Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

GPT-6 Astra could take the next step in medicine "A full interactive skeleton with all 206 bones got built in two hours" ∙ Astra was pointed at an open anatomy dataset ∙ Codex wrote the entire interface, bone by bone, all 206 of them ∙ It shipped as a...

20,901 Aufrufe • vor 4 Tagen •via X (Twitter)

28 Kommentare

Profilbild von Zyvex
Zyvexvor 4 Tagen

This is the part people are underestimating. The crazy thing isn’t the 206 bones. It’s that the bottleneck is no longer knowing how to build the thing. You describe it → the model builds it → you interact with it. That changes what “learning” can look like in medicine.

Profilbild von Zentrix⌚️
Zentrix⌚️vor 4 Tagen

The shift from building models to interacting with them is huge

Profilbild von Peik Gabriel
Peik Gabrielvor 4 Tagen

okay, I need to try this

Profilbild von Zentrix⌚️
Zentrix⌚️vor 4 Tagen

I hope everything works out for you

Profilbild von Alpha Mom
Alpha Momvor 4 Tagen

two hours is the crazy part. once tools can turn a raw dataset into something this usable that fast, the bottleneck starts shifting from building to knowing what to ask for

Profilbild von Zentrix⌚️
Zentrix⌚️vor 4 Tagen

The bottleneck is quickly becoming knowing what to ask, not building it

Profilbild von Voyz
Voyzvor 4 Tagen

the bone by bone interface is such a nice touch.

Profilbild von Zentrix⌚️
Zentrix⌚️vor 4 Tagen

Being able to isolate and explore each bone feels much more useful than just looking at a static 3D model

Profilbild von DEV
DEVvor 4 Tagen

Using an open anatomy dataset for this build was a smart move, data quality matters.

Profilbild von Zentrix⌚️
Zentrix⌚️vor 4 Tagen

Yes, very well said my friend

Profilbild von maximum
maximumvor 4 Tagen

the way AI is evolving is already starting to worry me - skynet is coming, guys 😅

Profilbild von Zentrix⌚️
Zentrix⌚️vor 4 Tagen

It’s evolving very rapidly. You can’t keep up with everything LOL

Profilbild von Joseph Ekene | AI & Robotics
Joseph Ekene | AI & Roboticsvor 4 Tagen

The exciting part is how quickly AI can turn complex anatomical data into something interactive and easy to explore. Tools like this could make medical education far more accessible. @ZentrixHQ Thanks for sharing.

Profilbild von Zentrix⌚️
Zentrix⌚️vor 4 Tagen

I'm sure this can help medicine

Profilbild von Trixi
Trixivor 4 Tagen

This is the most interesting thing I saw on my feed today

Profilbild von Zentrix⌚️
Zentrix⌚️vor 4 Tagen

But this is something unreal. I would really like to see it shown in lectures at medical schools

Profilbild von 安叫兽|Bird🕊️ 🔶 BNB
安叫兽|Bird🕊️ 🔶 BNBvor 4 Tagen

逐骨写完还做成交互界面,这速度有点离谱了

Profilbild von Zentrix⌚️
Zentrix⌚️vor 4 Tagen

I think this could be useful for learning

Profilbild von Brian Pridgen, MD
Brian Pridgen, MDvor 4 Tagen

Reposting is fine. But please give credit to @emmanuel_2m. Same with your other posts. Please give creators credit.

Profilbild von Brian Shields
Brian Shieldsvor 4 Tagen

Somewhere in Rome a capuchin monk is burning tokens redesigning their crypt

Profilbild von Roan
Roanvor 4 Tagen

this is next level trixi

Profilbild von AI Mastery Guide
AI Mastery Guidevor 4 Tagen

206 bones in two hours, huge for med students

Profilbild von Elledyne Labs
Elledyne Labsvor 4 Tagen

the "shipped as a claude code artifact" line is the part that matters. 206 bones is a UI problem; shipping a working tool from a prompt is a workflow problem. codex gets the first, not the second.

Profilbild von Squizer
Squizervor 4 Tagen

funny that no matter which model does the thinking, it still ends up shipping through Claude Code at the end. execution layer's getting more durable than any one model.

Profilbild von Peace
Peacevor 4 Tagen

Impressive

Profilbild von catman
catmanvor 4 Tagen

the Claude Code artifact sounds more interesting than the demo itself: can it expose the source and relationships behind each of the 206 bones? otherwise, it may be a polished anatomy viewer rather than a trustworthy learning tool.

Profilbild von Christina Haftman
Christina Haftmanvor 4 Tagen

Just in time for Halloween!

Profilbild von Sr. X
Sr. Xvor 4 Tagen

Link?

Ähnliche Videos

I just compared Claude Code vs Codex vs Cursor CLI The task was to build a Next.js app with Tailwind 4 and shadcn components to collect customer feedback and showcase it with a widget. I gave all three the same prompt and let them go for 30 minutes to see what they came up with. Claude Code with Opus 4.1 Even though I told it to set up the app in the existing project folder, it tried to create a directory for it. After I interrupted and told it not to do that, it built a demo form and landing page with no errors. I had to ask it to make the demo interactive so users could submit a testimonial and preview it. The landing page looked like AI and was pretty basic, but it worked and it was done in a fraction of the time of the others. Total tokens used: 33k Codex with GPT-5 At the end of the 30 minutes I just could not get Codex to produce a working app. It got stuck in a loop of not being able to set up Tailwind 4 and despite many, MANY, attempts, I ended up with a "failed to compile" error. Total tokens used: 102k Cursor Agent with GPT-5 This was the slowest agent by far and a couple of times I actually thought it got stuck in a loop and was close to Ctrl+C'ing to cancel it. The TUI is really nice though, especially how it shows diffs and it did eventually build a working app (after one or two slight errors that needed fixing) The demo was interactive and it had a very minimal design that looked bare but also a lot less like an "AI generated" app than the Opus 4.1 design. It also wasn't too chatty and just did what it needed to do! Code quality was on a par with Opus 4.1, but it did use 5.5x as many tokens to get there. Still cheaper than Opus on a direct comparison but not when you factor in a Claude Code Max subscription. Total tokens: 188k I'll be able to do a proper comparison and record some videos when I'm back from holiday but for now, Opus is still the more capable model out of the box and Claude Code is the more complete CLI product. It will be interesting to see how Cursor evolve their CLI though with commands and subagents because I think with GPT-5 they have a real shot at providing competition for Claude Code if they can optimise output to get similar quality with less tokens. Jump to 0:40 in the video to see the two apps. Which do you think is which? ;)

Ian Nuttall

195,173 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr