Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Hear me out: a GPT wrapper that generates... GPT wrappers 🤔 Introducing ⇢ GPT Wrapper Generator Create complete GPT wrappers in seconds - frontend UI, API routes, JSON schema, custom prompts, .. 100% free - more info ⇣

112,513 views • 2 years ago •via X (Twitter)

8 Comments

Fekri's profile picture
Fekri2 years ago

Simply copy-paste: 1. page.tsx 2. route.ts into your Next.js app & done! the coolest thing about this tool might be the URL: 😎 hope you like it! 🙏🏽

Paulius 🏴‍☠️'s profile picture
Paulius 🏴‍☠️2 years ago

We’ve reached peak AI wrappers

Fekri's profile picture
Fekri2 years ago

we can add another wrapper layer on top

Fekri's profile picture
Fekri2 years ago

😂

Fekri's profile picture
Fekri2 years ago

exactly lol lol

Rufus's profile picture
Rufus2 years ago

Brilliant.

Raydon Kimunguyi's profile picture
Raydon Kimunguyi2 years ago

Amazing product man.

Fekri's profile picture
Fekri2 years ago

thanks man!!

Related Videos

GPT-5.6 vs GPT-5.5 on my custom spaceship prompt. I gave both models the exact same custom prompt. This is also the same prompt I previously gave to Fable 5. For context, GPT-5.6 Pro worked for 87 minutes, while GPT-5.5 Extra High worked for 34 minutes and 42 seconds. As I’ve said before, based on great authority GPT-5.6 will be an incremental/soldi improvement over GPT-5.5, not a “Fable killer.” My rough expectation has been that it would trade blows with Fable 5 on some benchmarks, maybe win around half depending on the category, but not clearly surpass it overall. And again fable five will have bigger model smell, but this was expected. After testing this coding output, that view feels pretty accurate. GPT-5.6 is clearly better than GPT-5.5 in several visual areas. The lighting, shading, chairs, object details, and exterior of the spaceship looked noticeably stronger. The scene was also easier to test. I do want to give GPT-5.5 credit though. It built out the rooms much much better and the planets looked better than GPT-5.6’s. It was also interesting that both GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6 produced better-looking planets than Fable 5 in this specific test. The downside with GPT-5.5 was stability. The game was much glitchier and harder to test compared to GPT-5.6. But when it comes to the core of the demo, which is the spaceship itself, Fable 5 still beat both models pretty comfortably. GPT-5.6 is impressive, but from this test, it looks exactly like what I expected which was a meaningful incremental improvement over GPT-5.5, at least for indie game demos, but not something that replaces Fable 5. In collaboration with Chetaslua

Chris

250,405 views • 1 month ago