Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

Возникла проблема при загрузке этого видео. Это может быть связано с временными проблемами сети или видео может быть недоступно.

На главную

I gave 4 frontier models the same prompt to create an Ecco the Dolphin style video game 100% procedural 🐬 Same task, official chat UIs, max thinking. Watch 👇 Claude Fable 5 Z.ai GLM 5.2 ChatGPT GPT 5.5 Pro Google Gemini Flash 3.5 Note: Fable 5 version was created... show more

Majid Manzarpour

8,783 subscribers

42,774 просмотров • 28 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Got an output from the strongest pre-release Gemini 3.5 Pro checkpoint 👀 I compared it to Claude Fable 5 and GPT-5.5 on the same exact prompt Yeah... This model is mostly dead on arrival (tried it on other prompts too ofc). It will likely be the "poor man's model" next to 3.5 flash. 1st video: Gemini 3.5 Pro (pre-release) 2nd video: GPT-5.5 3rd video: Claude Fable 5

Got an output from the strongest pre-release Gemini 3.5 Pro checkpoint 👀 I compared it to Claude Fable 5 and GPT-5.5 on the same exact prompt Yeah... This model is mostly dead on arrival (tried it on other prompts too ofc). It will likely be the "poor man's model" next to 3.5 flash. 1st video: Gemini 3.5 Pro (pre-release) 2nd video: GPT-5.5 3rd video: Claude Fable 5

Lentils

50,395 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Are AI agents shape rotators? In this new benchmark, we let the models play campaign puzzles in Opus Magnum, a puzzle game by Zachtronics. Ironically, Claude Opus 4.8 performed poorly, being beaten by GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.5 Flash, and GLM 5.2. Claude Fable 5 crushed them all.

Are AI agents shape rotators? In this new benchmark, we let the models play campaign puzzles in Opus Magnum, a puzzle game by Zachtronics. Ironically, Claude Opus 4.8 performed poorly, being beaten by GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.5 Flash, and GLM 5.2. Claude Fable 5 crushed them all.

Rob Haisfield

496,618 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

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

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

249,587 просмотров • 29 дней назад

🚨GPT 5.6 Pro vs Fable 5 this is the first real competition that cover game logic , ui , 3d aspects Fable 5 mogs 5.6 pro in every aspects watch video same prompt different results , no external assets used Thanks to pozitiv4ik for the prompt and test , follow him everyone😾

🚨GPT 5.6 Pro vs Fable 5 this is the first real competition that cover game logic , ui , 3d aspects Fable 5 mogs 5.6 pro in every aspects watch video same prompt different results , no external assets used Thanks to pozitiv4ik for the prompt and test , follow him everyone😾

Chetaslua

197,156 просмотров • 25 дней назад

Claude Fable 5 created this horror game with the same prompt we tested Fusion on. Do not fall for OpenRouters fraudulent marketing scheme. The capability of Fusion is NO WHERE close to that of Fable 5. Stringing together Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5, and DeepSeek V4 does not give you a better model. OpenRouter should be sued for false marketing.

Claude Fable 5 created this horror game with the same prompt we tested Fusion on. Do not fall for OpenRouters fraudulent marketing scheme. The capability of Fusion is NO WHERE close to that of Fable 5. Stringing together Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5, and DeepSeek V4 does not give you a better model. OpenRouter should be sued for false marketing.

BridgeMind

31,015 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

I couldn't believe the results of this benchmarking test. I blind-tested 6 frontier models — Sonnet 5, Opus 4.8, Fable 5, GPT 5.5, GLM 5.2, and Kimi 2.5 — on knowledge work, not engineering. Writing. Analysis. Design. Vibe coding. Subagent simulations. The stuff we actually do all day. Same prompts, each model running its own subagent, every output graded blind before the labels were revealed. The results: → GLM 5.2 (the dirt-cheap open-source model from China) took first → Sonnet 5 took second, beating Fable 5 for knowledge work → Opus 4.8 got whooped Then I had Composer 2.5 judge every output independently — and it picked Fable 5 almost across the board. My blind picks and the AI judge completely disagreed. Full breakdown, method, and prompts in the video below. Which model are you running as your daily driver right now?

I couldn't believe the results of this benchmarking test. I blind-tested 6 frontier models — Sonnet 5, Opus 4.8, Fable 5, GPT 5.5, GLM 5.2, and Kimi 2.5 — on knowledge work, not engineering. Writing. Analysis. Design. Vibe coding. Subagent simulations. The stuff we actually do all day. Same prompts, each model running its own subagent, every output graded blind before the labels were revealed. The results: → GLM 5.2 (the dirt-cheap open-source model from China) took first → Sonnet 5 took second, beating Fable 5 for knowledge work → Opus 4.8 got whooped Then I had Composer 2.5 judge every output independently — and it picked Fable 5 almost across the board. My blind picks and the AI judge completely disagreed. Full breakdown, method, and prompts in the video below. Which model are you running as your daily driver right now?

JJ Englert

10,737 просмотров • 17 дней назад

Head of Anthropic Labs: "Fable is one of those models you'll just remember - like Sonnet 3.5, Opus 4, Opus 4.5. Fable is way smarter than me. It finishes a task, lists its trade-offs, and I have to ask it to explain them to me." in 20-minute talk, the Anthropic head reveals the full capabilities of the Fable 5 model in practice. Watch it now, then read how to use this frontier model in the article below

Head of Anthropic Labs: "Fable is one of those models you'll just remember - like Sonnet 3.5, Opus 4, Opus 4.5. Fable is way smarter than me. It finishes a task, lists its trade-offs, and I have to ask it to explain them to me." in 20-minute talk, the Anthropic head reveals the full capabilities of the Fable 5 model in practice. Watch it now, then read how to use this frontier model in the article below

Movez

33,774 просмотров • 15 дней назад

Love this example! Congrats to Google DeepMind! I successfully replicated the Boggle game on SWE Arena. TLDR: Gemini 2.0 Pro won! In the case of Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Gemini 2.0 Pro, both are given the image and prompt to generate the algo to get the results. The image and prompt are exactly the same. Try it out on SWE Arena: BTW can we get a bigger streaming rate limit for our API, so that ppl can better compare the latest Gemini models with other frontier models? Jeff Dean Logan Kilpatrick 👀

Love this example! Congrats to Google DeepMind! I successfully replicated the Boggle game on SWE Arena. TLDR: Gemini 2.0 Pro won! In the case of Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Gemini 2.0 Pro, both are given the image and prompt to generate the algo to get the results. The image and prompt are exactly the same. Try it out on SWE Arena: BTW can we get a bigger streaming rate limit for our API, so that ppl can better compare the latest Gemini models with other frontier models? Jeff Dean Logan Kilpatrick 👀

Terry Yue Zhuo

48,220 просмотров • 1 год назад

this is f**king gold someone just figured out how to run Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in the same loop gpt-5.6 came out yesterday. fable 5 leaves in 48 hours. this window has never existed before and never will again. here is how to use it: 1. open claude code. install openai's codex plugin 2. type /model. choose fable 5. 3. drop one ROUTING.md in your repo root (full file in comments). 4.paste the prompt (in comments), write what feature you want. boom. save and bookmark this no matter what. it will be the most productive thing you do this weekend

this is f**king gold someone just figured out how to run Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in the same loop gpt-5.6 came out yesterday. fable 5 leaves in 48 hours. this window has never existed before and never will again. here is how to use it: 1. open claude code. install openai's codex plugin 2. type /model. choose fable 5. 3. drop one ROUTING.md in your repo root (full file in comments). 4.paste the prompt (in comments), write what feature you want. boom. save and bookmark this no matter what. it will be the most productive thing you do this weekend

Avid

138,631 просмотров • 8 дней назад

I tested GLM 5.2 on three real builds. A horror house game. A 3D stealth game. A Remotion marketing video. The results are exactly what I expect from Chinese open source coding models right now. The horror house has broken game logic. Collect all three keys, complete the objective, and the front door still won't open. The stealth game shipped with lighting so dark you can't see your own character. The Remotion video is rough. GLM 5.2 is faster than 5.1 and 10x cheaper than the frontier. But Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 are still in a different league for serious coding work. Chinese models keep missing the attention to detail that matters. I MISS FABLE 5 ALREADY. Full review live now.

