Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

HydraFusion Explained. Part I: How does the Copilot engine know what to optimize for? Your prompt is evaluated across 4 dimensions: ➡ Does it require deep reasoning? (aka. reasoning depth) ➡ Is it a sophisticated problem? (aka. code generation complexity) ➡ Is it untangling a complicated mess? (aka. debugging...

juliamuiruri4's profile picture

Julia Muiruri

1,968 subscribers

12,257 просмотров • 3 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Fable 5 comes back！It can now build playable game prototypes. I think it is actually a signal for where AI coding is going. Making a game is not just “write some code.” Even a small browser game needs: game loop；character movement；collision logic；scoring system；UI states；physics tuning；visual feedback；bug fixing；playtesting This is why game prototyping is a great test for AI models. A model cannot fake it with a pretty answer. Either the game runs, or it does not. What impressed me about Fable 5 is that it is useful for the messy middle: turning an idea into mechanics, turning mechanics into code, debugging broken interactions, and iterating until the prototype feels playable. But here is the practical part: I would not use the strongest model for every step. For game building, I would split the workflow: 1. Fable 5 for game design + architecture 2. a fast coding model for routine implementation 3. a vision-capable model for screenshot/UI feedback 4. a cheaper model for docs, test cases, and small fixes 5. fallback when latency, cost, or output quality becomes a problem That is the real AI coding stack. Not “one magic model does everything.” More like: the right model, for the right task, at the right cost, with fallback when things break. This is why I’ve been looking at ZenMux ZenMux. ZenMux gives developers one gateway to access multiple leading AI models, with OpenAI / Anthropic / Google Vertex compatible APIs, cost tracking, quality benchmarks, auto-routing, and compensation when output quality, latency, or throughput falls short. If AI can now make games, the next question is not just “which model is strongest?” It is:how do we manage the whole model workflow Fable 5 shows the creative ceiling. ZenMux is closer to the infrastructure layer you need when AI coding becomes a real production habit.
0:12

Fable 5 comes back！It can now build playable game prototypes. I think it is actually a signal for where AI coding is going. Making a game is not just “write some code.” Even a small browser game needs: game loop；character movement；collision logic；scoring system；UI states；physics tuning；visual feedback；bug fixing；playtesting This is why game prototyping is a great test for AI models. A model cannot fake it with a pretty answer. Either the game runs, or it does not. What impressed me about Fable 5 is that it is useful for the messy middle: turning an idea into mechanics, turning mechanics into code, debugging broken interactions, and iterating until the prototype feels playable. But here is the practical part: I would not use the strongest model for every step. For game building, I would split the workflow: 1. Fable 5 for game design + architecture 2. a fast coding model for routine implementation 3. a vision-capable model for screenshot/UI feedback 4. a cheaper model for docs, test cases, and small fixes 5. fallback when latency, cost, or output quality becomes a problem That is the real AI coding stack. Not “one magic model does everything.” More like: the right model, for the right task, at the right cost, with fallback when things break. This is why I’ve been looking at ZenMux ZenMux. ZenMux gives developers one gateway to access multiple leading AI models, with OpenAI / Anthropic / Google Vertex compatible APIs, cost tracking, quality benchmarks, auto-routing, and compensation when output quality, latency, or throughput falls short. If AI can now make games, the next question is not just “which model is strongest?” It is:how do we manage the whole model workflow Fable 5 shows the creative ceiling. ZenMux is closer to the infrastructure layer you need when AI coding becomes a real production habit.

Rachel🥥

61,441 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

i gave Ox Alpha the main menu from ECHO and asked it to recreate it only ONE (1) prompt was enough to build this, using the reference this is one of the most beautiful output i've ever had from any model the fact that it's from a stealth model is mindblowing
0:18

i gave Ox Alpha the main menu from ECHO and asked it to recreate it only ONE (1) prompt was enough to build this, using the reference this is one of the most beautiful output i've ever had from any model the fact that it's from a stealth model is mindblowing

filipe

31,171 просмотров • 17 дней назад

Routing for long-horizon coding agents is a big deal. Not Diamond just announced a model router that works natively with Claude Code. This is huge. It picks the model and reasoning effort before each turn in a session, runs through a privacy-preserving local proxy, and your requests still execute through your own gateway. In their benchmarks, it approximates Opus 4.8 Xhigh quality at 39 to 61 percent lower cost.
0:16

Routing for long-horizon coding agents is a big deal. Not Diamond just announced a model router that works natively with Claude Code. This is huge. It picks the model and reasoning effort before each turn in a session, runs through a privacy-preserving local proxy, and your requests still execute through your own gateway. In their benchmarks, it approximates Opus 4.8 Xhigh quality at 39 to 61 percent lower cost.

elvis

13,699 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Don't train the model, evolve the harness. I read a brilliant blog post from Hugging Face where they took a frozen open model scoring 0% on a hard legal agent benchmark, left its weights alone, and let an automated loop rewrite only the code around it. That code layer is the harness, the runtime wrapper that feeds the model context, runs its tool calls, and decides when a run ends. By the time the loop finished, the system had essentially matched Sonnet 4.6 on the benchmark's headline metric, at roughly 7x lower cost per task. Zero weights changed. The gain existed because of where the model was failing. The judge only grades files saved in the right place under the exact requested filename, and the model kept doing the legal analysis correctly, then saving it under the wrong name, dropping it in a scratch folder, or never writing it at all. So the 0% was never measuring legal reasoning. It was measuring the harness. Hand-tuning that layer is slow and model-specific, so they automated it. A Claude proposer adds exactly one mechanism per iteration, and an outer loop keeps it only if it clearly beats the current best, so accepted mechanisms compound. What the loop discovered says a lot about where agents actually fail. → The biggest single gain was file handling, not intelligence. An automatic step that lands the deliverable exactly where the judge expects it beat every prompt change, with zero extra model tokens. → Code fixes transferred across models, prompt playbooks did not. The same harness lifted a smaller model from the same family by 14 points, but the tuned prompts hurt a different model family on tasks it could already finish. → The harness mattered more than anything else. Same model, same judge, same tasks, and five different harnesses scored anywhere between 3.5% and 80.1%. The gains do eventually flatten, and the remaining misses look like real capability gaps. At some point the wrapper runs out of tricks and the model has to carry the work. But the lesson holds. A benchmark score measures the model and its harness together, and until the harness is fixed, it's impossible to know which one failed. I highly recommend reading this: I also wrote a deep dive on agent harness engineering a while back, covering the orchestration loop, tools, memory, context management, and everything that turns a stateless LLM into a capable agent. The article is quoted below.
0:18

Don't train the model, evolve the harness. I read a brilliant blog post from Hugging Face where they took a frozen open model scoring 0% on a hard legal agent benchmark, left its weights alone, and let an automated loop rewrite only the code around it. That code layer is the harness, the runtime wrapper that feeds the model context, runs its tool calls, and decides when a run ends. By the time the loop finished, the system had essentially matched Sonnet 4.6 on the benchmark's headline metric, at roughly 7x lower cost per task. Zero weights changed. The gain existed because of where the model was failing. The judge only grades files saved in the right place under the exact requested filename, and the model kept doing the legal analysis correctly, then saving it under the wrong name, dropping it in a scratch folder, or never writing it at all. So the 0% was never measuring legal reasoning. It was measuring the harness. Hand-tuning that layer is slow and model-specific, so they automated it. A Claude proposer adds exactly one mechanism per iteration, and an outer loop keeps it only if it clearly beats the current best, so accepted mechanisms compound. What the loop discovered says a lot about where agents actually fail. → The biggest single gain was file handling, not intelligence. An automatic step that lands the deliverable exactly where the judge expects it beat every prompt change, with zero extra model tokens. → Code fixes transferred across models, prompt playbooks did not. The same harness lifted a smaller model from the same family by 14 points, but the tuned prompts hurt a different model family on tasks it could already finish. → The harness mattered more than anything else. Same model, same judge, same tasks, and five different harnesses scored anywhere between 3.5% and 80.1%. The gains do eventually flatten, and the remaining misses look like real capability gaps. At some point the wrapper runs out of tricks and the model has to carry the work. But the lesson holds. A benchmark score measures the model and its harness together, and until the harness is fixed, it's impossible to know which one failed. I highly recommend reading this: I also wrote a deep dive on agent harness engineering a while back, covering the orchestration loop, tools, memory, context management, and everything that turns a stateless LLM into a capable agent. The article is quoted below.

Akshay 🚀

244,990 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

PAYING PER MODEL IS THE DUMBEST THING IN TECH RIGHT NOW i was paying 3x what i needed to for AI inference the grid lets you buy a quality spec instead of a specific model.. it routes every request in real time to the cheapest option that qualifies swap one url and your code keeps working exactly the same openai-compatible, one line to switch, 200M free tokens to start
0:19

PAYING PER MODEL IS THE DUMBEST THING IN TECH RIGHT NOW i was paying 3x what i needed to for AI inference the grid lets you buy a quality spec instead of a specific model.. it routes every request in real time to the cheapest option that qualifies swap one url and your code keeps working exactly the same openai-compatible, one line to switch, 200M free tokens to start

Robin Delta

15,729 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

1/ Gemini 2.5 is here, and it’s our most intelligent AI model ever. Our first 2.5 model, Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental is a state-of-the-art thinking model, leading in a wide range of benchmarks – with impressive improvements in enhanced reasoning and coding and now #1 on Arena by a significant margin. With a model this intelligent, we wanted to get it to people as quickly as possible. Find it on Google AI Studio and in the Google Gemini for Gemini Advanced users now – and in Vertex in the coming weeks. This is the start of a new era of thinking models – and we can’t wait to see where things go from here.
0:14

1/ Gemini 2.5 is here, and it’s our most intelligent AI model ever. Our first 2.5 model, Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental is a state-of-the-art thinking model, leading in a wide range of benchmarks – with impressive improvements in enhanced reasoning and coding and now #1 on Arena by a significant margin. With a model this intelligent, we wanted to get it to people as quickly as possible. Find it on Google AI Studio and in the Google Gemini for Gemini Advanced users now – and in Vertex in the coming weeks. This is the start of a new era of thinking models – and we can’t wait to see where things go from here.

Sundar Pichai

864,665 просмотров • 1 год назад

Google has just launched an AI feature capable of planning, reasoning and searching the web. All this is done in a single prompt using Deep Research. This is literally the first reasoning model that has access to the internet. Game-changer. How to use it below 🧵
0:14

Google has just launched an AI feature capable of planning, reasoning and searching the web. All this is done in a single prompt using Deep Research. This is literally the first reasoning model that has access to the internet. Game-changer. How to use it below 🧵

Paul Couvert

298,330 просмотров • 1 год назад

Alright, now that we know *what* an agent is, how does it actually work? When you ask for help on a task, the agent plans a series of steps and executes them directly in the application on your behalf, using the tools it has access to. Say you are booking a local service or trying to organize your inbox (which typically takes multiple steps): the AI model first plans how to achieve the task using its existing knowledge and then interacts with your inbox to execute the task. The agent will continue until it is confident the task has been successfully completed.
0:15

Alright, now that we know *what* an agent is, how does it actually work? When you ask for help on a task, the agent plans a series of steps and executes them directly in the application on your behalf, using the tools it has access to. Say you are booking a local service or trying to organize your inbox (which typically takes multiple steps): the AI model first plans how to achieve the task using its existing knowledge and then interacts with your inbox to execute the task. The agent will continue until it is confident the task has been successfully completed.

Google AI

22,487 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

Super excited about Hydra-0 from Hongyu Li and team! The key idea is to use flow as a shared visual interface across embodiments/objects for controllable video generation, allowing a single generalist world model to learn from human, handheld-gripper, and robot interaction data. My favorite result is the video below: start from a real video of a human doing the task (left), extract the desired object flow, and condition the model on that flow (right). The model then hallucinates a plausible robot motion that could produce the same object motion. Very cool glimpse of how a generalist world model can bridge human demonstrations and robot control.
0:13

Super excited about Hydra-0 from Hongyu Li and team! The key idea is to use flow as a shared visual interface across embodiments/objects for controllable video generation, allowing a single generalist world model to learn from human, handheld-gripper, and robot interaction data. My favorite result is the video below: start from a real video of a human doing the task (left), extract the desired object flow, and condition the model on that flow (right). The model then hallucinates a plausible robot motion that could produce the same object motion. Very cool glimpse of how a generalist world model can bridge human demonstrations and robot control.

Yunzhu Li

10,509 просмотров • 21 дней назад

New open-source agent harness just landed! I got early access to TrueForge by TrueFoundry and have been running it locally for the past few days. The harness layer deserves as much attention as the model, and open source matters here because you can inspect the loop, run it on your own infrastructure, and swap to the latest or cheaper models. TrueForge handles the runtime work that makes an agent reliable. It drives the tool-calling loop, manages context, coordinates subagents, and executes code in a sandbox, with any model you choose. Every tool call re-sends the growing context to the model, so in practice the harness controls most of what an agent costs to run. A few things stood out from my testing and their published benchmarks. Vendor-Neutral by design. It runs OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google models alongside open-weight models like Kimi, GLM, and DeepSeek. Model routing is a setting, and you can send each task to the model that fits it. On a 14-task enterprise agent benchmark, it matched the accuracy of Claude Managed Agents running the same Opus 4.8 model at roughly 30% lower cost per run (3.8M tokens vs 10M for the same answers). Routing the same tasks to GLM-5.2 held accuracy and brought cost down by about 75%, around $3 per run instead of $12. Fully self-hosted and Open Source (MIT License). I had it running locally with one command, with sandboxed code execution working out of the box. It's time to own your agent harness. Thanks to TrueFoundry for partnering on this post.
0:16

New open-source agent harness just landed! I got early access to TrueForge by TrueFoundry and have been running it locally for the past few days. The harness layer deserves as much attention as the model, and open source matters here because you can inspect the loop, run it on your own infrastructure, and swap to the latest or cheaper models. TrueForge handles the runtime work that makes an agent reliable. It drives the tool-calling loop, manages context, coordinates subagents, and executes code in a sandbox, with any model you choose. Every tool call re-sends the growing context to the model, so in practice the harness controls most of what an agent costs to run. A few things stood out from my testing and their published benchmarks. Vendor-Neutral by design. It runs OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google models alongside open-weight models like Kimi, GLM, and DeepSeek. Model routing is a setting, and you can send each task to the model that fits it. On a 14-task enterprise agent benchmark, it matched the accuracy of Claude Managed Agents running the same Opus 4.8 model at roughly 30% lower cost per run (3.8M tokens vs 10M for the same answers). Routing the same tasks to GLM-5.2 held accuracy and brought cost down by about 75%, around $3 per run instead of $12. Fully self-hosted and Open Source (MIT License). I had it running locally with one command, with sandboxed code execution working out of the box. It's time to own your agent harness. Thanks to TrueFoundry for partnering on this post.

elvis

11,303 просмотров • 23 дней назад

Let me explain the agent loop, simple It's the core of every agentic system, and the part most people overcomplicate It's just this: 1. Send messages to the model 2. Model responds, maybe calls a tool 3. You run the tool 4. Append the result back to messages 5. Repeat until stop_reason is end_turn Step 4 is the whole thing, the write-back is what makes it an agent The model has to see what actually happened before it decides the next move That's the entire loop... understand this cold before you reach for a framework
0:14

Let me explain the agent loop, simple It's the core of every agentic system, and the part most people overcomplicate It's just this: 1. Send messages to the model 2. Model responds, maybe calls a tool 3. You run the tool 4. Append the result back to messages 5. Repeat until stop_reason is end_turn Step 4 is the whole thing, the write-back is what makes it an agent The model has to see what actually happened before it decides the next move That's the entire loop... understand this cold before you reach for a framework

Daniel San

12,514 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

kling 3.0 is crazy... this model works very different than any other model this is from giving it just 2 images and a multi prompt then it handled all the scenes by itself... now imagine what it could do if you gave it more references and an even more detailed multi prompt going to test this a lot more but kling definetly cooked on this one
0:12

kling 3.0 is crazy... this model works very different than any other model this is from giving it just 2 images and a multi prompt then it handled all the scenes by itself... now imagine what it could do if you gave it more references and an even more detailed multi prompt going to test this a lot more but kling definetly cooked on this one

Miko

95,650 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

seedance 2.0 + my v2 AI UGC prompting system is giving insane results i spent the last 24 hours generating over 200 seedance 2.0 videos to figure out the best prompting framework system for AI UGC this video was made with 1 prompt and 1 tool, no editing was done to the video this was just a prompt to a video this is by far the best model i've ever used and the craziest part is that it can be fully automated this is the first time we can actually automate high quality ai ugc at this level bytedance owns tiktok so this model is trained on millions of high quality ugc videos. you just need to know how to extract that and call it in your prompt. we are so early... it's insane
0:14

seedance 2.0 + my v2 AI UGC prompting system is giving insane results i spent the last 24 hours generating over 200 seedance 2.0 videos to figure out the best prompting framework system for AI UGC this video was made with 1 prompt and 1 tool, no editing was done to the video this was just a prompt to a video this is by far the best model i've ever used and the craziest part is that it can be fully automated this is the first time we can actually automate high quality ai ugc at this level bytedance owns tiktok so this model is trained on millions of high quality ugc videos. you just need to know how to extract that and call it in your prompt. we are so early... it's insane

Miko

81,462 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

MiniMax M3 just dropped — their first natively multimodal model. So I ran it through my form-filling test. (The model has to place each element at the right pixel position on a blank form image, not type into a field.) Verdict: it got everything on the paper. > Name, DOB, ID, gender, marital status, nationality, email, phone, address, postal code, all there. > Best character spacing I've seen yet: it actually calculates the gap between each character, clean across the DOB and number boxes > A few fields slightly misaligned, but every piece of data made it onto the form The reasoning chain is the interesting part: it does the easy fields first, then works into the tight one-char-per-box fields, reasoning through y-coordinates, baselines, and label clearance in obsessive detail. The cost: 40:33 and 126.7k output tokens. That's a long think — but it's MiniMax's first multimodal model, and it nailed the content.
0:14

MiniMax M3 just dropped — their first natively multimodal model. So I ran it through my form-filling test. (The model has to place each element at the right pixel position on a blank form image, not type into a field.) Verdict: it got everything on the paper. > Name, DOB, ID, gender, marital status, nationality, email, phone, address, postal code, all there. > Best character spacing I've seen yet: it actually calculates the gap between each character, clean across the DOB and number boxes > A few fields slightly misaligned, but every piece of data made it onto the form The reasoning chain is the interesting part: it does the easy fields first, then works into the tight one-char-per-box fields, reasoning through y-coordinates, baselines, and label clearance in obsessive detail. The cost: 40:33 and 126.7k output tokens. That's a long think — but it's MiniMax's first multimodal model, and it nailed the content.

stevibe

27,383 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

We removed 93.25% of the connections in our Un-0 image model, fully expecting to pay for it in quality. But it got better. FID 7.15 on ImageNet 64x64, roughly 1.9 ahead of the dense baseline at matched size. Same family of model, a fraction of the couplings, a better score. Here is why that is not as strange as it sounds. Un-0 is a coupled oscillator model, and in the dense version every oscillator talks to every other one. That sounds like a strength, but it means the whole system can fall into catastrophic synchronization: everything locks into step, gradients go flat, and learning stalls. Sparser connectivity leaves room for coherent and incoherent activity to coexist. The dynamics stay alive, and the model keeps learning. Connectivity turns out to be a control knob, not a dial you turn up until it stops. Learn more here:
0:12

We removed 93.25% of the connections in our Un-0 image model, fully expecting to pay for it in quality. But it got better. FID 7.15 on ImageNet 64x64, roughly 1.9 ahead of the dense baseline at matched size. Same family of model, a fraction of the couplings, a better score. Here is why that is not as strange as it sounds. Un-0 is a coupled oscillator model, and in the dense version every oscillator talks to every other one. That sounds like a strength, but it means the whole system can fall into catastrophic synchronization: everything locks into step, gradients go flat, and learning stalls. Sparser connectivity leaves room for coherent and incoherent activity to coexist. The dynamics stay alive, and the model keeps learning. Connectivity turns out to be a control knob, not a dial you turn up until it stops. Learn more here:

Unconventional AI

36,508 просмотров • 29 дней назад

a moonshot engineer leaked the benchmark anthropic, openai and xai all buried the same week: kimi k3 beat opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6 at $0.94 a task. stop paying anthropic $200 a month for opus 5 and openai $200 for gpt-5.6 when kimi does the same work for $8 the leak showed kimi k3 winning 9 of 12 categories against opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6. within 48 hours all three labs quietly pushed pricing pages and one very specific comparison chart off their sites. nobody announced anything. they just deleted, which tells you everything the four numbers they scrubbed: cost per task · $0.94 vs $1.80 -> opus 5 charges $1.80 to finish one task. gpt-5.6 $1.04. grok 4.6 $0.61. kimi k3 $0.94 and it landed 487 of 500 clean -> anthropic is billing you double for a model that lost the benchmark it paid to promote the weights · free, sitting on huggingface right now -> the entire model is a public download. pull it, keep it, run it forever, nobody can switch it off -> a model you can hold cannot be rented at $200 a month. that single fact is what three labs deleted a chart over the switch · one line of bash -> moonshot ships an anthropic-compatible endpoint. one env variable and claude code points at kimi -> same cli, same keybindings, same /model. you change a url, opus 5 never knows it lost the seat the bill · $400 down to $8 -> opus 5 max plus gpt-5.6 pro is $400 a month. kimi runs the same daily work for $8 metered -> that is a 98% cut for output that beat both of them 9 categories to 3 here is the part they will fight me on: the frontier tax died the week this leaked and all three labs know it. once the weights are public the price has a ceiling, because anyone can serve the same model. anthropic, openai and xai are charging 2025 prices on a lead that ended in a benchmark they deleted instead of answered drop your $400/mo ai stack to $8. the run above is kimi k3 finishing the task opus 5 bills $1.80 for. the full breakdown is in the article below
0:19

a moonshot engineer leaked the benchmark anthropic, openai and xai all buried the same week: kimi k3 beat opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6 at $0.94 a task. stop paying anthropic $200 a month for opus 5 and openai $200 for gpt-5.6 when kimi does the same work for $8 the leak showed kimi k3 winning 9 of 12 categories against opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6. within 48 hours all three labs quietly pushed pricing pages and one very specific comparison chart off their sites. nobody announced anything. they just deleted, which tells you everything the four numbers they scrubbed: cost per task · $0.94 vs $1.80 -> opus 5 charges $1.80 to finish one task. gpt-5.6 $1.04. grok 4.6 $0.61. kimi k3 $0.94 and it landed 487 of 500 clean -> anthropic is billing you double for a model that lost the benchmark it paid to promote the weights · free, sitting on huggingface right now -> the entire model is a public download. pull it, keep it, run it forever, nobody can switch it off -> a model you can hold cannot be rented at $200 a month. that single fact is what three labs deleted a chart over the switch · one line of bash -> moonshot ships an anthropic-compatible endpoint. one env variable and claude code points at kimi -> same cli, same keybindings, same /model. you change a url, opus 5 never knows it lost the seat the bill · $400 down to $8 -> opus 5 max plus gpt-5.6 pro is $400 a month. kimi runs the same daily work for $8 metered -> that is a 98% cut for output that beat both of them 9 categories to 3 here is the part they will fight me on: the frontier tax died the week this leaked and all three labs know it. once the weights are public the price has a ceiling, because anyone can serve the same model. anthropic, openai and xai are charging 2025 prices on a lead that ended in a benchmark they deleted instead of answered drop your $400/mo ai stack to $8. the run above is kimi k3 finishing the task opus 5 bills $1.80 for. the full breakdown is in the article below

starmex

32,547 просмотров • 21 дней назад

AMAZON SENIOR DEVELOPER BUILT A CONTEXT PIPELINE THAT DECIDES WHAT THE MODEL EVEN GETS TO SEE Most teams still dump the entire codebase into every prompt and hope it sorts itself out. He ranked every file by relevance to the task instead of how recently it was touched. A router decides how much context each task earns, a typo fix pulls three files, a full rewrite pulls the whole module. Whatever survives gets compressed to the exact lines that actually matter, so nothing bloats the window with dead weight. Token cost per finished task dropped the moment the model stopped reading dead weight just to fix one function. See how the four stages work together below👇
0:16

AMAZON SENIOR DEVELOPER BUILT A CONTEXT PIPELINE THAT DECIDES WHAT THE MODEL EVEN GETS TO SEE Most teams still dump the entire codebase into every prompt and hope it sorts itself out. He ranked every file by relevance to the task instead of how recently it was touched. A router decides how much context each task earns, a typo fix pulls three files, a full rewrite pulls the whole module. Whatever survives gets compressed to the exact lines that actually matter, so nothing bloats the window with dead weight. Token cost per finished task dropped the moment the model stopped reading dead weight just to fix one function. See how the four stages work together below👇

wast3

23,868 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

i built an open world minigame that's controlled with hand movements only here's a step-by-step tutorial: > started with my mediapipe + threejs template (see QT) > added a 3D model made by quaternius > sent a few prompts to gemini 3... --- prompt #1: repurpose the attached script, but now I want to import a gltf model (assets/model.gltf) and use that in the scene instead of the cube when the user moves their hand, a waypoint indicator should move around the scene, and the 3D model should smoothly move there when the user makes a fist, the model should jump the 3D model contains bundled animations in it. use the "idle", "run", and "jump" animations --- prompt #2: make this a procedural open world adventure. generate very simple procedural voxel terrain when the model gets near the edges of the screen, the camera should move, allowing the model to keep going in that direction --- prompt #3: add some floating glowing gems around the map that the user can collect --- i made some manual tweaks for styling and game feel, but that's the gist of it thanks for reading if you got all the way here full code is available at my link in bio
0:15

i built an open world minigame that's controlled with hand movements only here's a step-by-step tutorial: > started with my mediapipe + threejs template (see QT) > added a 3D model made by quaternius > sent a few prompts to gemini 3... --- prompt #1: repurpose the attached script, but now I want to import a gltf model (assets/model.gltf) and use that in the scene instead of the cube when the user moves their hand, a waypoint indicator should move around the scene, and the 3D model should smoothly move there when the user makes a fist, the model should jump the 3D model contains bundled animations in it. use the "idle", "run", and "jump" animations --- prompt #2: make this a procedural open world adventure. generate very simple procedural voxel terrain when the model gets near the edges of the screen, the camera should move, allowing the model to keep going in that direction --- prompt #3: add some floating glowing gems around the map that the user can collect --- i made some manual tweaks for styling and game feel, but that's the gist of it thanks for reading if you got all the way here full code is available at my link in bio

AA

131,799 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

next, here is how to animate the video once you generated the base image of your ai model, attach the image of your model and the product image in your ai tool and prompt, "she is holding this product" now to animate this scene, use such a simple prompt; "the girl is speaking in her beautiful voice; "this is the most powerful drink in the world... drink it once, and your whole hair is gone" no background music, no sound effects." adding "no background music" is necessory part when you're prompting to VEO 3 or Kling 2.6 and for the drinking scene, i also gave it a very simple prompt; "the girl is drinking, handheld camera shaking. No background music," then i asked nb pro to remove her hair, and then turn it into the using that simple prompt method. note; simple prompts works better than complicated one when it comes to animating your video that's it, if you need any help setting up your ai influencer to promote your product/app or service just DM me here on 𝕏 or comment "want" i'll dm you myself if you know how to make viral content + setup such a beautiful ai model 2026 will be yours, cheers
0:16

next, here is how to animate the video once you generated the base image of your ai model, attach the image of your model and the product image in your ai tool and prompt, "she is holding this product" now to animate this scene, use such a simple prompt; "the girl is speaking in her beautiful voice; "this is the most powerful drink in the world... drink it once, and your whole hair is gone" no background music, no sound effects." adding "no background music" is necessory part when you're prompting to VEO 3 or Kling 2.6 and for the drinking scene, i also gave it a very simple prompt; "the girl is drinking, handheld camera shaking. No background music," then i asked nb pro to remove her hair, and then turn it into the using that simple prompt method. note; simple prompts works better than complicated one when it comes to animating your video that's it, if you need any help setting up your ai influencer to promote your product/app or service just DM me here on 𝕏 or comment "want" i'll dm you myself if you know how to make viral content + setup such a beautiful ai model 2026 will be yours, cheers

ViralOps

21,545 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад