative writing. 2M context. handles entire codebases in one pass. Grok 4.30. the only frontier model with live X firehose access. real-time social data, breaking news, market sentiment. connects via Grok OAuth. no separate API key. Grok-Composer-2.5-Fast (v0.17.0). Cursor's coding model. 200K context. available through your Grok subscription via OAuth. no extra cost if you already pay for Grok. MID-RANGE TIER: Claude Sonnet 4.6. best balance of quality and cost for daily use. strongest prose and tool calling in this tier. Gemini 2.5 Pro. Google Search grounding built in. cites sources. verifies claims. pulls current data. 2M context. best for research-heavy workflows. GPT-4.1. reliable tool calling. solid general reasoning. good middle ground when you need OpenAI compatibility. BUDGET TIER: Claude Haiku 4.5. fastest Anthropic model. cheapest paid Claude option. strong at classification, routing, simple queries. use for auxiliary tasks: compression, vision, web extraction, approval scoring. DeepSeek V4. best cost-to-quality ratio in the market. 90% cache discount on repeated context. use for sub-agents and bulk parallel work. DeepSeek V4 Flash. cheapest paid model worth using. 1M context. MIT license. self-hostable. use for cron jobs, monitoring, routine searches. MiniMax M3. Nous Research and MiniMax collaborating on optimization. 1M context via lightning attention. 59% SWE-Bench Pro. beats several premium models on coding. one of the most-used models inside Hermes. FREE / LOCAL: Qwen 3.5 27B via Ollama. 16GB VRAM. reliable tool calling. best free local model for Hermes as of mid-2026. Qwen 3 8B. 8GB VRAM. fits a $7 VPS. handles routine tasks at zero API cost. Llama 4 Maverick. best open-weight tool calling. 1M context. needs more VRAM but strongest local option. HOW TO ASSIGN MODELS: main model: Desktop app / Dashboard → Models → switch sub-agent model: set in Desktop app, Dashboard, or config.yaml: delegation: model: "deepseek/deepseek-v4" auxiliary models (compression, vision, web extract): Desktop app / Dashboard → Models → Auxiliary Haiku 4.5 or Gemini Flash work well here. saves significantly when your main model is premium. per-profile: each Hermes profile gets its own model. Scout on DeepSeek. Analyst on Sonnet. Briefer on budget model. Coder on Opus. per-cron-job: pin a specific model to any cron job. morning brief on Haiku. deep research on Sonnet. monitoring on DeepSeek Flash. each job uses only the model it needs. per-session: /model deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash hot-swap mid-conversation. no restart needed. FALLBACK CHAINS: if your primary model is unavailable, Hermes automatically switches to the next provider. rate limit or server error = next model in the chain. no failed runs. no manual intervention. set in Desktop app, Dashboard, or config.yaml: fallback_providers: - openrouter - nous - codex PROVIDER PATHS: OPENROUTER: 300+ models under one API key. pay per token. most flexible. NOUS PORTAL: 300+ models + Tool Gateway (web search, image gen, TTS, browser). one OAuth. one subscription. 10% off token-billed providers. CHATGPT SUB: GPT-5.5 + Grok via OAuth. included tokens with $20 subscription. OLLAMA: free. local. private. zero API cost. your hardware only. mix providers across profiles and tasks. Scout on OpenRouter. Analyst on Nous Portal. Coder on ChatGPT sub. Monitor on Ollama. THE RULE: premium for work that needs deep reasoning. mid-range for daily driver tasks. budget for volume and background work. free for monitoring and routine jobs. pricing changes fast. check openrouter ai for current rates before committing. Which is your favourite model and for what task? full 15 levels breakdown in the article 👇
0:51

HERMES AGENT SUPPORTS 300+ MODELS. PICKING THE RIGHT ONE PER TASK IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN $5/MONTH AND $50. STARTING OUT: Claude Sonnet 4.6. official recommendation from Nous Research. "the model this project was built and tested with." strong reasoning. reliable tool calling. mid-range pricing. PREMIUM TIER: Claude Opus 4.8. best coding benchmarks available. self-correcting reasoning. catches its own mistakes. 1M context. use for demanding tasks where quality matters. GPT-5.5. #1 Chatbot Arena. #1 GPQA Diamond reasoning (94.1%). #1 creative writing. 2M context. handles entire codebases in one pass. Grok 4.30. the only frontier model with live X firehose access. real-time social data, breaking news, market sentiment. connects via Grok OAuth. no separate API key. Grok-Composer-2.5-Fast (v0.17.0). Cursor's coding model. 200K context. available through your Grok subscription via OAuth. no extra cost if you already pay for Grok. MID-RANGE TIER: Claude Sonnet 4.6. best balance of quality and cost for daily use. strongest prose and tool calling in this tier. Gemini 2.5 Pro. Google Search grounding built in. cites sources. verifies claims. pulls current data. 2M context. best for research-heavy workflows. GPT-4.1. reliable tool calling. solid general reasoning. good middle ground when you need OpenAI compatibility. BUDGET TIER: Claude Haiku 4.5. fastest Anthropic model. cheapest paid Claude option. strong at classification, routing, simple queries. use for auxiliary tasks: compression, vision, web extraction, approval scoring. DeepSeek V4. best cost-to-quality ratio in the market. 90% cache discount on repeated context. use for sub-agents and bulk parallel work. DeepSeek V4 Flash. cheapest paid model worth using. 1M context. MIT license. self-hostable. use for cron jobs, monitoring, routine searches. MiniMax M3. Nous Research and MiniMax collaborating on optimization. 1M context via lightning attention. 59% SWE-Bench Pro. beats several premium models on coding. one of the most-used models inside Hermes. FREE / LOCAL: Qwen 3.5 27B via Ollama. 16GB VRAM. reliable tool calling. best free local model for Hermes as of mid-2026. Qwen 3 8B. 8GB VRAM. fits a $7 VPS. handles routine tasks at zero API cost. Llama 4 Maverick. best open-weight tool calling. 1M context. needs more VRAM but strongest local option. HOW TO ASSIGN MODELS: main model: Desktop app / Dashboard → Models → switch sub-agent model: set in Desktop app, Dashboard, or config.yaml: delegation: model: "deepseek/deepseek-v4" auxiliary models (compression, vision, web extract): Desktop app / Dashboard → Models → Auxiliary Haiku 4.5 or Gemini Flash work well here. saves significantly when your main model is premium. per-profile: each Hermes profile gets its own model. Scout on DeepSeek. Analyst on Sonnet. Briefer on budget model. Coder on Opus. per-cron-job: pin a specific model to any cron job. morning brief on Haiku. deep research on Sonnet. monitoring on DeepSeek Flash. each job uses only the model it needs. per-session: /model deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash hot-swap mid-conversation. no restart needed. FALLBACK CHAINS: if your primary model is unavailable, Hermes automatically switches to the next provider. rate limit or server error = next model in the chain. no failed runs. no manual intervention. set in Desktop app, Dashboard, or config.yaml: fallback_providers: - openrouter - nous - codex PROVIDER PATHS: OPENROUTER: 300+ models under one API key. pay per token. most flexible. NOUS PORTAL: 300+ models + Tool Gateway (web search, image gen, TTS, browser). one OAuth. one subscription. 10% off token-billed providers. CHATGPT SUB: GPT-5.5 + Grok via OAuth. included tokens with $20 subscription. OLLAMA: free. local. private. zero API cost. your hardware only. mix providers across profiles and tasks. Scout on OpenRouter. Analyst on Nous Portal. Coder on ChatGPT sub. Monitor on Ollama. THE RULE: premium for work that needs deep reasoning. mid-range for daily driver tasks. budget for volume and background work. free for monitoring and routine jobs. pricing changes fast. check openrouter ai for current rates before committing. Which is your favourite model and for what task? full 15 levels breakdown in the article 👇

YanXbt

17,138 次观看 • 2 个月前

I have been testing DeepSeek-V4-Pro with the Pi coding agent. I am mindblown by how well it works out of the box. A few notes: I spent a few hours building an LLM wiki with an agent powered entirely by DeepSeek-V4-Pro on Fireworks inference. This is the first time I feel like there is an open-weight model that can reason at the level of Claude and Codex. And it does this in a cost-effective way with support for 1M context length. To be clear, I am using DeepSeek-V4-Pro inside of Pi without any special configuration. It works out of the box. It's exciting that there is a model that can just be plugged into a basic harness like Pi, and it just works. I've never seen that before. Most models require lots of configuration and setup. DeepSeek's DeepSeek-V4-Pro is clearly good at agentic coding (probably the best from the open-weight models), but the model is also great on knowledge-intensive tasks where reasoning matters. The agent pulled agentic engineering best practices from different company docs (Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Stripe, Meta, Modal, DeepSeek, Mistral, Cohere), searched and digested Reddit and HN threads, summarized arxiv papers, and surfaced trending GitHub repos. Then it distilled everything into actionable tips across categories. I love the Wiki it built. The quality is really good. Here is a snapshot of what the wiki looks like: DeepSeek-V4-Pro handled the task without breaking stride. Multi-step research queries, code generation for scaffolding, context-heavy reasoning across disparate sources. For coding specifically, this is the first open-weight model that genuinely feels like a Codex or Claude Code experience. It compares in capability and actual multi-turn agentic work. What made the loop feel so responsive was Fireworks' inference speed (the fastest in the market) and the fact that they actually validate models at the systems level before shipping. No corrupted reasoning traces. Just fast, reliable iteration. The hybrid CSA and HCA attention design cuts KV cache to just 10% and inference FLOPs by nearly 4x at 1M-token context. This is what makes the agent loop actually fast and cheap enough to run in practice. For devs who've been watching open-weight models close the gap but haven't found one that actually delivers in practice, this is the closest I've seen. Try it here:
0:31

I have been testing DeepSeek-V4-Pro with the Pi coding agent. I am mindblown by how well it works out of the box. A few notes: I spent a few hours building an LLM wiki with an agent powered entirely by DeepSeek-V4-Pro on Fireworks inference. This is the first time I feel like there is an open-weight model that can reason at the level of Claude and Codex. And it does this in a cost-effective way with support for 1M context length. To be clear, I am using DeepSeek-V4-Pro inside of Pi without any special configuration. It works out of the box. It's exciting that there is a model that can just be plugged into a basic harness like Pi, and it just works. I've never seen that before. Most models require lots of configuration and setup. DeepSeek's DeepSeek-V4-Pro is clearly good at agentic coding (probably the best from the open-weight models), but the model is also great on knowledge-intensive tasks where reasoning matters. The agent pulled agentic engineering best practices from different company docs (Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Stripe, Meta, Modal, DeepSeek, Mistral, Cohere), searched and digested Reddit and HN threads, summarized arxiv papers, and surfaced trending GitHub repos. Then it distilled everything into actionable tips across categories. I love the Wiki it built. The quality is really good. Here is a snapshot of what the wiki looks like: DeepSeek-V4-Pro handled the task without breaking stride. Multi-step research queries, code generation for scaffolding, context-heavy reasoning across disparate sources. For coding specifically, this is the first open-weight model that genuinely feels like a Codex or Claude Code experience. It compares in capability and actual multi-turn agentic work. What made the loop feel so responsive was Fireworks' inference speed (the fastest in the market) and the fact that they actually validate models at the systems level before shipping. No corrupted reasoning traces. Just fast, reliable iteration. The hybrid CSA and HCA attention design cuts KV cache to just 10% and inference FLOPs by nearly 4x at 1M-token context. This is what makes the agent loop actually fast and cheap enough to run in practice. For devs who've been watching open-weight models close the gap but haven't found one that actually delivers in practice, this is the closest I've seen. Try it here:

elvis

60,091 次观看 • 4 个月前

Nothing beats open-source! We now have a fully open-source coding agent that can compete with any proprietary solution out there: • 500+ available models • It doesn't train on your code • It doesn't charge a penny for tokens • It's open. You can change if you want. Kilo Code is the #1 app on OpenRouter right now, and the community is releasing new features on GitHub at rocket speed (about 20 releases in the last 30 days). I installed it in Visual Studio Code, but you can install it in pretty much any IDE. I need to spend more time with it, but here is a very interesting design choice: Most coding agents support two modes: an "agentic" mode for writing code and an "ask" mode for talking to the model without making any changes. Kilo Code supports 5 different modes: 1. Architect mode - Research, design, and planning 2. Debug mode - Problem solving and troubleshooting 3. Code mode - To write code. 4. Ask mode - To talk to the model. 5. Orchestrator mode - Combine every agent to solve problems. On paper, I really like this. I'll need more time to try out the specialized agents and see whether niching becomes an advantage. Here is the link to the website: Thanks to the Kilo for partnering with me on this post.
6:17

Nothing beats open-source! We now have a fully open-source coding agent that can compete with any proprietary solution out there: • 500+ available models • It doesn't train on your code • It doesn't charge a penny for tokens • It's open. You can change if you want. Kilo Code is the #1 app on OpenRouter right now, and the community is releasing new features on GitHub at rocket speed (about 20 releases in the last 30 days). I installed it in Visual Studio Code, but you can install it in pretty much any IDE. I need to spend more time with it, but here is a very interesting design choice: Most coding agents support two modes: an "agentic" mode for writing code and an "ask" mode for talking to the model without making any changes. Kilo Code supports 5 different modes: 1. Architect mode - Research, design, and planning 2. Debug mode - Problem solving and troubleshooting 3. Code mode - To write code. 4. Ask mode - To talk to the model. 5. Orchestrator mode - Combine every agent to solve problems. On paper, I really like this. I'll need more time to try out the specialized agents and see whether niching becomes an advantage. Here is the link to the website: Thanks to the Kilo for partnering with me on this post.

