正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Grok 4.5 vs Meta Muse 1.1 I think both cooked really well!! WOW! Left: Grok 4.5 Right: Meta Muse 1.1

Sai Nemani

2,485 subscribers

23,291 次观看 • 2 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Someone ran this test Muse Spark 1.1 vs Grok 4.5 vs GPT 5.6 Sol vs Fable 5 Select your model wisely!

Someone ran this test Muse Spark 1.1 vs Grok 4.5 vs GPT 5.6 Sol vs Fable 5 Select your model wisely!

0xMarioNawfal

73,224 次观看 • 2 个月前

Muse Spark 1.1 costs $0.20 Grok 4.5 costs $0.51 GPT 5.6 Sol costs $1.93 Fable 5 costs $5.20 Select your model wisely!

Muse Spark 1.1 costs $0.20 Grok 4.5 costs $0.51 GPT 5.6 Sol costs $1.93 Fable 5 costs $5.20 Select your model wisely!

Shub

592,214 次观看 • 2 个月前

Grok 4.5 crushed OpenAI & Meta in this test! Cost per run: GPT Sol $1.63 Grok 4.5 $2.47 Meta Muse Spark 1.1 $1.08 The three prompts: • Fruit Ninja – style slicing game • Angry Birds – style fort collapse • Crossy Road clone Grok nailed all three: clean physics, smooth playback, good visuals. GPT Sol did fine until Crossy Road, where it froze. Meta Muse Spark was cheapest and it showed: its Crossy Road lagged badly. The question isn't which model is cheapest, it's what a broken output costs you in reruns, wasted time, and things you can't ship. Cheap stops being cheap when it doesn't work.

Grok 4.5 crushed OpenAI & Meta in this test! Cost per run: GPT Sol $1.63 Grok 4.5 $2.47 Meta Muse Spark 1.1 $1.08 The three prompts: • Fruit Ninja – style slicing game • Angry Birds – style fort collapse • Crossy Road clone Grok nailed all three: clean physics, smooth playback, good visuals. GPT Sol did fine until Crossy Road, where it froze. Meta Muse Spark was cheapest and it showed: its Crossy Road lagged badly. The question isn't which model is cheapest, it's what a broken output costs you in reruns, wasted time, and things you can't ship. Cheap stops being cheap when it doesn't work.

AI/ML API

108,970 次观看 • 2 个月前

Grok 4.6 vs Grok 4.5 build a 3d Wright Flyer using three.js both models where tested with same single prompt grok 4.6 is significantly better than grok 4.5

Grok 4.6 vs Grok 4.5 build a 3d Wright Flyer using three.js both models where tested with same single prompt grok 4.6 is significantly better than grok 4.5

Tim Jayas

30,127 次观看 • 1 个月前

preliminary grok-4.5 testing... is this a fable-like? 😱 i think Elon Musk fricken COOKED!

preliminary grok-4.5 testing... is this a fable-like? 😱 i think Elon Musk fricken COOKED!

Ash

51,291 次观看 • 2 个月前

Grand challenge (chain reaction) - Hermes Agent i wszystko co ma dostępne pod maską. Ten sam prompt. Wszystkie modele wykonują to samo zadanie w tym samym środowisku agentowym - wyniki jeszcze dzisiaj. Modele: - gpt-5.6-sol - deepseek-v4-pro - claude fable 5 - claude opus 4.8 - kimi-k3 - muse-spark-1.1 - glm-5.2 - fugu ultra - grok 4.5

Grand challenge (chain reaction) - Hermes Agent i wszystko co ma dostępne pod maską. Ten sam prompt. Wszystkie modele wykonują to samo zadanie w tym samym środowisku agentowym - wyniki jeszcze dzisiaj. Modele: - gpt-5.6-sol - deepseek-v4-pro - claude fable 5 - claude opus 4.8 - kimi-k3 - muse-spark-1.1 - glm-5.2 - fugu ultra - grok 4.5

Remek Kinas

11,277 次观看 • 2 个月前

Tried to prompt this Seedance 2 creature transform with other models. Only Meta Muse Spark 1.1 actually understood the assignment and gave me something usable. Ill post the chatgpt version in the comments. AI at Meta Alexandr Wang

Tried to prompt this Seedance 2 creature transform with other models. Only Meta Muse Spark 1.1 actually understood the assignment and gave me something usable. Ill post the chatgpt version in the comments. AI at Meta Alexandr Wang

JSFILMZ

10,173 次观看 • 2 个月前

I said Grok 4.5 was a bigger deal than Fable Elon even liked my post but then GPT-5.6 Sol showed up So I gave 7 of this week's newest AI models their own computer and ran the same real tasks through Hermes Final ranking: 1. GPT-5.6 Sol: best overall 2. Grok 4.5: close second, fast and relentless 3. Muse Spark 1.1: the surprise of the week Benchmarks tell you what a model might do. Watching it control a computer shows you what it can actually do Full comparison ↓

I said Grok 4.5 was a bigger deal than Fable Elon even liked my post but then GPT-5.6 Sol showed up So I gave 7 of this week's newest AI models their own computer and ran the same real tasks through Hermes Final ranking: 1. GPT-5.6 Sol: best overall 2. Grok 4.5: close second, fast and relentless 3. Muse Spark 1.1: the surprise of the week Benchmarks tell you what a model might do. Watching it control a computer shows you what it can actually do Full comparison ↓

Nick Vasilescu

77,701 次观看 • 2 个月前

meta muse spark 1.1 vs gpt 5.6 sol vs fable 5 vs grok 4.5 meta recently dropped muse spark 1.1 – a multimodal reasoning model from meta superintelligence labs built for agentic tasks. key facts: • 1m token context with active self-management – the model compacts its own history and keeps only the steps needed for later work • trained to orchestrate multi-agent systems: as main agent it plans and delegates to parallel subagents, as subagent it sticks to its job and knows when to escalate back • computer use trained to pick between scripting and clicking – writes automation when it's faster, clicks when it's simpler, batches actions per step • first public api from meta: the meta model api is now in preview • benchmarks: sweeps the agent column – mcp atlas 88.1 (opus 4.8: 82.2), jobbench 54.7 (opus: 48.4), humanity's last exam 62.1 (1st). loses coding – deepswe 1.1 53.3 vs gpt 5.5's 67.0, swe bench pro 61.5 vs opus's 69.2 our test – 3 prompts, single-file html, three.js, fully procedural, no assets: 1. norwegian house cantilevered over a fjord in a snowstorm – transmissive glass wall, fully modelled interior 2. beijing siheyuan courtyard house in dawn fog – instanced roof tiles, dougong brackets, glowing paper windows 3. new mexico adobe pueblo in an approaching dust storm – deep window reveals, windward grit accumulation we ran the test on AI/ML API platform results: - cost #1 muse spark 1.1 – $0.20 #2 grok 4.5 – $0.51 #3 gpt 5.6 sol – $1.93 #4 fable 5 – ~$5.20 - output tokens #1 muse spark 1.1 – 41,868 #2 gpt 5.6 sol – 49,139 #3 grok 4.5 – 64,954 #4 fable 5 – 81,849 - lines of code #1 muse spark 1.1 – 1,799 #2 gpt 5.6 sol – 2,377 #3 fable 5 – 3,088 #4 grok 4.5 – 4,216 observations: • muse spark is the cheapest of the four by a wide margin – 2.5x under grok, ~26x under fable per run. output quality tracks the price • only 7.4% of its output tokens are reasoning (3,104 of 41,868) – the model barely thinks before writing. economic, not pedantic: it commits to the first plan and ships it • the low loc is not compression, it's omission – all three prompts demanded instancing, muse spark delivered it in one muse spark's code quality – reviewed by fable 5: upsides: 1. all three files run 2. the adobe grit effect is legit – shader injection via onbeforecompile, windward faces detect storm direction through a normal-dot-wind term and darken procedurally 3. the fjord glass is real meshphysicalmaterial with transmission and ior, not a transparent quad 4. the siheyuan properly instances barrel tiles, dougong blocks and courtyard pavers downsides: 1. in the fjord file the strafe vector is negated – press a, you move right; press d, you move left. exactly the key mix-up we kept hitting with this model 2. all three files ship the model's self-doubt as comments: "// actually yaw orientation: need correct" sits above a direction vector that gets computed, abandoned and recomputed – dead vectors allocated every frame, 60 times a second 3. the siheyuan registers two separate keydown listeners, one containing an empty if-block 4. snow "accumulation" on the norway roof is a sine wobble on a scale value, not accumulation 5. "instanced snow" became 3,500 plain points. zero dispose calls anywhere pattern: minimal reasoning, minimal code, minimal price. it nails the flashy requirements – shaders, transmissive glass – and quietly drops the boring ones: instancing, controls, cleanup. you get a demo that mostly runs and a control scheme you can't trust follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