I tested GLM 5.2 on three real builds. A horror house game. A 3D stealth game. A Remotion marketing video. The results are exactly what I expect from Chinese open source coding models right now. The horror house has broken game logic. Collect all three keys, complete the objective, and the front door still won't open. The stealth game shipped with lighting so dark you can't see your own character. The Remotion video is rough. GLM 5.2 is faster than 5.1 and 10x cheaper than the frontier. But Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 are still in a different league for serious coding work. Chinese models keep missing the attention to detail that matters. I MISS FABLE 5 ALREADY. Full review live now.

BridgeMind

24,527 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

FREE Claude Opus 4.8. FREE GPT 5.5. All free. 7,200 credits. I tested it myself - works. The platform is Gumloop(.)com. Chat interface plus connections into different services. Company raised $50M Here's the exact setup: → Register via Google OAuth or Microsoft OAuth → During onboarding, answer the questions and select every option you can → When asked to connect services, pick Apify, Semrush, and Reducto - no login needed for any of them → Skip the Slack connection → Done correctly, you land 7,200 credits minimum Models inside: Opus 4.6 through 4.8, GPT 5.3 Codex, GPT 5.4, GPT 5.5, Gemini 3 Flash, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Gemini 3.5 Flash, DeepSeek V4 Flash and Pro, Kimi K2.6. No card needed anywhere in this flow. I ran through it myself - fully working. Bookmark this before it gets patched.

FREE Claude Opus 4.8. FREE GPT 5.5. All free. 7,200 credits. I tested it myself - works. The platform is Gumloop(.)com. Chat interface plus connections into different services. Company raised $50M Here's the exact setup: → Register via Google OAuth or Microsoft OAuth → During onboarding, answer the questions and select every option you can → When asked to connect services, pick Apify, Semrush, and Reducto - no login needed for any of them → Skip the Slack connection → Done correctly, you land 7,200 credits minimum Models inside: Opus 4.6 through 4.8, GPT 5.3 Codex, GPT 5.4, GPT 5.5, Gemini 3 Flash, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Gemini 3.5 Flash, DeepSeek V4 Flash and Pro, Kimi K2.6. No card needed anywhere in this flow. I ran through it myself - fully working. Bookmark this before it gets patched.

Atenov int.

22,779 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Free Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5, and Gemini 3.1 Pro. 50 credits, no card. The platform behind it is valued at $4 billion. Most people are burning API credits testing prompts across three different subscriptions. Opus for one thing, GPT for another, Gemini when the other two fail. > ClickUp just made that unnecessary. Sign up with Google or a corporate email. 50 credits land immediately. 1 message costs 1 credit - that's 50 real conversations with Opus 4.8 before you spend a dollar. Models available: Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Gemini 3.5 Flash. Custom MCP support if you want your own tools wired in. This isn't a startup burning VC money on a growth hack. ClickUp was valued at $4 billion in 2021, raised $535M, and runs ~100,000 paying clients - McDonald's, Booking, Netflix, Papa Johns. The AI pivot landed in November 2025. Same infrastructure, same userbase, new models bolted on top. → Go to app(.)clickup(.)com → Sign up with Google → 50 credits land automatically → Pick your model and start Bookmark this before the free tier gets capped.

Free Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5, and Gemini 3.1 Pro. 50 credits, no card. The platform behind it is valued at $4 billion. Most people are burning API credits testing prompts across three different subscriptions. Opus for one thing, GPT for another, Gemini when the other two fail. > ClickUp just made that unnecessary. Sign up with Google or a corporate email. 50 credits land immediately. 1 message costs 1 credit - that's 50 real conversations with Opus 4.8 before you spend a dollar. Models available: Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Gemini 3.5 Flash. Custom MCP support if you want your own tools wired in. This isn't a startup burning VC money on a growth hack. ClickUp was valued at $4 billion in 2021, raised $535M, and runs ~100,000 paying clients - McDonald's, Booking, Netflix, Papa Johns. The AI pivot landed in November 2025. Same infrastructure, same userbase, new models bolted on top. → Go to app(.)clickup(.)com → Sign up with Google → 50 credits land automatically → Pick your model and start Bookmark this before the free tier gets capped.

Atenov int.

10,775 просмотров • 15 дней назад

GLM 5.2 just killed Claude Fable 5. Watch 6:36 first if you only have a minute. That’s where it stops being a tech demo and starts being a game. One small sentence. Two prompts. The AI built Minecraft from scratch. Not a clone. Not a demo. A working game: - inventory + crafting table - ore mining: coal, iron, gold - underground caves - mobs: zombies, sheep, chickens, cows, pigs - day/night cycle - fall damage - locked 60 FPS The numbers are insane: Notch built the original Minecraft solo over months. Microsoft bought it for $2.5B in 2014. GLM 5.2 shipped a working copy in the time it took the creator to grab a coffee. The science is wild too: The model iteratively builds the systems itself. Inventory first. Then crafting. Then mining. Then mobs. No extra instructions in between. The grift opportunity is even wilder: Indie studios charge $50k+ for a survival game prototype. Unity freelancers sit at $80/hr. Now one kid + one prompt + one evening = a shippable MVP. Full timestamps: 0:25 - Minecraft in ONE prompt 6:36 - Minecraft in TWO prompts (caves, mobs, crafting) 9:40 - the verdict: GLM 5.2 or Claude Fable 5? Claude Fable 5 still holds up. But GLM added caves and hostile mobs nobody asked for. Save this before your knowledge cutoff stops mattering.

GLM 5.2 just killed Claude Fable 5. Watch 6:36 first if you only have a minute. That’s where it stops being a tech demo and starts being a game. One small sentence. Two prompts. The AI built Minecraft from scratch. Not a clone. Not a demo. A working game: - inventory + crafting table - ore mining: coal, iron, gold - underground caves - mobs: zombies, sheep, chickens, cows, pigs - day/night cycle - fall damage - locked 60 FPS The numbers are insane: Notch built the original Minecraft solo over months. Microsoft bought it for $2.5B in 2014. GLM 5.2 shipped a working copy in the time it took the creator to grab a coffee. The science is wild too: The model iteratively builds the systems itself. Inventory first. Then crafting. Then mining. Then mobs. No extra instructions in between. The grift opportunity is even wilder: Indie studios charge $50k+ for a survival game prototype. Unity freelancers sit at $80/hr. Now one kid + one prompt + one evening = a shippable MVP. Full timestamps: 0:25 - Minecraft in ONE prompt 6:36 - Minecraft in TWO prompts (caves, mobs, crafting) 9:40 - the verdict: GLM 5.2 or Claude Fable 5? Claude Fable 5 still holds up. But GLM added caves and hostile mobs nobody asked for. Save this before your knowledge cutoff stops mattering.

AdiiX

144,802 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Claude Fable 5 makes new things possible. I one shot a full horror game with it. One prompt. I have never seen AI output a game like this. This is the leap I've been waiting for. 80.3 on SWE-Bench Pro vs Opus 4.8 at 69.2, the biggest jump I have ever seen on that benchmark. It passed GPT 5.5 in both coding and intelligence on Artificial Analysis. I already canceled my $200 ChatGPT Pro plan. It fixed a Bridge Voice bug in one shot that GPT 5.5, Opus 4.7, and Opus 4.8 all failed to crack for 2 months. 10/10. Best model I have ever used. Full review below.

Claude Fable 5 makes new things possible. I one shot a full horror game with it. One prompt. I have never seen AI output a game like this. This is the leap I've been waiting for. 80.3 on SWE-Bench Pro vs Opus 4.8 at 69.2, the biggest jump I have ever seen on that benchmark. It passed GPT 5.5 in both coding and intelligence on Artificial Analysis. I already canceled my $200 ChatGPT Pro plan. It fixed a Bridge Voice bug in one shot that GPT 5.5, Opus 4.7, and Opus 4.8 all failed to crack for 2 months. 10/10. Best model I have ever used. Full review below.

BridgeMind

19,020 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Seedance 2.0 - Advanced Workflows Series 12. Cinematics with Unreal Engine and Claude Fable 5 Fable 5 is an absolute beast model that can take control of Unreal Engine and create videogames. We can build scenes as a little video game with physics and assets and configure a playable character to create a cinematic scene. In this example I created a scene of an astronaut lost in space floating between asteroids. I created a zero gravity environment and made assets like cubes and spheres representing asteroids interact in this environment. I recorded the gameplay and later place a camera to build the cinematic. Workflow + Prompts 👇

Seedance 2.0 - Advanced Workflows Series 12. Cinematics with Unreal Engine and Claude Fable 5 Fable 5 is an absolute beast model that can take control of Unreal Engine and create videogames. We can build scenes as a little video game with physics and assets and configure a playable character to create a cinematic scene. In this example I created a scene of an astronaut lost in space floating between asteroids. I created a zero gravity environment and made assets like cubes and spheres representing asteroids interact in this environment. I recorded the gameplay and later place a camera to build the cinematic. Workflow + Prompts 👇

VoxelPlot

23,841 просмотров • 13 дней назад

hey if you're thinking about running qwopus (the claude opus distilled qwen 3.5 27B) as a coding agent, this might save you a few hours. i tested both the base and the distilled version on the same hardware. single RTX 3090. same prompt. same context. same everything. the only variable was the model weights. base qwen 3.5 27B built octopus invaders in 13 minutes. 1,827 lines across 11 files. zero steering. one scope bug that took 2 lines to fix. game ran. qwopus couldn't finish the same task. enemies overlapping on screen. bullets not firing. controls worked but the game was broken. i had to steer it multiple times and it still didn't produce a playable result. both run at 35 tok/s. both use thinking mode. the distilled version actually has better jinja compatibility and doesn't stall midtask like base does on claude code. for conversation and reasoning it feels sharper. but for multifile autonomous coding where the model needs to coordinate 10+ files without losing track, base wins and it's not close. distillation compresses reasoning patterns but seems to lose precision on complex coordination. the model "thinks" well but can't hold the full picture across files the way base can. tested on opencode (base) and claude code (both). next up is hermes agent framework on base. same hardware. same prompt. comparing agents now, not just models. video below. first half is the distilled model's broken game. second half is what base built on the same 3090. judge for yourself.

hey if you're thinking about running qwopus (the claude opus distilled qwen 3.5 27B) as a coding agent, this might save you a few hours. i tested both the base and the distilled version on the same hardware. single RTX 3090. same prompt. same context. same everything. the only variable was the model weights. base qwen 3.5 27B built octopus invaders in 13 minutes. 1,827 lines across 11 files. zero steering. one scope bug that took 2 lines to fix. game ran. qwopus couldn't finish the same task. enemies overlapping on screen. bullets not firing. controls worked but the game was broken. i had to steer it multiple times and it still didn't produce a playable result. both run at 35 tok/s. both use thinking mode. the distilled version actually has better jinja compatibility and doesn't stall midtask like base does on claude code. for conversation and reasoning it feels sharper. but for multifile autonomous coding where the model needs to coordinate 10+ files without losing track, base wins and it's not close. distillation compresses reasoning patterns but seems to lose precision on complex coordination. the model "thinks" well but can't hold the full picture across files the way base can. tested on opencode (base) and claude code (both). next up is hermes agent framework on base. same hardware. same prompt. comparing agents now, not just models. video below. first half is the distilled model's broken game. second half is what base built on the same 3090. judge for yourself.

Sudo su

43,806 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

I tried this so you don't have to. I know this is going to absolutely shock you but no this does not match the performance of Mythos. A few early thoughts: 1. The limits are pretty bad. I used 100% of my 5-hour usage in less than 1 prompt. 2. I specifically gave it a threejs task because it is an area that SOTA models have made big strides in, that other models just are not great at. I asked it to build a replica of Rocket League. I'll put the prompt in the comments. The game was pretty bad and notably worse than GPT 5.5. Even after multiple fixes, it took 7-8 back and forth with Codex just to get it an almost playable condition. Prior to these fixes, the game was not playable. Maybe it's really strong in other disciplines. I'd love to test that but I hit my limit in 1 prompt lol. GPT 5.5 by contrast did a pretty good job and required no follow ups. Fable would have absolutely nailed this as well. But yeah, early impressions...not great. But I hope I'm wrong. More testing tomorrow.

I tried this so you don't have to. I know this is going to absolutely shock you but no this does not match the performance of Mythos. A few early thoughts: 1. The limits are pretty bad. I used 100% of my 5-hour usage in less than 1 prompt. 2. I specifically gave it a threejs task because it is an area that SOTA models have made big strides in, that other models just are not great at. I asked it to build a replica of Rocket League. I'll put the prompt in the comments. The game was pretty bad and notably worse than GPT 5.5. Even after multiple fixes, it took 7-8 back and forth with Codex just to get it an almost playable condition. Prior to these fixes, the game was not playable. Maybe it's really strong in other disciplines. I'd love to test that but I hit my limit in 1 prompt lol. GPT 5.5 by contrast did a pretty good job and required no follow ups. Fable would have absolutely nailed this as well. But yeah, early impressions...not great. But I hope I'm wrong. More testing tomorrow.

am.will

585,915 просмотров • 26 дней назад

Fable 5 and GPT-5.6 built the same scroll-animated website from one skill in 32 minutes. Only one of them made it feel like a film. Same prompt. Boutique Japan travel brand, origami style. A subway pulls in, a paper house unfolds into a hotel, a bird takes flight as you scroll. Doing this by hand is brutal, so the skill handles everything automatically. Here is how it works: → One anchor image sets the visual style and every scene that follows inherits it automatically → Higgsfield generates the video straight from the terminal through the MCP connection, no manual exporting → FFmpeg rips every frame out of the generated video automatically → Each frame then gets mapped to a scroll position so your scrollbar literally becomes the playhead The verdict came down to transitions. GPT-5.6 built strong individual scenes with incredible detail inside each one, but then hard-cut between them with no connection. Fable 5 stitched everything together. Wires push out of the top of the frame while the next scene blurs in behind it, gains depth and locks into place seamlessly. Same skill, same prompts, 10 generations each from both models. GPT-5.6 built 4 scenes. Fable 5 built one continuous film. Credit: Chase AI

0xMarioNawfal

48,091 просмотров • 5 дней назад

HE TESTED 5 AI MODELS WITH HERMES AGENT AFTER FABLE 5 GOT BANNED. ONE CHINESE MODEL IS DOING OPUS-LEVEL WORK FOR FREE. Here's the full breakdown: → DeepSeek V4 Flash – super fast but hallucinates too much for complex tasks. Good for small quick jobs only. → ChatGPT 5.5 – best for beginners. Pro plan gives you enormous usage. Handles Gmail, Google Drive, Stripe connectors perfectly. The issue: it identifies problems but never proactively suggests solutions. Frustrating for daily use. → Claude – still the best quality but API billing only. Subscription access removed. Not viable with Hermes Agent unless you're paying API rates. → Kimi K 2.7 – coding-heavy sub-agent tasks. Not a main driver but excellent as a worker underneath an orchestrator. → GLM 5.2 – the winner. Opus-level quality. Chinese open source model. Since switching to it, the troubleshooting headaches are gone. His current setup: GLM 5.2 as the orchestrator brain. Kimi K 2.7 as the email assistant worker underneath. He only talks to the orchestrator and it delegates everything else. Plus: the latest Hermes Agent update now supports iMessage. Bookmark this post. Full breakdown in the video below.

HE TESTED 5 AI MODELS WITH HERMES AGENT AFTER FABLE 5 GOT BANNED. ONE CHINESE MODEL IS DOING OPUS-LEVEL WORK FOR FREE. Here's the full breakdown: → DeepSeek V4 Flash – super fast but hallucinates too much for complex tasks. Good for small quick jobs only. → ChatGPT 5.5 – best for beginners. Pro plan gives you enormous usage. Handles Gmail, Google Drive, Stripe connectors perfectly. The issue: it identifies problems but never proactively suggests solutions. Frustrating for daily use. → Claude – still the best quality but API billing only. Subscription access removed. Not viable with Hermes Agent unless you're paying API rates. → Kimi K 2.7 – coding-heavy sub-agent tasks. Not a main driver but excellent as a worker underneath an orchestrator. → GLM 5.2 – the winner. Opus-level quality. Chinese open source model. Since switching to it, the troubleshooting headaches are gone. His current setup: GLM 5.2 as the orchestrator brain. Kimi K 2.7 as the email assistant worker underneath. He only talks to the orchestrator and it delegates everything else. Plus: the latest Hermes Agent update now supports iMessage. Bookmark this post. Full breakdown in the video below.

SCOTTY BEAM

46,929 просмотров • 25 дней назад

CLAUDE FABLE 5 IS BACK, BUT IS IT THE SAME POWER OR WAS IT QUIETLY TRIMMED Fable 5 is available again. Anthropic's most powerful model is back globally for every paid account When it first landed three weeks ago, the difference was obvious right away. It didn't just help, it carried the task to the finish: entire web projects, presentations, reports, analysis. People dropped their work on other models and simply waited for Fable And the wait happened because three days after launch the US hit the model with export controls. There was no clean way to cut off foreign nationals, so Anthropic shut access down for everyone Now the restrictions are lifted, and here are the terms it came back on: > until July 7 it's included in a plan and covers up to 50% of the weekly limit > after that only through credits, topped up in settings > output runs at 50 dollars per million tokens Anthropic says it's the same model, just with stronger protection against cybersecurity use. Because the filter is so strict, there will be false positives now and then, and a request will get bumped down to a weaker model Whether it's the same power or quietly trimmed will only show after a couple of weeks of real work

CLAUDE FABLE 5 IS BACK, BUT IS IT THE SAME POWER OR WAS IT QUIETLY TRIMMED Fable 5 is available again. Anthropic's most powerful model is back globally for every paid account When it first landed three weeks ago, the difference was obvious right away. It didn't just help, it carried the task to the finish: entire web projects, presentations, reports, analysis. People dropped their work on other models and simply waited for Fable And the wait happened because three days after launch the US hit the model with export controls. There was no clean way to cut off foreign nationals, so Anthropic shut access down for everyone Now the restrictions are lifted, and here are the terms it came back on: > until July 7 it's included in a plan and covers up to 50% of the weekly limit > after that only through credits, topped up in settings > output runs at 50 dollars per million tokens Anthropic says it's the same model, just with stronger protection against cybersecurity use. Because the filter is so strict, there will be false positives now and then, and a request will get bumped down to a weaker model Whether it's the same power or quietly trimmed will only show after a couple of weeks of real work

Mikadzyki🌙

19,370 просмотров • 16 дней назад