Santiago

73,062 次观看 • 9 个月前

Apple built a large foundation model and fine-tuned it on multiple tasks. But they are doing something very clever: They load a single model in memory and use different adapters to specialize the model on the fly. I recorded a video to show you how to write the code to do the same thing Apple is doing. I explain everything step by step. Here is what I'll show you in the video: 1. We'll load two datasets 2. Then load a large model 3. Then, we'll fine-tune the model on both datasets I'll use LoRA to fine-tune the model. This process creates two small adapters, each specializing in solving one of the datasets. The base model's original parameters will remain unchanged. From here: 4. We'll generate a list of tasks 5. We'll load the correct adapter to solve each task The large model I'm using needs 346 MB of memory, but I only need to load it once. Each adapter is only 2.7 MB. I only need to load the base model once and pair it with any of the fine-tuned adapters. Minimum memory footprint and I can solve multiple tasks. Hope this helps!
38:02

Apple built a large foundation model and fine-tuned it on multiple tasks. But they are doing something very clever: They load a single model in memory and use different adapters to specialize the model on the fly. I recorded a video to show you how to write the code to do the same thing Apple is doing. I explain everything step by step. Here is what I'll show you in the video: 1. We'll load two datasets 2. Then load a large model 3. Then, we'll fine-tune the model on both datasets I'll use LoRA to fine-tune the model. This process creates two small adapters, each specializing in solving one of the datasets. The base model's original parameters will remain unchanged. From here: 4. We'll generate a list of tasks 5. We'll load the correct adapter to solve each task The large model I'm using needs 346 MB of memory, but I only need to load it once. Each adapter is only 2.7 MB. I only need to load the base model once and pair it with any of the fine-tuned adapters. Minimum memory footprint and I can solve multiple tasks. Hope this helps!

Santiago

84,747 次观看 • 2 年前

hy3 vs mimo-v2.5 vs deepseek v4 flash vs minimax m3 the four models on top of the openrouter leaderboard by tokens this week: #1 hy3 (Tencent Hy) – 7.5t #2 mimo-v2.5 (Xiaomi MiMo) – 6.56t #3 deepseek v4 flash (DeepSeek) – 5.24t #4 minimax m3 (MiniMax (official)) – 4.21t so we tested them. 3 prompts, single-file html, Three.js from a cdn, fully procedural, no external assets. all run via AI/ML API each prompt is a transparent cutaway machine that has to be mechanically correct, not decorative: • 4-stroke engine with full oil circulation – slider-crank kinematics, cam at 2:1, valve lift driven by lobes, oil loop from sump to gallery to big-end • watt walking-beam steam engine – four-bar vector-loop closure, eccentric-driven slide valve, steam events synced to real port position • francis reaction water turbine – 20 guide vanes on a regulating ring, 17 lofted runner blades, gpu particle advection, precessing vortex rope at part load the takeaway up front: none of the four cleared all three scenes on the first attempt. but the price spread between them is roughly 70x – hy3 fixed included costs less than two cents overall results (summed across all 3 scenes): cost #1 hy3 – $0.016 #2 deepseek v4 flash – $0.025 #3 mimo-v2.5 – $0.97 #4 minimax m3 – $1.17 tokens #1 hy3 – 19,326 #2 deepseek v4 flash – 63,126 #3 mimo-v2.5 – 322,523 #4 minimax m3 – 702,900 lines of code #1 hy3 – 1,047 #2 mimo-v2.5 – 2,759 #3 deepseek v4 flash – 3,273 #4 minimax m3 – 3,354 scenes needing a second attempt #1 hy3 – 1 (engine) #1 mimo-v2.5 – 1 (turbine) #1 minimax m3 – 1 (turbine) #4 deepseek v4 flash – 2 (steam engine, turbine) observations: 1. the token spread is the real story – minimax burns 36x hy3's tokens and lands in the same place, one retry, ~3.3k lines 2. hy3 is the outlier on density: 1,047 lines total, fewest tokens, cheapest run, and only one scene needed a second pass. deepseek is the opposite trade – near-hy3 pricing but the most retries 3. mimo and minimax seem to overthink instead of writing the code. minimax spent 359.1k tokens on the steam engine and produced 1,346 lines – the tokens are going somewhere other than the file 4. the francis turbine broke three of the four. the spec that separates them is the one with 20 linked guide vanes and gpu particle advection, not the one with the most parts overall impression: none of these models excelled at any of the tasks we gave them. but they were close, and they were extremely cheap. the gap that matters isn't quality anymore – it's that hy3 ran all three scenes for less than two cents while the frontier labs charge dollars for the same work right now you pick these because they're good for the zero price you pay. soon that's something openai and anthropic will have to think about follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
0:55

hy3 vs mimo-v2.5 vs deepseek v4 flash vs minimax m3 the four models on top of the openrouter leaderboard by tokens this week: #1 hy3 (Tencent Hy) – 7.5t #2 mimo-v2.5 (Xiaomi MiMo) – 6.56t #3 deepseek v4 flash (DeepSeek) – 5.24t #4 minimax m3 (MiniMax (official)) – 4.21t so we tested them. 3 prompts, single-file html, Three.js from a cdn, fully procedural, no external assets. all run via AI/ML API each prompt is a transparent cutaway machine that has to be mechanically correct, not decorative: • 4-stroke engine with full oil circulation – slider-crank kinematics, cam at 2:1, valve lift driven by lobes, oil loop from sump to gallery to big-end • watt walking-beam steam engine – four-bar vector-loop closure, eccentric-driven slide valve, steam events synced to real port position • francis reaction water turbine – 20 guide vanes on a regulating ring, 17 lofted runner blades, gpu particle advection, precessing vortex rope at part load the takeaway up front: none of the four cleared all three scenes on the first attempt. but the price spread between them is roughly 70x – hy3 fixed included costs less than two cents overall results (summed across all 3 scenes): cost #1 hy3 – $0.016 #2 deepseek v4 flash – $0.025 #3 mimo-v2.5 – $0.97 #4 minimax m3 – $1.17 tokens #1 hy3 – 19,326 #2 deepseek v4 flash – 63,126 #3 mimo-v2.5 – 322,523 #4 minimax m3 – 702,900 lines of code #1 hy3 – 1,047 #2 mimo-v2.5 – 2,759 #3 deepseek v4 flash – 3,273 #4 minimax m3 – 3,354 scenes needing a second attempt #1 hy3 – 1 (engine) #1 mimo-v2.5 – 1 (turbine) #1 minimax m3 – 1 (turbine) #4 deepseek v4 flash – 2 (steam engine, turbine) observations: 1. the token spread is the real story – minimax burns 36x hy3's tokens and lands in the same place, one retry, ~3.3k lines 2. hy3 is the outlier on density: 1,047 lines total, fewest tokens, cheapest run, and only one scene needed a second pass. deepseek is the opposite trade – near-hy3 pricing but the most retries 3. mimo and minimax seem to overthink instead of writing the code. minimax spent 359.1k tokens on the steam engine and produced 1,346 lines – the tokens are going somewhere other than the file 4. the francis turbine broke three of the four. the spec that separates them is the one with 20 linked guide vanes and gpu particle advection, not the one with the most parts overall impression: none of these models excelled at any of the tasks we gave them. but they were close, and they were extremely cheap. the gap that matters isn't quality anymore – it's that hy3 ran all three scenes for less than two cents while the frontier labs charge dollars for the same work right now you pick these because they're good for the zero price you pay. soon that's something openai and anthropic will have to think about follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

17,145 次观看 • 1 个月前

qwen 3.8 max vs deepseek v4 flash 0731 vs kimi k3 vs gpt 5.6 sol – on rubik's cube and chess four frontier models built a rubik's cube stand and solved it, then built a chess board and played claude opus 5 on it the setup: Nous Research's hermes agent cli on OpenRouter tasks: 1. cube – build a 3d rubik's cube with a cli and a Three.js viewer, then solve an identical scrambled position on your own stand 2. chess – build a 3d chess stand, then play white against claude opus 5 as black, live, one move at a time. no engine, no solver, no opening book on either side. stockfish depth 14 grades every chess ply afterwards; neither player sees the score models: DeepSeek v4 flash 0731, OpenAI gpt-5.6 sol, Kimi.ai kimi k3, Qwen qwen 3.8 max gpt-5.6 sol and deepseek v4 flash solved their cubes – sol in 24 moves and seventeen seconds, deepseek in 32. qwen and kimi never got there, giving up at 96 and 207 moves then all four built chess stands and played white against claude opus 5 on them, and all four resigned: deepseek on move 13, sol on 19, kimi on 21, qwen holding out longest at 29 - build time, both stands #1 gpt-5.6 sol – 16m 43s #2 deepseek v4 flash – 97m 39s #3 kimi k3 – 166m 09s #4 qwen 3.8 max – 215m 08s - build attempts before a working stand #1 gpt-5.6 sol – 3 #2 qwen 3.8 max – 4 #3 kimi k3 – 4 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 5 - total tokens #1 gpt-5.6 sol – 6,713,754 #2 qwen 3.8 max – 17,272,507 #3 kimi k3 – 22,427,504 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 27,417,442 - total price #1 deepseek v4 flash – $0.557 #2 gpt-5.6 sol – $6.319 #3 qwen 3.8 max – $10.270 #4 kimi k3 – $16.667 observations: • deepseek v4 flash is the cheapest model here by a margin nobody else is near, and it got there while being the least efficient of the four. it burned 27.4m tokens – more than anyone, 5m more than kimi – and still finished both benchmarks for $0.557. that is $0.02 per million tokens against kimi's $0.74. it also needed the most passes to produce working stands, five, and that did not matter: all five deepseek passes together cost a thirtieth of kimi's two • so what deepseek cannot do is get it right the first time. what it can do is get it right the fifth time, for half a dollar. that is a different thing to be buying – not a good first draft, but the option to keep asking • gpt-5.6 sol is the opposite profile and the strongest of the four on pure efficiency. 16m 43s to build both stands, 6.7m tokens, three passes – under 40% of the next lowest token count and a quarter of deepseek's, on an eighth of qwen's clock. it also solved the cube fastest of anyone, 24 moves in seventeen seconds. sol is what you reach for when you want the answer now and can absorb $0.94 per million • sol's weakness is in what it does not check. its chess viewer deleted the capturing piece instead of the captured one, so pieces disappeared off the board mid-game – a defect the fifty-cent deepseek stand did not have. fast and terse turns out to be the same dial as fast and unverified • qwen 3.8 max is not the cheap open-weights option it gets treated as. $10.270 across the two benchmarks, second most expensive of the four, 18x deepseek, and by a distance the slowest – 215 minutes of build time, nearly thirteen times sol's. what the money buys is judgment: it played eighteen moves without a single error worth a hundredth of a pawn, then made exactly one bad move in the whole game, and averaged 44.6 centipawns lost across the longest game any of the four managed. it also could not solve a rubik's cube in 96 tries • kimi k3 is the one line with no reading that flatters it. most expensive at $16.667, last on the cube at 207 moves, last at chess at 478 centipawns lost per move. it is also the model that verified hardest – on the cube it wrote its own integrity check instead of trusting its output. that makes the result worse rather than better: the checking was real, and the reasoning underneath it still was not follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
1:03

qwen 3.8 max vs deepseek v4 flash 0731 vs kimi k3 vs gpt 5.6 sol – on rubik's cube and chess four frontier models built a rubik's cube stand and solved it, then built a chess board and played claude opus 5 on it the setup: Nous Research's hermes agent cli on OpenRouter tasks: 1. cube – build a 3d rubik's cube with a cli and a Three.js viewer, then solve an identical scrambled position on your own stand 2. chess – build a 3d chess stand, then play white against claude opus 5 as black, live, one move at a time. no engine, no solver, no opening book on either side. stockfish depth 14 grades every chess ply afterwards; neither player sees the score models: DeepSeek v4 flash 0731, OpenAI gpt-5.6 sol, Kimi.ai kimi k3, Qwen qwen 3.8 max gpt-5.6 sol and deepseek v4 flash solved their cubes – sol in 24 moves and seventeen seconds, deepseek in 32. qwen and kimi never got there, giving up at 96 and 207 moves then all four built chess stands and played white against claude opus 5 on them, and all four resigned: deepseek on move 13, sol on 19, kimi on 21, qwen holding out longest at 29 - build time, both stands #1 gpt-5.6 sol – 16m 43s #2 deepseek v4 flash – 97m 39s #3 kimi k3 – 166m 09s #4 qwen 3.8 max – 215m 08s - build attempts before a working stand #1 gpt-5.6 sol – 3 #2 qwen 3.8 max – 4 #3 kimi k3 – 4 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 5 - total tokens #1 gpt-5.6 sol – 6,713,754 #2 qwen 3.8 max – 17,272,507 #3 kimi k3 – 22,427,504 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 27,417,442 - total price #1 deepseek v4 flash – $0.557 #2 gpt-5.6 sol – $6.319 #3 qwen 3.8 max – $10.270 #4 kimi k3 – $16.667 observations: • deepseek v4 flash is the cheapest model here by a margin nobody else is near, and it got there while being the least efficient of the four. it burned 27.4m tokens – more than anyone, 5m more than kimi – and still finished both benchmarks for $0.557. that is $0.02 per million tokens against kimi's $0.74. it also needed the most passes to produce working stands, five, and that did not matter: all five deepseek passes together cost a thirtieth of kimi's two • so what deepseek cannot do is get it right the first time. what it can do is get it right the fifth time, for half a dollar. that is a different thing to be buying – not a good first draft, but the option to keep asking • gpt-5.6 sol is the opposite profile and the strongest of the four on pure efficiency. 16m 43s to build both stands, 6.7m tokens, three passes – under 40% of the next lowest token count and a quarter of deepseek's, on an eighth of qwen's clock. it also solved the cube fastest of anyone, 24 moves in seventeen seconds. sol is what you reach for when you want the answer now and can absorb $0.94 per million • sol's weakness is in what it does not check. its chess viewer deleted the capturing piece instead of the captured one, so pieces disappeared off the board mid-game – a defect the fifty-cent deepseek stand did not have. fast and terse turns out to be the same dial as fast and unverified • qwen 3.8 max is not the cheap open-weights option it gets treated as. $10.270 across the two benchmarks, second most expensive of the four, 18x deepseek, and by a distance the slowest – 215 minutes of build time, nearly thirteen times sol's. what the money buys is judgment: it played eighteen moves without a single error worth a hundredth of a pawn, then made exactly one bad move in the whole game, and averaged 44.6 centipawns lost across the longest game any of the four managed. it also could not solve a rubik's cube in 96 tries • kimi k3 is the one line with no reading that flatters it. most expensive at $16.667, last on the cube at 207 moves, last at chess at 478 centipawns lost per move. it is also the model that verified hardest – on the cube it wrote its own integrity check instead of trusting its output. that makes the result worse rather than better: the checking was real, and the reasoning underneath it still was not follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