meta muse spark 1.1 vs gpt 5.6 sol vs fable 5 vs grok 4.5 meta recently dropped muse spark 1.1 – a multimodal reasoning model from meta superintelligence labs built for agentic tasks. key facts: • 1m token context with active self-management – the model compacts its own history and keeps only the steps needed for later work • trained to orchestrate multi-agent systems: as main agent it plans and delegates to parallel subagents, as subagent it sticks to its job and knows when to escalate back • computer use trained to pick between scripting and clicking – writes automation when it's faster, clicks when it's simpler, batches actions per step • first public api from meta: the meta model api is now in preview • benchmarks: sweeps the agent column – mcp atlas 88.1 (opus 4.8: 82.2), jobbench 54.7 (opus: 48.4), humanity's last exam 62.1 (1st). loses coding – deepswe 1.1 53.3 vs gpt 5.5's 67.0, swe bench pro 61.5 vs opus's 69.2 our test – 3 prompts, single-file html, three.js, fully procedural, no assets: 1. norwegian house cantilevered over a fjord in a snowstorm – transmissive glass wall, fully modelled interior 2. beijing siheyuan courtyard house in dawn fog – instanced roof tiles, dougong brackets, glowing paper windows 3. new mexico adobe pueblo in an approaching dust storm – deep window reveals, windward grit accumulation we ran the test on AI/ML API platform results: - cost #1 muse spark 1.1 – $0.20 #2 grok 4.5 – $0.51 #3 gpt 5.6 sol – $1.93 #4 fable 5 – ~$5.20 - output tokens #1 muse spark 1.1 – 41,868 #2 gpt 5.6 sol – 49,139 #3 grok 4.5 – 64,954 #4 fable 5 – 81,849 - lines of code #1 muse spark 1.1 – 1,799 #2 gpt 5.6 sol – 2,377 #3 fable 5 – 3,088 #4 grok 4.5 – 4,216 observations: • muse spark is the cheapest of the four by a wide margin – 2.5x under grok, ~26x under fable per run. output quality tracks the price • only 7.4% of its output tokens are reasoning (3,104 of 41,868) – the model barely thinks before writing. economic, not pedantic: it commits to the first plan and ships it • the low loc is not compression, it's omission – all three prompts demanded instancing, muse spark delivered it in one muse spark's code quality – reviewed by fable 5: upsides: 1. all three files run 2. the adobe grit effect is legit – shader injection via onbeforecompile, windward faces detect storm direction through a normal-dot-wind term and darken procedurally 3. the fjord glass is real meshphysicalmaterial with transmission and ior, not a transparent quad 4. the siheyuan properly instances barrel tiles, dougong blocks and courtyard pavers downsides: 1. in the fjord file the strafe vector is negated – press a, you move right; press d, you move left. exactly the key mix-up we kept hitting with this model 2. all three files ship the model's self-doubt as comments: "// actually yaw orientation: need correct" sits above a direction vector that gets computed, abandoned and recomputed – dead vectors allocated every frame, 60 times a second 3. the siheyuan registers two separate keydown listeners, one containing an empty if-block 4. snow "accumulation" on the norway roof is a sine wobble on a scale value, not accumulation 5. "instanced snow" became 3,500 plain points. zero dispose calls anywhere pattern: minimal reasoning, minimal code, minimal price. it nails the flashy requirements – shaders, transmissive glass – and quietly drops the boring ones: instancing, controls, cleanup. you get a demo that mostly runs and a control scheme you can't trust follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

