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。

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 次观看 • 1 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

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 次观看 • 2 个月前

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

498,486 次观看 • 1 个月前

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

250,405 次观看 • 1 个月前

🚨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

300,590 次观看 • 1 个月前

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

31,069 次观看 • 1 个月前

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 次观看 • 1 个月前

This test shows clearly why GPT 5.6 Sol wins I asked the simplest prompt ever : > Create a gmail clone, the nearest possible to the real gmail ui You can see the result, GPT 5.6 Sol and Fable make a 100% perfect But here's the price difference: → GPT 5.6 Terra: $1.04 - 8 minutes → GPT 5.6 Luna: $0.44 - 10 minutes → GPT 5.6 Sol: $6.72 - 20 minutes → Claude Fable 5: $25.09 - 40 minutes Fable is 3.7x more expensive than Sol for "the same result"

This test shows clearly why GPT 5.6 Sol wins I asked the simplest prompt ever : > Create a gmail clone, the nearest possible to the real gmail ui You can see the result, GPT 5.6 Sol and Fable make a 100% perfect But here's the price difference: → GPT 5.6 Terra: $1.04 - 8 minutes → GPT 5.6 Luna: $0.44 - 10 minutes → GPT 5.6 Sol: $6.72 - 20 minutes → Claude Fable 5: $25.09 - 40 minutes Fable is 3.7x more expensive than Sol for "the same result"

Melvyn • Builder

22,239 次观看 • 28 天前

Frontier AI went free this month. Not cheaper. Free. New models: > Gemini 3.6 Flash. 1,500 req/day, 1M tokens/min, no card > Kimi K3. 2.8T MoE open weights, shipped today. Largest open-weight model ever > DeepSeek V4. 1.6T MoE, MIT license, on HuggingFace > GLM-5.2. 753B MoE, 1M context, MIT license > Qwen 3.8-Max. Free preview, no login, no card > Mistral Vibe. Work Mode free. Agent features, scheduled tasks. ChatGPT and Claude charge $20/mo for the same upd (the article): > Gemini 3.5 → 3.6 Flash (July 21) > Claude $100 Fable 5 credit, claim by Aug 2 > Claude for Teachers: free through June 2027 > Malta: free ChatGPT Plus, 1 year. First country-wide deal > OpenAI: $100 credits for posting about ChatGPT Work > Perplexity Pro: 1 year free via Xfinity > Alibaba Cloud: 70M tokens + $200 credits > Grok 4.5 live across all platforms Chinese labs shipped 4 of 5 biggest open weights this month. OpenAI and Anthropic shipped credits. The access gap didn't close. It already closed.

Frontier AI went free this month. Not cheaper. Free. New models: > Gemini 3.6 Flash. 1,500 req/day, 1M tokens/min, no card > Kimi K3. 2.8T MoE open weights, shipped today. Largest open-weight model ever > DeepSeek V4. 1.6T MoE, MIT license, on HuggingFace > GLM-5.2. 753B MoE, 1M context, MIT license > Qwen 3.8-Max. Free preview, no login, no card > Mistral Vibe. Work Mode free. Agent features, scheduled tasks. ChatGPT and Claude charge $20/mo for the same upd (the article): > Gemini 3.5 → 3.6 Flash (July 21) > Claude $100 Fable 5 credit, claim by Aug 2 > Claude for Teachers: free through June 2027 > Malta: free ChatGPT Plus, 1 year. First country-wide deal > OpenAI: $100 credits for posting about ChatGPT Work > Perplexity Pro: 1 year free via Xfinity > Alibaba Cloud: 70M tokens + $200 credits > Grok 4.5 live across all platforms Chinese labs shipped 4 of 5 biggest open weights this month. OpenAI and Anthropic shipped credits. The access gap didn't close. It already closed.

ＺＥＦＩ

49,876 次观看 • 15 天前

FREE Fable 5, Opus 4.8, Sonnet 5, and GPT-5.6 in one IDE. Alibaba built it, 520 credits at signup - one Sonnet 5 message eats 4. It's called Accio. Web or Windows desktop, both free. Registration takes 30 seconds via Google or email. Inside: → Fable 5 for creative and long-context work. → Opus 4.6 through 4.8 - the full Anthropic frontier lineup. → Sonnet 5 for speed and reasoning at pennies per message. → GPT-5.5 for OpenAI native tasks. → Gemini 3.1 Pro and 3.5 Flash for multimodal. Real math: 520 credits divided by 4 = 130 Sonnet 5 messages in your first week. Cheaper models drop that even further. Anthropic charges $20/month for the same access with weekly limits. Custom MCP support built in. Profile > Settings > MCP. Every agent workflow you've built for Claude Desktop ports over instantly. Setup: → Go to accio(.)com → Sign up with Google → 520 credits land automatically → Pick your model and start firing prompts Bookmark this before Alibaba puts it behind a paywall.

Atenov int.

31,157 次观看 • 27 天前

Who said LLMs can only generate text? I gave 5 frontier models the ABC notation of Canon in D (the fast part) and asked each to play it in their own style. > GPT 5.6, Fable 5 & Opus 5 extended it and wrote their own endings > Gemini 3.6 Flash kept the notes, swapped the instruments > Kimi K3 rewrote the whole thing My pick: Fable's version sounds surprisingly rich. Opus's version is great too. Sound on 🔊

Who said LLMs can only generate text? I gave 5 frontier models the ABC notation of Canon in D (the fast part) and asked each to play it in their own style. > GPT 5.6, Fable 5 & Opus 5 extended it and wrote their own endings > Gemini 3.6 Flash kept the notes, swapped the instruments > Kimi K3 rewrote the whole thing My pick: Fable's version sounds surprisingly rich. Opus's version is great too. Sound on 🔊

stevibe

11,961 次观看 • 13 天前

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 次观看 • 1 个月前

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 次观看 • 1 年前

Crazy. Opus 5 outperformed Fable 5 on 3d modeling at 2/3 the price We tested Opus 5, Fable 5, and GPT 5.6 Sol on the same prompt: build an explorable Japanese suburban street in Three.js, full 3D, rendered like a hand-drawn anime background. All on Max effort. Opus 5 took the longest but delivered the most varied scenery: clean dark outlines, flat cel-shaded color bands, dense street details down to the vending machine signage. Fable paid more attention to details, and while GPT 5.6 Sol was 3-4x cheaper and the fastest, but the render shows it: sparse, washed out, barely styled. Opus 5: 1hr 21min · $26.7 Fable 5: 1hr 5min · $35 GPT 5.6 Sol: 41min · $7.1

Crazy. Opus 5 outperformed Fable 5 on 3d modeling at 2/3 the price We tested Opus 5, Fable 5, and GPT 5.6 Sol on the same prompt: build an explorable Japanese suburban street in Three.js, full 3D, rendered like a hand-drawn anime background. All on Max effort. Opus 5 took the longest but delivered the most varied scenery: clean dark outlines, flat cel-shaded color bands, dense street details down to the vending machine signage. Fable paid more attention to details, and while GPT 5.6 Sol was 3-4x cheaper and the fastest, but the render shows it: sparse, washed out, barely styled. Opus 5: 1hr 21min · $26.7 Fable 5: 1hr 5min · $35 GPT 5.6 Sol: 41min · $7.1

GMI Cloud

53,240 次观看 • 18 天前

🚨 DeepSeek V4 GA vs Fable 5 I gave both models the exact same 3D game generation prompt The results surprised me In my test, DeepSeek V4 GA produced the stronger output > Better environment generation > Stronger implementation > Excellent price-to-performance Which one do you prefer? 👇

🚨 DeepSeek V4 GA vs Fable 5 I gave both models the exact same 3D game generation prompt The results surprised me In my test, DeepSeek V4 GA produced the stronger output > Better environment generation > Stronger implementation > Excellent price-to-performance Which one do you prefer? 👇

Salio

31,520 次观看 • 21 天前

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

139,979 次观看 • 1 个月前

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

24,681 次观看 • 1 个月前

FABLE 5 JUST REBUILT FORTNITE FROM 1 PROMPT IN 20 MINUTES. EPIC NEEDED HUNDREDS OF ENGINEERS AND 6 YEARS. The test was simple: Fable 5 vs GLM 5.2, one prompt each, a 100-player battle royale running in the browser with no engine and no team. GLM went first and checked all 8 milestones. The game loaded with a battle bus, a generated map, Tilted Towers, even health and shield bars ripped straight from 2018. Then it fell apart. 2 FPS on landing, S walking forward and W walking backward, a gun that fires upward and a camera that refuses to look up. First fight ended with the enemy standing above physically impossible to aim at. Then Fable 5 took the same prompt on max effort. Different game entirely. Real character models instead of beans, hit reactions lighting up on contact, a shadow tracking every player, movement that just works out of the box. One follow-up prompt “add more Fortnite elements” and it shipped gliders, chests, shield potions, medkits and a sniper without breaking a thing. Final circle at 3:28 AM. Storm closing, 0 bullets left, box to box with medkit spam and a last-second swap to the SMG. Victory Royale in a game an AI wrote from a single sentence. GLM checked more boxes. Fable built something you could actually play and no benchmark on earth measures that gap. Epic needed 6 years. Fable 5 needed 1 prompt.

FABLE 5 JUST REBUILT FORTNITE FROM 1 PROMPT IN 20 MINUTES. EPIC NEEDED HUNDREDS OF ENGINEERS AND 6 YEARS. The test was simple: Fable 5 vs GLM 5.2, one prompt each, a 100-player battle royale running in the browser with no engine and no team. GLM went first and checked all 8 milestones. The game loaded with a battle bus, a generated map, Tilted Towers, even health and shield bars ripped straight from 2018. Then it fell apart. 2 FPS on landing, S walking forward and W walking backward, a gun that fires upward and a camera that refuses to look up. First fight ended with the enemy standing above physically impossible to aim at. Then Fable 5 took the same prompt on max effort. Different game entirely. Real character models instead of beans, hit reactions lighting up on contact, a shadow tracking every player, movement that just works out of the box. One follow-up prompt “add more Fortnite elements” and it shipped gliders, chests, shield potions, medkits and a sniper without breaking a thing. Final circle at 3:28 AM. Storm closing, 0 bullets left, box to box with medkit spam and a last-second swap to the SMG. Victory Royale in a game an AI wrote from a single sentence. GLM checked more boxes. Fable built something you could actually play and no benchmark on earth measures that gap. Epic needed 6 years. Fable 5 needed 1 prompt.

West Lord

80,912 次观看 • 1 个月前

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 次观看 • 1 个月前

Opus 5 crushed Fable 5 at 3D destruction physics for 2x cheaper! We gave four models the same task: build three self-contained HTML scenes with real physics Prompts: - A tornado that sucks in a whole field - A wrecking ball taking down an apartment block - An overloaded truck collapsing a truss bridge Outputs: - Opus 5: 55.9K tokens, $1.40 - Fable 5: 55.1K tokens, $2.82 - Kimi K3: 35.7K tokens, $0.55 - GPT 5.6: 20.1K tokens, $0.31 Opus got all three right unlike the other models. Houses fly up the funnel and out the top, the wall breaks where the ball hits and the rubble piles up, the bridge drops the truck into the river. Fable had almost nothing on the ground for the tornado to pick up, its building collapsed on its own before the ball even touched it and its bridge blew into sticks all at once. GPT is the cheapest here but its ball never reached the building at all and its bridge fell apart in a way nothing falls apart in real life. Kimi K3, the new Chinese frontier model, ended up in the same place as GPT

Opus 5 crushed Fable 5 at 3D destruction physics for 2x cheaper! We gave four models the same task: build three self-contained HTML scenes with real physics Prompts: - A tornado that sucks in a whole field - A wrecking ball taking down an apartment block - An overloaded truck collapsing a truss bridge Outputs: - Opus 5: 55.9K tokens, $1.40 - Fable 5: 55.1K tokens, $2.82 - Kimi K3: 35.7K tokens, $0.55 - GPT 5.6: 20.1K tokens, $0.31 Opus got all three right unlike the other models. Houses fly up the funnel and out the top, the wall breaks where the ball hits and the rubble piles up, the bridge drops the truck into the river. Fable had almost nothing on the ground for the tornado to pick up, its building collapsed on its own before the ball even touched it and its bridge blew into sticks all at once. GPT is the cheapest here but its ball never reached the building at all and its bridge fell apart in a way nothing falls apart in real life. Kimi K3, the new Chinese frontier model, ended up in the same place as GPT

atomic.chat

1,477,859 次观看 • 18 天前

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.

10,846 次观看 • 1 个月前