84,595 次观看 • 24 天前

UC Berkeley just open-sourced FreeToken. (2–4x faster local LLM inference than Ollama) the results are wild: - Qwen3.6-35B on an 8GB GPU at 39.3 tokens/s - DeepSeek-V4-Flash 284B on a 32GB GPU at 22 tokens/s - GLM-5.2 753B on a 96GB GPU at 14.9 tokens/s a 35B model at 16-bit precision needs about 70GB just for its weights. even at 4 bits it is close to 18GB, and FreeToken serves it on an 8GB GPU. let me explain how: all three models mentioned above are Mixture-of-Experts, and that is what FreeToken takes advantage of. each layer holds hundreds of separate experts plus a small router that picks a few of them per token. Qwen3.6-35B activates roughly 3B of its 35B parameters per token. DeepSeek-V4-Flash picks 6 of 256 experts per layer, so 13B of its 284B run at a time. so compute was never the bottleneck. the weights a single step touches fit comfortably on a consumer GPU. every expert the router might pick still has to exist somewhere. they sit in system RAM, and the GPU keeps a cache of the ones the model has been using recently. so everything comes down to what happens when the router picks an expert that is not on the GPU. there are two ways to serve that miss: 1. copy it over PCIe and run it on the GPU 2. run it on the CPU, where it already lives both read from the same system memory, so they compete for one pool of bandwidth instead of adding to each other. existing engines pick one option and freeze it when the model loads. but routing changes on every token, so a fixed choice misses most of what the model asks for. FreeToken measures both bandwidths on your machine and splits each step's misses between the two paths in proportion. the GPU and CPU results then merge exactly, with no approximation. two machines with the same GPU can end up wanting opposite strategies, which I did not expect. a 5090 in a gaming desktop should push nearly everything over PCIe, while an 8GB laptop is better off computing most misses on the CPU. none of that is readable off a spec sheet, so the engine profiles it once per machine. the second half of the design is about agents. coding agents constantly rewrite their own history, and every edit normally forces thousands of tokens back through prefill. FreeToken saves its checkpoints at the exact boundaries agent frameworks cut on, so it only reprocesses the new part. its slowest first token stays under 44 seconds, while llama.cpp peaks at 232 and KTransformers at 946. it serves the OpenAI and Anthropic APIs under Apache 2.0, so Claude Code and Codex can point at it directly. releasing weights publicly decides who can download a model, not who can afford to run one. frontier open models keep shipping, and running them still assumes a rented cluster. meanwhile there are over a hundred million consumer machines with discrete GPUs sitting mostly idle. closing that gap was never a hardware problem, and work like this is what turns open weights into something you can actually use. paper: repo: almost every idea in this post, from why memory bandwidth decides the outcome to why moving weights costs more than computing on them, comes straight out of how a GPU is built. I wrote a detailed primer on that. the article is quoted below.
0:42

UC Berkeley just open-sourced FreeToken. (2–4x faster local LLM inference than Ollama) the results are wild: - Qwen3.6-35B on an 8GB GPU at 39.3 tokens/s - DeepSeek-V4-Flash 284B on a 32GB GPU at 22 tokens/s - GLM-5.2 753B on a 96GB GPU at 14.9 tokens/s a 35B model at 16-bit precision needs about 70GB just for its weights. even at 4 bits it is close to 18GB, and FreeToken serves it on an 8GB GPU. let me explain how: all three models mentioned above are Mixture-of-Experts, and that is what FreeToken takes advantage of. each layer holds hundreds of separate experts plus a small router that picks a few of them per token. Qwen3.6-35B activates roughly 3B of its 35B parameters per token. DeepSeek-V4-Flash picks 6 of 256 experts per layer, so 13B of its 284B run at a time. so compute was never the bottleneck. the weights a single step touches fit comfortably on a consumer GPU. every expert the router might pick still has to exist somewhere. they sit in system RAM, and the GPU keeps a cache of the ones the model has been using recently. so everything comes down to what happens when the router picks an expert that is not on the GPU. there are two ways to serve that miss: 1. copy it over PCIe and run it on the GPU 2. run it on the CPU, where it already lives both read from the same system memory, so they compete for one pool of bandwidth instead of adding to each other. existing engines pick one option and freeze it when the model loads. but routing changes on every token, so a fixed choice misses most of what the model asks for. FreeToken measures both bandwidths on your machine and splits each step's misses between the two paths in proportion. the GPU and CPU results then merge exactly, with no approximation. two machines with the same GPU can end up wanting opposite strategies, which I did not expect. a 5090 in a gaming desktop should push nearly everything over PCIe, while an 8GB laptop is better off computing most misses on the CPU. none of that is readable off a spec sheet, so the engine profiles it once per machine. the second half of the design is about agents. coding agents constantly rewrite their own history, and every edit normally forces thousands of tokens back through prefill. FreeToken saves its checkpoints at the exact boundaries agent frameworks cut on, so it only reprocesses the new part. its slowest first token stays under 44 seconds, while llama.cpp peaks at 232 and KTransformers at 946. it serves the OpenAI and Anthropic APIs under Apache 2.0, so Claude Code and Codex can point at it directly. releasing weights publicly decides who can download a model, not who can afford to run one. frontier open models keep shipping, and running them still assumes a rented cluster. meanwhile there are over a hundred million consumer machines with discrete GPUs sitting mostly idle. closing that gap was never a hardware problem, and work like this is what turns open weights into something you can actually use. paper: repo: almost every idea in this post, from why memory bandwidth decides the outcome to why moving weights costs more than computing on them, comes straight out of how a GPU is built. I wrote a detailed primer on that. the article is quoted below.

Akshay 🚀

334,006 次观看 • 7 天前

🚨 The Silvia team just announced our latest engineering advancement. Every business wants access to the highest level of intelligence, but at the lowest cost possible. The rise of LLMs has made intelligence abundant, yet one of the hardest problems across startups and corporate America is predicting the compute cost associated with this intelligence. I have been dealing with this personally as we build Silvia and the problem comes up in almost every conversation I have with CEOs, founders, and executives. Every business embraced AI about 18 months ago and things seemed great until the compute bills started to show up. The bills for internal compute usage were difficult to swallow, but things got outrageous if you had an AI product that allowed your users to consume compute without limits. I know this problem intimately because that is the situation that Silvia was in. Every question that was asked meant higher compute costs for our company. But we didn’t want to limit usage because users were getting genuine value out of the product. This challenge sent our team down a deep rabbit hole of cutting costs, while improving the experience for users. The second part was really important: we did not want to degrade the user experience by simply taking away access to the highest quality models. Thankfully, resource constraints breed innovation. We aren’t the biggest company, nor do we have the largest balance sheet, but we came up with a very novel solution that we are announcing today. The Silvia engineering team built a model router that cut costs by up to 29%, decreased latency, and improved the quality of answers for users. Trifecta! The way we do this is by reading the first 500 characters of a query and then predicting the level of effort that will be needed by a model to answer the query. The highest effort needs are routed to the most powerful models. The lowest effort needs are routed to different, better models for the query. A good example of this would be “what is the date?” You don’t need to use the latest Anthropic model to answer this query. In fact, sending a simple query like this to the most powerful model will make your compute costs increase and will actually increase the latency, which means a worse user experience for the Silvia user. By implementing the model router, the user gets a better experience and we get lower costs. Win-win. One of the interesting aspects of the implementation is that our model router runs on CPUs instead of GPUs. This allows us to read the query and predict the level of effort needed in less than 1 millisecond. This CPU implementation is why latency is not affected, nor is cost significantly increased by any potential additional GPU consumption. Another important point is that many of you have probably seen the news that OpenRouter is being purchased by Stripe for around $7 billion. This is a great outcome from what appears to be a very smart, capable team. Their model routing API is related (their product and our internal implementation both touch model routing), but you should think of OpenRouter as making it possible to do model routing for companies, while Silvia’s model router is a custom, intelligent system that specifically routes Silvia queries to the right model. They give access to the functionality of model routing to many companies, while our internal product does the real decision-making specific to our use case. Lastly, our implementation of a model router is a strategic bet that will allow us to become model-agnostic over time. We don’t care who created the different models, we just want to route a query to the model best positioned to answer. The large model labs will never allow their users to be model agnostic, but that would require the lab to potentially route a query to a competitor’s model. No bueno in their eyes. Instead, Silvia being an independent AI research lab gives us the power of being agnostic. We simply want the best experience for our users. Last week we announced that Silvia is now the most accurate AI tax product on the market, including beating OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and xAI. Today we are announcing a custom, in-house model router that rivals the best technology anyone else has built. There will be many more engineering announcements to come. I truly believe we have assembled one of the best AI teams and we are currently the best AI research lab in finance. If you are interested in learning more about the technical details of the model router, you can read the engineering blog post here: Everyone wants the best intelligence and the lowest cost. Silvia just showed the world what is possible in this pursuit. I anticipate many other companies will build this custom solutions to achieve the same benefits.
2:50

🚨 The Silvia team just announced our latest engineering advancement. Every business wants access to the highest level of intelligence, but at the lowest cost possible. The rise of LLMs has made intelligence abundant, yet one of the hardest problems across startups and corporate America is predicting the compute cost associated with this intelligence. I have been dealing with this personally as we build Silvia and the problem comes up in almost every conversation I have with CEOs, founders, and executives. Every business embraced AI about 18 months ago and things seemed great until the compute bills started to show up. The bills for internal compute usage were difficult to swallow, but things got outrageous if you had an AI product that allowed your users to consume compute without limits. I know this problem intimately because that is the situation that Silvia was in. Every question that was asked meant higher compute costs for our company. But we didn’t want to limit usage because users were getting genuine value out of the product. This challenge sent our team down a deep rabbit hole of cutting costs, while improving the experience for users. The second part was really important: we did not want to degrade the user experience by simply taking away access to the highest quality models. Thankfully, resource constraints breed innovation. We aren’t the biggest company, nor do we have the largest balance sheet, but we came up with a very novel solution that we are announcing today. The Silvia engineering team built a model router that cut costs by up to 29%, decreased latency, and improved the quality of answers for users. Trifecta! The way we do this is by reading the first 500 characters of a query and then predicting the level of effort that will be needed by a model to answer the query. The highest effort needs are routed to the most powerful models. The lowest effort needs are routed to different, better models for the query. A good example of this would be “what is the date?” You don’t need to use the latest Anthropic model to answer this query. In fact, sending a simple query like this to the most powerful model will make your compute costs increase and will actually increase the latency, which means a worse user experience for the Silvia user. By implementing the model router, the user gets a better experience and we get lower costs. Win-win. One of the interesting aspects of the implementation is that our model router runs on CPUs instead of GPUs. This allows us to read the query and predict the level of effort needed in less than 1 millisecond. This CPU implementation is why latency is not affected, nor is cost significantly increased by any potential additional GPU consumption. Another important point is that many of you have probably seen the news that OpenRouter is being purchased by Stripe for around $7 billion. This is a great outcome from what appears to be a very smart, capable team. Their model routing API is related (their product and our internal implementation both touch model routing), but you should think of OpenRouter as making it possible to do model routing for companies, while Silvia’s model router is a custom, intelligent system that specifically routes Silvia queries to the right model. They give access to the functionality of model routing to many companies, while our internal product does the real decision-making specific to our use case. Lastly, our implementation of a model router is a strategic bet that will allow us to become model-agnostic over time. We don’t care who created the different models, we just want to route a query to the model best positioned to answer. The large model labs will never allow their users to be model agnostic, but that would require the lab to potentially route a query to a competitor’s model. No bueno in their eyes. Instead, Silvia being an independent AI research lab gives us the power of being agnostic. We simply want the best experience for our users. Last week we announced that Silvia is now the most accurate AI tax product on the market, including beating OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and xAI. Today we are announcing a custom, in-house model router that rivals the best technology anyone else has built. There will be many more engineering announcements to come. I truly believe we have assembled one of the best AI teams and we are currently the best AI research lab in finance. If you are interested in learning more about the technical details of the model router, you can read the engineering blog post here: Everyone wants the best intelligence and the lowest cost. Silvia just showed the world what is possible in this pursuit. I anticipate many other companies will build this custom solutions to achieve the same benefits.

Anthony Pompliano 🌪

75,896 次观看 • 10 天前

There are two things worth pointing out about upscaling in #AssassinCreed Black Flag Resynced. 1. Incorrect resolution scaling with Balanced and Performance modes: Using Balanced or Performance with any upscaler causes the game's Resolution Scale (output resolution) to drop, which also lowers the internal render resolution. As a result, these modes apply incorrect scaling and the image quality is noticeably worse than it should be. For now, the workaround is to set the Resolution Scale to 100% and manually adjust the Max Dynamic Resolution (internal resolution) to match the expected scaling for Balanced or Performance mode. 2. The game defaults to the older DLSS 3 CNN model: By default, the game uses the older DLSS 3 Preset E. While it's still a fine option, it doesn't match the image quality of the DLSS 4 Transformer model (Preset K) or the newer DLSS 4.5 (Preset L and M). So I highly recommend forcing at least Preset K through the NVIDIA App (or another tool). Even on RTX 20/30 series GPUs, with Preset K, you can maintain the same performance as before while getting better image quality by using a lower upscaling mode, like Balanced instead of Quality. Hopefully Ubisoft Support fixes the scaling issue and adds an in-game option to choose between DLSS 3, DLSS 4, and DLSS 4.5.
1:43

There are two things worth pointing out about upscaling in #AssassinCreed Black Flag Resynced. 1. Incorrect resolution scaling with Balanced and Performance modes: Using Balanced or Performance with any upscaler causes the game's Resolution Scale (output resolution) to drop, which also lowers the internal render resolution. As a result, these modes apply incorrect scaling and the image quality is noticeably worse than it should be. For now, the workaround is to set the Resolution Scale to 100% and manually adjust the Max Dynamic Resolution (internal resolution) to match the expected scaling for Balanced or Performance mode. 2. The game defaults to the older DLSS 3 CNN model: By default, the game uses the older DLSS 3 Preset E. While it's still a fine option, it doesn't match the image quality of the DLSS 4 Transformer model (Preset K) or the newer DLSS 4.5 (Preset L and M). So I highly recommend forcing at least Preset K through the NVIDIA App (or another tool). Even on RTX 20/30 series GPUs, with Preset K, you can maintain the same performance as before while getting better image quality by using a lower upscaling mode, like Balanced instead of Quality. Hopefully Ubisoft Support fixes the scaling issue and adds an in-game option to choose between DLSS 3, DLSS 4, and DLSS 4.5.

BenchmarKing

38,817 次观看 • 1 个月前

Six open-source LLMs. One sliding puzzle. A brutal test of long-horizon reasoning and tool calling. Five of them broke. One didn't. I gave each model a move_tile tool and a scrambled 3×3 board, then asked it to solve the puzzle through pure turn-by-turn reasoning. The deeper the scramble, the more brutal the search. Five runs per depth, best run kept. A model fails the round if it exceeds 6x the optimal move count. > Depth 5: Everyone solves it. Yawn. > Depth 10: GLM 5.1 melts down. 43 moves. Cut. > Depth 12: Gemma4 26B loses the plot, shuffling tiles in circles. Gone. > Depth 15: The wall. DeepSeek V4 Flash, out. DeepSeek V4 Pro, out. Gemma4, out again. GLM 5.1, out. Two survivors: Qwen3.6 35B-A3B, and Kimi K2.6 with an 11-move solve that looked like cheating. > Depth 18: Same two. Everyone else hallucinating tiles that weren't there. > Depth 22: Final boss. Kimi, flawless for five rounds, finally cracks. 81 moves. Still scrambled. DeepSeek V4 Pro limps home at 90. Qwen3.6 35B-A3B solves it in 36. The smallest model in the room. ~3B active params. Fits on a single 3090. It beat everything. Kimi was elegant. Qwen3.6 was unstoppable.
2:00

Six open-source LLMs. One sliding puzzle. A brutal test of long-horizon reasoning and tool calling. Five of them broke. One didn't. I gave each model a move_tile tool and a scrambled 3×3 board, then asked it to solve the puzzle through pure turn-by-turn reasoning. The deeper the scramble, the more brutal the search. Five runs per depth, best run kept. A model fails the round if it exceeds 6x the optimal move count. > Depth 5: Everyone solves it. Yawn. > Depth 10: GLM 5.1 melts down. 43 moves. Cut. > Depth 12: Gemma4 26B loses the plot, shuffling tiles in circles. Gone. > Depth 15: The wall. DeepSeek V4 Flash, out. DeepSeek V4 Pro, out. Gemma4, out again. GLM 5.1, out. Two survivors: Qwen3.6 35B-A3B, and Kimi K2.6 with an 11-move solve that looked like cheating. > Depth 18: Same two. Everyone else hallucinating tiles that weren't there. > Depth 22: Final boss. Kimi, flawless for five rounds, finally cracks. 81 moves. Still scrambled. DeepSeek V4 Pro limps home at 90. Qwen3.6 35B-A3B solves it in 36. The smallest model in the room. ~3B active params. Fits on a single 3090. It beat everything. Kimi was elegant. Qwen3.6 was unstoppable.

stevibe

16,434 次观看 • 3 个月前

I got to try Grok 4.5 in early access in Cursor for the past few days and I absolutely enjoyed it. It feels like Opus 4.8 at 2x the speed at a much cheaper price point. I tasked it to brainstorm > plan > implement a big feature for my game (this act 1 boss fight) and it did not disappoint. - It is much smarter than Composer 2.5, during planning mode, it is able to think through my request more robustly, ensuring that edge cases are covered and makes sure to ask the right questions to confirm with me first. - It is much better at brainstorming ideas/suggestions, similar to Opus 4.8, though I think Fable still edges out a little when it comes to brainstorming ideas and suggestions - It is FAST. probably the fastest of all frontier models (Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5 etc), which makes it a joy to build with, because I can stay in the flow - It has much improved visual/animation capabilities than Composer 2.5, it can code up animations (i wanted an explosion animation with particle effects) with much, much better visuals, animation movement and timing. This is a big leap and I was so happy to see this improvement. - The best part for me is that I can just use the same model from planning down to execution without switching to a lower cost model because the price point is cheaper than other frontier models. I'll be testing this model with more challenging tasks in the next few days but I think this is going to be my main driver for vibe coding for a while. Also, its nice to see Grok back in the race. 🙌
0:34

I got to try Grok 4.5 in early access in Cursor for the past few days and I absolutely enjoyed it. It feels like Opus 4.8 at 2x the speed at a much cheaper price point. I tasked it to brainstorm > plan > implement a big feature for my game (this act 1 boss fight) and it did not disappoint. - It is much smarter than Composer 2.5, during planning mode, it is able to think through my request more robustly, ensuring that edge cases are covered and makes sure to ask the right questions to confirm with me first. - It is much better at brainstorming ideas/suggestions, similar to Opus 4.8, though I think Fable still edges out a little when it comes to brainstorming ideas and suggestions - It is FAST. probably the fastest of all frontier models (Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5 etc), which makes it a joy to build with, because I can stay in the flow - It has much improved visual/animation capabilities than Composer 2.5, it can code up animations (i wanted an explosion animation with particle effects) with much, much better visuals, animation movement and timing. This is a big leap and I was so happy to see this improvement. - The best part for me is that I can just use the same model from planning down to execution without switching to a lower cost model because the price point is cheaper than other frontier models. I'll be testing this model with more challenging tasks in the next few days but I think this is going to be my main driver for vibe coding for a while. Also, its nice to see Grok back in the race. 🙌

Danny Limanseta

1,421,893 次观看 • 1 个月前

China just made Silicon Valley's entire AI industry look like a scam. The US government spent 3 years trying to stop China from building competitive AI. But this backfired HORRIBLY. Here's what happened: Yesterday, a Chinese startup called DeepSeek released a new AI model called V4. It matches the performance of OpenAI and Anthropic's best models. At 1/7th the price. And for the first time ever, it was built on Chinese chips. NOT American ones. That last part is the one that terrifies the west. For context: Since 2022, the US has banned the export of advanced AI chips to China. The entire strategy was built on the assumption that if China can't access Nvidia's best hardware, they can't build frontier AI. But DeepSeek just proved that assumption wrong. Their V4 model was trained and runs on Huawei's Ascend chips. Huawei spent months working directly with DeepSeek to make sure V4 runs across their entire line of AI processors. Jensen Huang even predicted this on a recent podcast: "The day that DeepSeek comes out on Huawei first, that is a horrible outcome for our nation." That day was yesterday. And the numbers are crazy: DeepSeek V4 costs $3.48 per million output tokens. OpenAI's latest model GPT-5.5 costs $30. Anthropic's Claude charges $25. Same ballpark performance. 7x cheaper. Uber's CTO just admitted they burned through their ENTIRE 2026 AI budget in 4 months using Anthropic's tools. If Uber had used DeepSeek instead, that same budget would have lasted 7 YEARS. 4 months vs 7 years. Same work getting done. But the pricing isn't even the big thing here. The real story is what DeepSeek did with their technical report: They published the benchmarks where they LOSE. Every AI company cherry-picks the tests where their model wins. DeepSeek ran the full comparison against GPT-5.4 and Google's Gemini, found they trail frontier models by 3 to 6 months, and printed it anyway. They literally don't care because the price gap makes the performance gap irrelevant for 90% of use cases. So the US export controls didn't slow China down. They ACCELERATED China's independence. Because Chinese developers were FORCED to train models with limited resources, they had to figure out how to make AI radically more efficient. That constraint became their competitive advantage. Every generation of DeepSeek has gotten dramatically cheaper to train. V4 continues the trend. Meanwhile US companies are going the OPPOSITE direction: OpenAI's GPT-5.5 Pro costs $180 per million output tokens. That's 51x more expensive than DeepSeek V4 for comparable work. The Commerce Secretary confirmed this week that ZERO Nvidia advanced chip shipments have actually gone through to China despite being approved in January. So China built frontier AI anyway. Without American chips. At a fraction of the cost. And the market response tells you everything: Chinese chipmaker SMIC surged 10%. Huahong Semiconductor jumped 15%. DeepSeek's Chinese AI competitors Zhipu AI and MiniMax dropped 9% because V4 is destroying them too. DeepSeek is making Silicon Valley's pricing model look like a scam. US tech companies spent $650 billion on AI infrastructure this year. DeepSeek just showed the world you can match their output for pennies. The export controls were supposed to be America's ace card. Instead they taught China how to win without American chips, at American prices nobody can compete with. Jensen Huang was right. This is a horrible outcome. But it's the outcome America built for itself.
1:06

China just made Silicon Valley's entire AI industry look like a scam. The US government spent 3 years trying to stop China from building competitive AI. But this backfired HORRIBLY. Here's what happened: Yesterday, a Chinese startup called DeepSeek released a new AI model called V4. It matches the performance of OpenAI and Anthropic's best models. At 1/7th the price. And for the first time ever, it was built on Chinese chips. NOT American ones. That last part is the one that terrifies the west. For context: Since 2022, the US has banned the export of advanced AI chips to China. The entire strategy was built on the assumption that if China can't access Nvidia's best hardware, they can't build frontier AI. But DeepSeek just proved that assumption wrong. Their V4 model was trained and runs on Huawei's Ascend chips. Huawei spent months working directly with DeepSeek to make sure V4 runs across their entire line of AI processors. Jensen Huang even predicted this on a recent podcast: "The day that DeepSeek comes out on Huawei first, that is a horrible outcome for our nation." That day was yesterday. And the numbers are crazy: DeepSeek V4 costs $3.48 per million output tokens. OpenAI's latest model GPT-5.5 costs $30. Anthropic's Claude charges $25. Same ballpark performance. 7x cheaper. Uber's CTO just admitted they burned through their ENTIRE 2026 AI budget in 4 months using Anthropic's tools. If Uber had used DeepSeek instead, that same budget would have lasted 7 YEARS. 4 months vs 7 years. Same work getting done. But the pricing isn't even the big thing here. The real story is what DeepSeek did with their technical report: They published the benchmarks where they LOSE. Every AI company cherry-picks the tests where their model wins. DeepSeek ran the full comparison against GPT-5.4 and Google's Gemini, found they trail frontier models by 3 to 6 months, and printed it anyway. They literally don't care because the price gap makes the performance gap irrelevant for 90% of use cases. So the US export controls didn't slow China down. They ACCELERATED China's independence. Because Chinese developers were FORCED to train models with limited resources, they had to figure out how to make AI radically more efficient. That constraint became their competitive advantage. Every generation of DeepSeek has gotten dramatically cheaper to train. V4 continues the trend. Meanwhile US companies are going the OPPOSITE direction: OpenAI's GPT-5.5 Pro costs $180 per million output tokens. That's 51x more expensive than DeepSeek V4 for comparable work. The Commerce Secretary confirmed this week that ZERO Nvidia advanced chip shipments have actually gone through to China despite being approved in January. So China built frontier AI anyway. Without American chips. At a fraction of the cost. And the market response tells you everything: Chinese chipmaker SMIC surged 10%. Huahong Semiconductor jumped 15%. DeepSeek's Chinese AI competitors Zhipu AI and MiniMax dropped 9% because V4 is destroying them too. DeepSeek is making Silicon Valley's pricing model look like a scam. US tech companies spent $650 billion on AI infrastructure this year. DeepSeek just showed the world you can match their output for pennies. The export controls were supposed to be America's ace card. Instead they taught China how to win without American chips, at American prices nobody can compete with. Jensen Huang was right. This is a horrible outcome. But it's the outcome America built for itself.

Ricardo

281,024 次观看 • 4 个月前

Where there's a will, there's a way 😎 DwarfStar DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 mxfp4 on M3 Ultra single request no MPT/DSpark ~41 toks/s decode!!! 🚀 40 tps barrier broken! Same logits, 100% same result: this is The Mandatory Rule for any agents improving kernels that I think everyone should follow. Speed without mathematical precision is useless. Thanks 20% Opus 5 and 80% Kimi.ai K3 (what a model!) And just looking at the thinking trace of K3 you can learn tons of stuff! Here usually I have a separate chat with K3 and when I see something I want to dig deeper or ask about from the main thinking trace I do and in some cases I stop the experiment and pivot immediately to something else. Now let's see if I can apply learned lessons to the M5 kernel! 🚀 Branch for any braves soul willing to test it:
0:36

Where there's a will, there's a way 😎 DwarfStar DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 mxfp4 on M3 Ultra single request no MPT/DSpark ~41 toks/s decode!!! 🚀 40 tps barrier broken! Same logits, 100% same result: this is The Mandatory Rule for any agents improving kernels that I think everyone should follow. Speed without mathematical precision is useless. Thanks 20% Opus 5 and 80% Kimi.ai K3 (what a model!) And just looking at the thinking trace of K3 you can learn tons of stuff! Here usually I have a separate chat with K3 and when I see something I want to dig deeper or ask about from the main thinking trace I do and in some cases I stop the experiment and pivot immediately to something else. Now let's see if I can apply learned lessons to the M5 kernel! 🚀 Branch for any braves soul willing to test it:

Ivan Fioravanti ᯅ

18,381 次观看 • 22 天前

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.
0:39

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 🚀

75,962 次观看 • 10 天前

Data Models - Better AI Code in 5 Minutes Your AI isn't consistent because you're missing one file. I had the same problem until I started using a data model file. In this video, I'm showing you the exact two prompts I use: one generates the data model, the second uses it to generate features without breaking my app. Testing this with AnimeLeak (my actual production app) adding an admin approval feature. Using Droid with Sonnet 4.5 in spec mode, but this works in Cursor, Claude, or whatever you're using. KEY TIMESTAMPS 00:00 - The One File Your AI is Missing 00:44 - Prompt 1: Generate a Data Model 01:12 - The Result: Data Model Documentation 02:12 - Prompt 2: Implement a New Feature 03:00 - Reviewing the AI-Generated Spec 04:17 - Why This Workflow is So Powerful 04:32 - Your 3-Step Action Plan 05:12 - Next Video: Live Code Generation
5:30

Data Models - Better AI Code in 5 Minutes Your AI isn't consistent because you're missing one file. I had the same problem until I started using a data model file. In this video, I'm showing you the exact two prompts I use: one generates the data model, the second uses it to generate features without breaking my app. Testing this with AnimeLeak (my actual production app) adding an admin approval feature. Using Droid with Sonnet 4.5 in spec mode, but this works in Cursor, Claude, or whatever you're using. KEY TIMESTAMPS 00:00 - The One File Your AI is Missing 00:44 - Prompt 1: Generate a Data Model 01:12 - The Result: Data Model Documentation 02:12 - Prompt 2: Implement a New Feature 03:00 - Reviewing the AI-Generated Spec 04:17 - Why This Workflow is So Powerful 04:32 - Your 3-Step Action Plan 05:12 - Next Video: Live Code Generation

Ray Fernando

15,479 次观看 • 10 个月前