135,556 次观看 • 2 个月前

Codex went from basically unlimited to burning your entire limit in one prompt. We talked about how OpenAI cooked the $200 plan and quietly killed the Codex app. 0:08:46 Intro 0:10:15 Muse Spark 1.1 0:13:13 GPT-Live-1 0:22:03 Grok 4.5 0:35:58 Windsurf & RIP Codex 0:51:38 Apple Sues OpenAI 0:58:05 Elon vs Sam 1:13:24 GPT-5.6 Sol & Limits 1:35:19 Subagents & Agent Workflows 1:47:42 Claude Code + Sol

Codex went from basically unlimited to burning your entire limit in one prompt. We talked about how OpenAI cooked the $200 plan and quietly killed the Codex app. 0:08:46 Intro 0:10:15 Muse Spark 1.1 0:13:13 GPT-Live-1 0:22:03 Grok 4.5 0:35:58 Windsurf & RIP Codex 0:51:38 Apple Sues OpenAI 0:58:05 Elon vs Sam 1:13:24 GPT-5.6 Sol & Limits 1:35:19 Subagents & Agent Workflows 1:47:42 Claude Code + Sol

Nerd Snipe

94,862 次观看 • 2 个月前

Muse Spark 1.3 vs 1.2: sculpt viking figurines AI at Meta dropped Muse Spark 1.3 today — we ran it against Muse Spark 1.2 both models got the same brief: three collectible 3D figurines — a viking helmet, a diamond-studded axe, a longship with a crew — one self-contained HTML file each, one shot. Muse Spark 1.3: 22,474 tokens, $0.10 Muse Spark 1.2: 19,324 tokens, $0.08

Muse Spark 1.3 vs 1.2: sculpt viking figurines AI at Meta dropped Muse Spark 1.3 today — we ran it against Muse Spark 1.2 both models got the same brief: three collectible 3D figurines — a viking helmet, a diamond-studded axe, a longship with a crew — one self-contained HTML file each, one shot. Muse Spark 1.3: 22,474 tokens, $0.10 Muse Spark 1.2: 19,324 tokens, $0.08

AI/ML API

78,532 次观看 • 13 天前

Seedance 2.0 vs Meta Muse Video. Both models feature native audio, but Muse Video seems like its currently stuck with a 10-second limit. Meanwhile, Seedance 2.0 can output 15-second cinematic sequences in crisp up to 4K. Meta is cooking, but Seedance 2.0 might still hold the crown for now. Which one are you betting on?

Seedance 2.0 vs Meta Muse Video. Both models feature native audio, but Muse Video seems like its currently stuck with a 10-second limit. Meanwhile, Seedance 2.0 can output 15-second cinematic sequences in crisp up to 4K. Meta is cooking, but Seedance 2.0 might still hold the crown for now. Which one are you betting on?

JSFILMZ

174,731 次观看 • 2 个月前

meta muse just mogged fable 5.1 tested fable 5.1 and muse spark 1.3 with same prompt at highest reasoning available and results came out really different > muse spark 1.3 completed task in one minute and costed almost nothing > fable 5.1 completed task in 70 minutes and costed $13 it's clear that meta is stepping up their game in ai, they don't wanna left behind which one did better here?

meta muse just mogged fable 5.1 tested fable 5.1 and muse spark 1.3 with same prompt at highest reasoning available and results came out really different > muse spark 1.3 completed task in one minute and costed almost nothing > fable 5.1 completed task in 70 minutes and costed $13 it's clear that meta is stepping up their game in ai, they don't wanna left behind which one did better here?

J A Z I I

75,566 次观看 • 13 天前

this is what i got yesterday with gemini-3.5-flash in Arena (Gemini 3.5 Pro*) vs Grok 4.5 in grok build > SpaceX Falcon 9 launch, stage separation, boostback, and landing simulation using three js

this is what i got yesterday with gemini-3.5-flash in Arena (Gemini 3.5 Pro*) vs Grok 4.5 in grok build > SpaceX Falcon 9 launch, stage separation, boostback, and landing simulation using three js

