Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

I re-ran my Fable 5 3D dashboard demo with GLM-5.2. Same prompt. Same reference image. The result is actually pretty solid: 3D globe, route arcs, glass panels, stats cards, and a usable demo page. It is not at Fable 5 level yet, especially in visual precision and one-shot polish.... show more

AI Builder Club

4,614 subscribers

49,848 views • 1 month ago •via X (Twitter)

Gaming Education Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

We ran a test comparing GLM 5.2 vs Sonnet 5. We used the same prompt, with /design in the command code. The difference is big - effects, motion, and especially the footer. Sonnet 5 had nice hover effects, but didn't come close to GLM 5.2 GLM 5.2 wins on quality and pricing.

We ran a test comparing GLM 5.2 vs Sonnet 5. We used the same prompt, with /design in the command code. The difference is big - effects, motion, and especially the footer. Sonnet 5 had nice hover effects, but didn't come close to GLM 5.2 GLM 5.2 wins on quality and pricing.

Command Code

44,260 views • 1 month ago

GLM-5.2 is legit. It produces games easily and as accurately as SOTA closed-source models. My GLM 5.2 versus Fable 5 comparison is close, but I prefer Fable 5 just a little. Both games are equal in nearly all respects, but Fable 5 produced slightly better graphics and more challenging gameplay. Both needed 2 shots to get all the prompt instructions correct.

GLM-5.2 is legit. It produces games easily and as accurately as SOTA closed-source models. My GLM 5.2 versus Fable 5 comparison is close, but I prefer Fable 5 just a little. Both games are equal in nearly all respects, but Fable 5 produced slightly better graphics and more challenging gameplay. Both needed 2 shots to get all the prompt instructions correct.

David Hendrickson

18,779 views • 1 month ago

I was a bit suspicious of the claim, but GLM-5.2 is pretty good at designing stuff. Obviously not at the level of a professional designer, but it has that Opus-level quality. Great at: - games - landing pages - HTML artifacts - 3D worlds Wish I had Fable 5 to compare with.

I was a bit suspicious of the claim, but GLM-5.2 is pretty good at designing stuff. Obviously not at the level of a professional designer, but it has that Opus-level quality. Great at: - games - landing pages - HTML artifacts - 3D worlds Wish I had Fable 5 to compare with.

elvis

18,938 views • 1 month ago

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable 5. I put both through my hardest frontend test: a 3D globe dashboard. Same prompt. Same reference image. Sol on the left. Fable on the right. GPT-5.6 Sol is a major leap from 5.5. Fable 5 still wins on spacing, balance, and first-pass polish. For me, Sol comes close at half the cost.

GPT-5.6 Sol vs Fable 5. I put both through my hardest frontend test: a 3D globe dashboard. Same prompt. Same reference image. Sol on the left. Fable on the right. GPT-5.6 Sol is a major leap from 5.5. Fable 5 still wins on spacing, balance, and first-pass polish. For me, Sol comes close at half the cost.

Kai

198,439 views • 28 days ago

Did GPT-5.6 Sol beat Fable 5 for frontend work? GPT-5.5 got roasted for its frontend. Had to test the new one. Same challenge: one prompt + one reference image → Three.js 3D globe dashboard. Verdict: Fable 5 still edges it out. But at half the cost, GPT-5.6 Sol is a serious option now.

Did GPT-5.6 Sol beat Fable 5 for frontend work? GPT-5.5 got roasted for its frontend. Had to test the new one. Same challenge: one prompt + one reference image → Three.js 3D globe dashboard. Verdict: Fable 5 still edges it out. But at half the cost, GPT-5.6 Sol is a serious option now.

Kai

21,502 views • 28 days ago

Kimi K3 vs Fable 5. Same prompt and reference. 3D globe dashboard. Kimi left, Fable right. To me, Kimi's UI fidelity is a touch better. The globe looks better too, with richer textures and smoother motion. This task: ~$3 with Kimi, ~$15 with Fable. I'd pick Kimi k3 for frontend work.

Kimi K3 vs Fable 5. Same prompt and reference. 3D globe dashboard. Kimi left, Fable right. To me, Kimi's UI fidelity is a touch better. The globe looks better too, with richer textures and smoother motion. This task: ~$3 with Kimi, ~$15 with Fable. I'd pick Kimi k3 for frontend work.

Kai

225,541 views • 18 days ago

GLM 5.2 just beat Fable 5 at website design. 🌐 The crazy part: GLM is text-only. It can build the site, but it can’t inspect the result. So we paired it with Browser Use v2 multimodal QA subagents. > Reviews the site and finds bugs > Judges the aesthetics > Sends GLM targeted fixes to iterate on Build + full QA cost less than $0.75. Try it now ↓

GLM 5.2 just beat Fable 5 at website design. 🌐 The crazy part: GLM is text-only. It can build the site, but it can’t inspect the result. So we paired it with Browser Use v2 multimodal QA subagents. > Reviews the site and finds bugs > Judges the aesthetics > Sends GLM targeted fixes to iterate on Build + full QA cost less than $0.75. Try it now ↓

Browser Use

273,322 views • 1 month ago

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 views • 1 month ago

Everyone keeps talking about how good Kimi K3 is. So I gave it one of my favorite frontend tests: one prompt + one reference image. The task: rebuild a 3D globe dashboard. 🌎 The result was almost too good. It did not just build a working page. The texture, lighting, spacing, depth, glass panels, and overall layout were all remarkably close to the reference. Some parts felt nearly pixel-perfect. My honest first impression: for this kind of frontend work, Kimi K3 might be slightly better than Fable 5. All at Sonnet prices.

Everyone keeps talking about how good Kimi K3 is. So I gave it one of my favorite frontend tests: one prompt + one reference image. The task: rebuild a 3D globe dashboard. 🌎 The result was almost too good. It did not just build a working page. The texture, lighting, spacing, depth, glass panels, and overall layout were all remarkably close to the reference. Some parts felt nearly pixel-perfect. My honest first impression: for this kind of frontend work, Kimi K3 might be slightly better than Fable 5. All at Sonnet prices.

Kai

403,946 views • 21 days ago

I love using GLM 5.2 for web app iteration. My workflow: generate 6 variations, then pick the best one and continue iterating on it. I built Recast to make this even easier. Give it a prompt, get 6 variations, download the code for your favorite version, then continue iterating in your own coding agent. GLM 5.2 works really well for this use case since it's fast, cheap, and great at design. On average, you can make 3-6 landing pages with GLM 5.2 for every one you can generate with Opus 4.8. And the design variety of the GLM landing pages helps a lot with trying to think through what style you want to go with. Recast is launching soon (as a web app + skill).

I love using GLM 5.2 for web app iteration. My workflow: generate 6 variations, then pick the best one and continue iterating on it. I built Recast to make this even easier. Give it a prompt, get 6 variations, download the code for your favorite version, then continue iterating in your own coding agent. GLM 5.2 works really well for this use case since it's fast, cheap, and great at design. On average, you can make 3-6 landing pages with GLM 5.2 for every one you can generate with Opus 4.8. And the design variety of the GLM landing pages helps a lot with trying to think through what style you want to go with. Recast is launching soon (as a web app + skill).

Hassan

20,164 views • 1 month ago

Kimi K3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol. I reused the 3D globe test from Kimi vs Fable 5. Same prompt. Same reference image. Kimi K3 left. GPT-5.6 Sol right. Kimi edges out Sol on UI fidelity and globe realism. At current API prices, Kimi is about 50% cheaper. For frontend work, it's my pick.

Kimi K3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol. I reused the 3D globe test from Kimi vs Fable 5. Same prompt. Same reference image. Kimi K3 left. GPT-5.6 Sol right. Kimi edges out Sol on UI fidelity and globe realism. At current API prices, Kimi is about 50% cheaper. For frontend work, it's my pick.

Kai

15,769 views • 17 days ago

Fable 5 is BACK on AI/ML API We gave Sonnet 5 and Fable 5 the exact same prompt and same real flight dataset of 70 airports and 435 routes pulled from flightradar. Then asked each one to turn it into a cinematic 3D globe as a single HTML file. Outputs: Sonnet 5: 9.8k tokens, $0.10 Fable 5: 15k tokens, $0.77 Sonnet 5 came in 87% cheaper. It drew the routes, but the planet underneath them barely exists: a dark wireframe with the arcs floating in space. Fable 5 built an actual Earth: textured oceans, ice caps, atmospheric glow. Mythos-class models are truly a masterpiece. Docs, guides & setup below:

Fable 5 is BACK on AI/ML API We gave Sonnet 5 and Fable 5 the exact same prompt and same real flight dataset of 70 airports and 435 routes pulled from flightradar. Then asked each one to turn it into a cinematic 3D globe as a single HTML file. Outputs: Sonnet 5: 9.8k tokens, $0.10 Fable 5: 15k tokens, $0.77 Sonnet 5 came in 87% cheaper. It drew the routes, but the planet underneath them barely exists: a dark wireframe with the arcs floating in space. Fable 5 built an actual Earth: textured oceans, ice caps, atmospheric glow. Mythos-class models are truly a masterpiece. Docs, guides & setup below:

AI/ML API

498,391 views • 1 month ago

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 views • 1 month ago

i've been looking for the best harness for GLM 5.2. finally, I found it. Devin Desktop is remarkably good, and it's free until July 5th, so try it now. nader dabit swyx Zixuan Li as a heavy user, i pay $160 max GLM coding plan, but the ZAI team is swamped with everybody hammering the API, so the API is not very stable. devin changed the whole experience. Here are 3 things: 𝟏. 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞. I asked GLM to port my customized Solarized Green theme into the Devin Desktop. It edited the theme JSON and registered the extension (see below demo). I couldn't get this working in Zcode. 𝟐. 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐭. likely, devin is using the Modal FP8 DFlash accelerated GLM 5.2 model. Speculative decoding is all we need. 𝟑. 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐲. one hiccup: the default windsurf cascade agent didn't work for me. switched to devin local, works beautifully.

i've been looking for the best harness for GLM 5.2. finally, I found it. Devin Desktop is remarkably good, and it's free until July 5th, so try it now. nader dabit swyx Zixuan Li as a heavy user, i pay $160 max GLM coding plan, but the ZAI team is swamped with everybody hammering the API, so the API is not very stable. devin changed the whole experience. Here are 3 things: 𝟏. 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞. I asked GLM to port my customized Solarized Green theme into the Devin Desktop. It edited the theme JSON and registered the extension (see below demo). I couldn't get this working in Zcode. 𝟐. 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐬𝐭. likely, devin is using the Modal FP8 DFlash accelerated GLM 5.2 model. Speculative decoding is all we need. 𝟑. 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐲. one hiccup: the default windsurf cascade agent didn't work for me. switched to devin local, works beautifully.

lily zhang

28,069 views • 1 month ago

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 views • 1 month ago

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 views • 1 month ago

Timelapse #156 (36 hrs) - Worked with the tiny corp on getting GLM 5.2 running on 8xMI300X (sglang won here) - Launched KernelBench-Mega and updated Kernelbench-Hard with h100 and b200 sweeps - Took care of boring business stuff - Did some training sweeps for specialized technical vocab audio model - Some bugs with putting kernelbench-mega and hard on cloud instances so had to do some reruns. Learned a lot though - Setting up my own local rl infra and profiling concurrency 128 rollouts with vllm. Became clear to me that I need to serve in nvfp4, use MoE only for throughput, reap so training doesn’t OOM, dig into the vllm kernel graph itself to not underutilize my hardware from poor flashinfer/cutlass selections for my rtx pro 6000 sm120 architecture - Might do online distillation from glm 5.2 but for now taking it one step at a time - Slept for a bit then woke up and showered - Fixed an issue with SGLang tensor parallel deadlock on GLM 5.2 architecture with MTP enabled - GLM 5.2 inference is 2-3x faster than coding plans and running on amd boxes - Spent time with family - Hung out with some friends - Recorded some yoctogpt lectures with the revamped notebook (high taste btw) - Setting up dflash training for GLM 5.2

Timelapse #156 (36 hrs) - Worked with the tiny corp on getting GLM 5.2 running on 8xMI300X (sglang won here) - Launched KernelBench-Mega and updated Kernelbench-Hard with h100 and b200 sweeps - Took care of boring business stuff - Did some training sweeps for specialized technical vocab audio model - Some bugs with putting kernelbench-mega and hard on cloud instances so had to do some reruns. Learned a lot though - Setting up my own local rl infra and profiling concurrency 128 rollouts with vllm. Became clear to me that I need to serve in nvfp4, use MoE only for throughput, reap so training doesn’t OOM, dig into the vllm kernel graph itself to not underutilize my hardware from poor flashinfer/cutlass selections for my rtx pro 6000 sm120 architecture - Might do online distillation from glm 5.2 but for now taking it one step at a time - Slept for a bit then woke up and showered - Fixed an issue with SGLang tensor parallel deadlock on GLM 5.2 architecture with MTP enabled - GLM 5.2 inference is 2-3x faster than coding plans and running on amd boxes - Spent time with family - Hung out with some friends - Recorded some yoctogpt lectures with the revamped notebook (high taste btw) - Setting up dflash training for GLM 5.2

Elliot Arledge

45,447 views • 1 month ago

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 views • 1 month ago

Claude Opus 5 just one-shotted this FPS. Less than 1 hour from prompt to playable demo. Every weapon, enemy, mechanic and environment was generated from scratch. Prompt below 👇 There is no prompt below, because the first section is exactly the kind of post I’m tired of seeing every time a new model drops. A flashy demo, “one-shot” in the caption, “built in under an hour”… anything to farm impressions while conveniently hiding the actual process. If it was really made from a single prompt, show the prompt. That’s what I do on this account. When I claim something is a one-prompt prototype built with GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra and Codex, I share the prompt publicly so anyone can verify it. AI is already making game prototyping incredible. We don’t need fake “one-shot” stories to prove it. Original footage:

Claude Opus 5 just one-shotted this FPS. Less than 1 hour from prompt to playable demo. Every weapon, enemy, mechanic and environment was generated from scratch. Prompt below 👇 There is no prompt below, because the first section is exactly the kind of post I’m tired of seeing every time a new model drops. A flashy demo, “one-shot” in the caption, “built in under an hour”… anything to farm impressions while conveniently hiding the actual process. If it was really made from a single prompt, show the prompt. That’s what I do on this account. When I claim something is a one-prompt prototype built with GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra and Codex, I share the prompt publicly so anyone can verify it. AI is already making game prototyping incredible. We don’t need fake “one-shot” stories to prove it. Original footage:

Givros

14,794 views • 12 days ago

Claude Fable 5 vs Kimi K3 — same 3D build, 3.3x cheaper. someone prototyped a 3D stadium seat-view picker with Fable 5 — preview exactly what you'll see from your seat before buying a ticket. I rebuilt the same thing with Kimi K3 in two hours, at 3.3x lower cost. no more static seat maps. pick a seat, see the actual view in 3D, then buy. works for cinemas, concerts, cricket grounds, Wimbledon — any venue. K3 dropped this week: 2.8 trillion parameters, open weights July 27. 3D is the future, and it just got a lot cheaper to build. Live Fable 5: Live Kimi K3: Code: full Kimi K3 breakdown below.

Claude Fable 5 vs Kimi K3 — same 3D build, 3.3x cheaper. someone prototyped a 3D stadium seat-view picker with Fable 5 — preview exactly what you'll see from your seat before buying a ticket. I rebuilt the same thing with Kimi K3 in two hours, at 3.3x lower cost. no more static seat maps. pick a seat, see the actual view in 3D, then buy. works for cinemas, concerts, cricket grounds, Wimbledon — any venue. K3 dropped this week: 2.8 trillion parameters, open weights July 27. 3D is the future, and it just got a lot cheaper to build. Live Fable 5: Live Kimi K3: Code: full Kimi K3 breakdown below.

Kirill

206,521 views • 18 days ago