Harshith

15,558 次观看 • 1 个月前

Anthropic Doesn't Think You Can Be Trusted, China is closing the gap, SpaceXAI Leaps Ahead, and DEF CON 0:00 Intro 2:56 Claude Watermarks 15:04 Meta + Muse 48:48 GLM-5.3 55:15 Qwen + DeepSeek 1:08:48 Grok 4.6 + Bot 1:20:15 Gavin vs Dario 1:43:44 DEFCON 2:15:35 Viewer Q&A

Anthropic Doesn't Think You Can Be Trusted, China is closing the gap, SpaceXAI Leaps Ahead, and DEF CON 0:00 Intro 2:56 Claude Watermarks 15:04 Meta + Muse 48:48 GLM-5.3 55:15 Qwen + DeepSeek 1:08:48 Grok 4.6 + Bot 1:20:15 Gavin vs Dario 1:43:44 DEFCON 2:15:35 Viewer Q&A

Nerd Snipe

23,780 次观看 • 26 天前

Grok 4.5 and Muse Spark 1.1 are now available on the AI/ML platform for testing. What a week; all 3 models in the comparison dropped just recently. There will be a lot to experiment with. AI/ML has tested the new models on prompts for playable mini-games, including a Fruit Ninja-style slicer and a Crossy Road clone. All three are live in the Playground and via API for side-by-side runs on output and cost.

Grok 4.5 and Muse Spark 1.1 are now available on the AI/ML platform for testing. What a week; all 3 models in the comparison dropped just recently. There will be a lot to experiment with. AI/ML has tested the new models on prompts for playable mini-games, including a Fruit Ninja-style slicer and a Crossy Road clone. All three are live in the Playground and via API for side-by-side runs on output and cost.

🚨 AI News | TestingCatalog

37,973 次观看 • 2 个月前

Grok 4.5 might be the BEST model to run inside Hermes or OpenClaw RIGHT NOW. I've been sleeping on Grok to be honestNot anymore. It's more than 60% cheaper than Opus 4.8 and lands around $2.49 per task versus ~$12 for Fable in Claude Code. And it's fast. So what happens when you give Hermes + Grok 4.5 its own email, its own phone number, its own debit card, and access to every tool you use? You pretty much get an AI co-founder. Everything you need to know about Grok 4.5 + Hermes below. Full episode is available to watch at The Startup Ideas Podcast (SIP) 🧃 ( thanks Nick Vasilescu for coming on) I slept on Grok. Not sleeping on it anymore. Watch

Grok 4.5 might be the BEST model to run inside Hermes or OpenClaw RIGHT NOW. I've been sleeping on Grok to be honestNot anymore. It's more than 60% cheaper than Opus 4.8 and lands around $2.49 per task versus ~$12 for Fable in Claude Code. And it's fast. So what happens when you give Hermes + Grok 4.5 its own email, its own phone number, its own debit card, and access to every tool you use? You pretty much get an AI co-founder. Everything you need to know about Grok 4.5 + Hermes below. Full episode is available to watch at The Startup Ideas Podcast (SIP) 🧃 ( thanks Nick Vasilescu for coming on) I slept on Grok. Not sleeping on it anymore. Watch

GREG ISENBERG

256,477 次观看 • 2 个月前

Advanced Frontier LLM Benchmark - Üç Cisim & Gravity Choreography 🚀 - Modeller: Grok 4.6 / AI at Meta Muse Spark 1.3 / Claude Fable 5.1 / Google Gemini Gemini 3.8 Flash - Effort: Max & Very high - Agent: Cursor & Opencode Task: Görev, modele tek bir HTML dosyası içinde, dış kaynak kullanmadan, Canvas 2D ile düzlemsel N-cisim kütleçekimi simülasyonu yazdırmak; bu simülasyon açıldığı anda deterministik bir sinematik gösteriyle başlıyor (Kepler yörüngesi → hiyerarşik yıldız sistemi → figure-8 koreografisi → 12 kopyalı kaotik ayrışma → uzun pozlama), ayrıca ~40 saniyelik video kaydı için ayrı bir demo reel modu, gizli fizik self-check'i, korunum diagnostikleri, sürüklenebilir cisimler ve kompakt bir arayüz içeriyor. 🎉 Fiyat/Performans Kazanan: Grok 4.6🎉 🎉 Core Teknik Kazanan: Fable 5.1 🎉 Sebep: Fable, bu benchmark'ın iki tarafını en iyi birlikte çözüyor: solver ve cinematic renderer. Pairwise Newtonian çekirdek, softened potential, conservation diagnostics, Verlet/Yoshida yolu ve validator mimarisi güçlü; runtime self-check sonuçları da dört model içindeki en iyi seviyede. Daha önemlisi, model yalnızca ekrana “PASS” yazmıyor; hidden systems gerçek integrator yoluyla kademeli çalıştırılıyor ve ölçüm sonucundan verdict üretiliyor. Maliyet: - Grok 4.6: $1.10 - Muse Spark 1.3: $1.12 - Gemini 3.8 Flash: $1.3 - Fable 5.1: $6.2 Teknik skor: - Fable 5.1 - 96.4/100 - Grok 4.6 - 92.1/100 - Muse Spark 1.3 - 89.6/100 - Gemini 3.8 Flash - 81.0/100 Performans / $ - Grok 4.6 - 83.7/100 - Muse Spark 1.3 - 80.0/100 - Gemini 3.8 Flash - 62.3/100 - Fable 5.1 - 15.6/100 Teknik İnceleme Metrikleri: 1) Prompt uyumu: Fable'ın substep genişletmesi ve Muse'un bazı spesifikasyonları sadeleştirmesi nedeniyle kimseye 10 vermiyorum. - Fable 5.1: 9.6/10 - Grok 4.6: 9.3/10 - Gemini 3.8 Flash: 8.8/10 - Muse Spark 1.3: 8.2/10 2) Newtonian physics + conservation: Dört modelin de bu kategori şaşırtıcı derecede güçlü. Muse dahil pairwise equal-and-opposite acceleration ve aynı softened potential kernel'ini kullanıyor. - Fable 5.1: 9.9/10 - Grok 4.6: 9.8/10 - Gemini 3.8 Flash: 9.8/10 - Muse Spark 1.3: 9.6/10 3) Symplectic integrasyon + fixed timestep: Gemini'nin Yoshida formülü yanlış değil; puan kaybı scheduler/backlog yönetiminden geliyor. Numerical method doğru, execution model chaos altında sorunlu. - Fable 5.1: 9.6/10 - Grok 4.6: 9.5/10 - Muse Spark 1.3: 9.4/10 - Gemini 3.8 Flash: 8.0/10 4) Self-check / validator doğruluğu: Burada Fable açık lider. Gemini çok yakın; dtExact metodolojik küçük pürüz. Grok/Muse PASS ama validator resolution daha kaba. - Fable 5.1: 10.0/10 - Gemini 3.8 Flash: 9.4/10 - Grok 4.6: 8.6/10 - Muse Spark 1.3: 8.0/10 5) Görsel kalite: Gemini'nin celestial-body shading'i ve UI'sı çok iyi. Fable ise kompozisyon ve “görsel gürültüyü bastırma” açısından biraz daha dengeli. Muse özellikle büyük title choreography ile etkileyici. Grok en restrained olanı. - Fable 5.1: 9.6/10 - Gemini 3.8 Flash: 9.5/10 - Grok 4.6: 9.2/10 - Muse Spark 1.3: 9.1/10 6) Trail rendering: Gemini'nin single-system trail'i güzel; fakat chaos trail timestamp kaynağındaki hata bu kategori için ciddi. - Fable 5.1: 9.7/10 - Grok 4.6: 9.3/10 - Muse Spark 1.3: 9.0/10 - Gemini 3.8 Flash: 7.0/10 Alternatif winner'lar: - En iyi saf numerical correctness: Fable 5.1 - En iyi self-validator: Fable 5.1 - En iyi görsel kalite: Fable 5.1 ≈ Gemini 3.8 Flash - En iyi chaos throughput: Muse Spark 1.3 - En iyi genel mimari: Fable 5.1 - En iyi fiyat/performans: Grok 4.6 - En düşük maliyet: Grok 4.6 - Sadece physics/integrator kodu puanlansaydı: Fable ≈ Grok > Gemini ≈ Muse - Maliyet de kararın temel kriteri olsaydı: Grok > Muse > Gemini >>> Fable

Advanced Frontier LLM Benchmark - Üç Cisim & Gravity Choreography 🚀 - Modeller: Grok 4.6 / AI at Meta Muse Spark 1.3 / Claude Fable 5.1 / Google Gemini Gemini 3.8 Flash - Effort: Max & Very high - Agent: Cursor & Opencode Task: Görev, modele tek bir HTML dosyası içinde, dış kaynak kullanmadan, Canvas 2D ile düzlemsel N-cisim kütleçekimi simülasyonu yazdırmak; bu simülasyon açıldığı anda deterministik bir sinematik gösteriyle başlıyor (Kepler yörüngesi → hiyerarşik yıldız sistemi → figure-8 koreografisi → 12 kopyalı kaotik ayrışma → uzun pozlama), ayrıca ~40 saniyelik video kaydı için ayrı bir demo reel modu, gizli fizik self-check'i, korunum diagnostikleri, sürüklenebilir cisimler ve kompakt bir arayüz içeriyor. 🎉 Fiyat/Performans Kazanan: Grok 4.6🎉 🎉 Core Teknik Kazanan: Fable 5.1 🎉 Sebep: Fable, bu benchmark'ın iki tarafını en iyi birlikte çözüyor: solver ve cinematic renderer. Pairwise Newtonian çekirdek, softened potential, conservation diagnostics, Verlet/Yoshida yolu ve validator mimarisi güçlü; runtime self-check sonuçları da dört model içindeki en iyi seviyede. Daha önemlisi, model yalnızca ekrana “PASS” yazmıyor; hidden systems gerçek integrator yoluyla kademeli çalıştırılıyor ve ölçüm sonucundan verdict üretiliyor. Maliyet: - Grok 4.6: $1.10 - Muse Spark 1.3: $1.12 - Gemini 3.8 Flash: $1.3 - Fable 5.1: $6.2 Teknik skor: - Fable 5.1 - 96.4/100 - Grok 4.6 - 92.1/100 - Muse Spark 1.3 - 89.6/100 - Gemini 3.8 Flash - 81.0/100 Performans / $ - Grok 4.6 - 83.7/100 - Muse Spark 1.3 - 80.0/100 - Gemini 3.8 Flash - 62.3/100 - Fable 5.1 - 15.6/100 Teknik İnceleme Metrikleri: 1) Prompt uyumu: Fable'ın substep genişletmesi ve Muse'un bazı spesifikasyonları sadeleştirmesi nedeniyle kimseye 10 vermiyorum. - Fable 5.1: 9.6/10 - Grok 4.6: 9.3/10 - Gemini 3.8 Flash: 8.8/10 - Muse Spark 1.3: 8.2/10 2) Newtonian physics + conservation: Dört modelin de bu kategori şaşırtıcı derecede güçlü. Muse dahil pairwise equal-and-opposite acceleration ve aynı softened potential kernel'ini kullanıyor. - Fable 5.1: 9.9/10 - Grok 4.6: 9.8/10 - Gemini 3.8 Flash: 9.8/10 - Muse Spark 1.3: 9.6/10 3) Symplectic integrasyon + fixed timestep: Gemini'nin Yoshida formülü yanlış değil; puan kaybı scheduler/backlog yönetiminden geliyor. Numerical method doğru, execution model chaos altında sorunlu. - Fable 5.1: 9.6/10 - Grok 4.6: 9.5/10 - Muse Spark 1.3: 9.4/10 - Gemini 3.8 Flash: 8.0/10 4) Self-check / validator doğruluğu: Burada Fable açık lider. Gemini çok yakın; dtExact metodolojik küçük pürüz. Grok/Muse PASS ama validator resolution daha kaba. - Fable 5.1: 10.0/10 - Gemini 3.8 Flash: 9.4/10 - Grok 4.6: 8.6/10 - Muse Spark 1.3: 8.0/10 5) Görsel kalite: Gemini'nin celestial-body shading'i ve UI'sı çok iyi. Fable ise kompozisyon ve “görsel gürültüyü bastırma” açısından biraz daha dengeli. Muse özellikle büyük title choreography ile etkileyici. Grok en restrained olanı. - Fable 5.1: 9.6/10 - Gemini 3.8 Flash: 9.5/10 - Grok 4.6: 9.2/10 - Muse Spark 1.3: 9.1/10 6) Trail rendering: Gemini'nin single-system trail'i güzel; fakat chaos trail timestamp kaynağındaki hata bu kategori için ciddi. - Fable 5.1: 9.7/10 - Grok 4.6: 9.3/10 - Muse Spark 1.3: 9.0/10 - Gemini 3.8 Flash: 7.0/10 Alternatif winner'lar: - En iyi saf numerical correctness: Fable 5.1 - En iyi self-validator: Fable 5.1 - En iyi görsel kalite: Fable 5.1 ≈ Gemini 3.8 Flash - En iyi chaos throughput: Muse Spark 1.3 - En iyi genel mimari: Fable 5.1 - En iyi fiyat/performans: Grok 4.6 - En düşük maliyet: Grok 4.6 - Sadece physics/integrator kodu puanlansaydı: Fable ≈ Grok > Gemini ≈ Muse - Maliyet de kararın temel kriteri olsaydı: Grok > Muse > Gemini >>> Fable

Alican Kiraz

18,781 次观看 • 12 天前

meta just dropped a bomb. Muse Spark 1.1 is 86% cheaper than GPT-5.6 Sol and 91% cheaper than Fable 5 on output tokens ($4.25 vs $30 vs $50 per M) I thought the model was going to be horrendous, but it ended up being insanely fast, and very capable. front end design is VERY strong. Agentic capabilities seem great as it was able to spawn and even orchestrate other agents inside my app cnvs using the mcp and cli tool with zero instruction. we have soo many insanely good models right now.

meta just dropped a bomb. Muse Spark 1.1 is 86% cheaper than GPT-5.6 Sol and 91% cheaper than Fable 5 on output tokens ($4.25 vs $30 vs $50 per M) I thought the model was going to be horrendous, but it ended up being insanely fast, and very capable. front end design is VERY strong. Agentic capabilities seem great as it was able to spawn and even orchestrate other agents inside my app cnvs using the mcp and cli tool with zero instruction. we have soo many insanely good models right now.

Max Blade

88,802 次观看 • 2 个月前

timelapse #160 (13.5 hrs) - grok 4.5 high in grok build was my main for today. just getting a vibe check. it understands my intent really well and never messed anything up. i do prefer to stay in the loop with it more than claude though. SpaceXAI really cooked! - not sure what it was, but i was able to stay in flow state with grok build for hours and hours. my memory and retention helped me get a lot done - exhausted 4th claude max 20x plan in 48 hours - training dspark drafters on my traces (kept gpu warm the whole time) - did grok 4.5 high sweeps and was quite impressed at how far the model has come. its around gpt 5.5 level (official post coming) - some very important meetings - contract work - optimizing amd kernels for glm 5.2 fp8 (mostly custom all-reduce whilst avoid deadlocks) for the tiny corp - one shotted and ran all frontier models on a new benchmark which ill be revealing shortly. its the toughest benchmark ive ever made. fable doesnt even come close to beating it - had grok 4.5 take over my minecraft C/CUDA implementation. felt like whack a mole but maybe i just wasnt using it right

timelapse #160 (13.5 hrs) - grok 4.5 high in grok build was my main for today. just getting a vibe check. it understands my intent really well and never messed anything up. i do prefer to stay in the loop with it more than claude though. SpaceXAI really cooked! - not sure what it was, but i was able to stay in flow state with grok build for hours and hours. my memory and retention helped me get a lot done - exhausted 4th claude max 20x plan in 48 hours - training dspark drafters on my traces (kept gpu warm the whole time) - did grok 4.5 high sweeps and was quite impressed at how far the model has come. its around gpt 5.5 level (official post coming) - some very important meetings - contract work - optimizing amd kernels for glm 5.2 fp8 (mostly custom all-reduce whilst avoid deadlocks) for the tiny corp - one shotted and ran all frontier models on a new benchmark which ill be revealing shortly. its the toughest benchmark ive ever made. fable doesnt even come close to beating it - had grok 4.5 take over my minecraft C/CUDA implementation. felt like whack a mole but maybe i just wasnt using it right

Elliot Arledge

13,619 次观看 • 2 个月前