Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

It's Christmas morning: OpenAI and Anthropic shipped new models on the same day! We tested GPT 5.3 Codex vs. Opus 4.6 head-to-head. Verdict: the models are converging. Here’s what we found 🧵

every's profile picture

Every 🪨

54,688 subscribers

11,975 просмотров • 7 месяцев 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

I tested Kling 2.6 Motion Control head-to-head against other video models. Same prompt. Same reference. Kling outperformed across the board. Here’s why: 👇
0:10

I tested Kling 2.6 Motion Control head-to-head against other video models. Same prompt. Same reference. Kling outperformed across the board. Here’s why: 👇

Rishabh

131,196 просмотров • 9 месяцев назад

We benchmarked the top models on our own coding tasks. The results: - GPT 5.6 Sol (high) won on performance - Grok 4.6 (high) was the runner-up - GLM 5.3 Flash won on cost at comparable quality All 50%+ cheaper than our previous default (Opus 5)
0:12

We benchmarked the top models on our own coding tasks. The results: - GPT 5.6 Sol (high) won on performance - Grok 4.6 (high) was the runner-up - GLM 5.3 Flash won on cost at comparable quality All 50%+ cheaper than our previous default (Opus 5)

Zach Lloyd

21,612 просмотров • 21 дней назад

It's never been a better time to be creative. (ever) The two best frontier models (ever) have been released within 30 days of each other. Here’s what we learned from running 4 frontier models head to head. >Sol has taste and Fable takes direction. 10 identical landing page briefs, judged blind by working creatives. GPT 5.6 Sol won 82% on loose briefs. But when handed a real design spec it finished last. 🧵
0:16

It's never been a better time to be creative. (ever) The two best frontier models (ever) have been released within 30 days of each other. Here’s what we learned from running 4 frontier models head to head. >Sol has taste and Fable takes direction. 10 identical landing page briefs, judged blind by working creatives. GPT 5.6 Sol won 82% on loose briefs. But when handed a real design spec it finished last. 🧵

ben

35,609 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

We ran a blind head-to-head on the leading image models for one specific job: >product detail shots. Seedream 5.0 Lite (BytePlus, ByteDance) beat the flagship models from Google, OpenAI, and Black Forest Labs. It won 2 out of 3 times.
0:16

We ran a blind head-to-head on the leading image models for one specific job: >product detail shots. Seedream 5.0 Lite (BytePlus, ByteDance) beat the flagship models from Google, OpenAI, and Black Forest Labs. It won 2 out of 3 times.

ben

26,202 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Anthropic just shipped Claude Opus 5. It's state of the art for coding, close to Claude Fable 5. So we re-ran our landing page study: >10 client briefs, >4 models, >10 expert designers, >600 blind comparisons, >400 write ups. TLDR: designers liked its words more than its pages. more in the 🧵
0:16

Anthropic just shipped Claude Opus 5. It's state of the art for coding, close to Claude Fable 5. So we re-ran our landing page study: >10 client briefs, >4 models, >10 expert designers, >600 blind comparisons, >400 write ups. TLDR: designers liked its words more than its pages. more in the 🧵

ben

14,210 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Qwen 3.7-max beats Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 We tested three frontier models on a real agentic task: write a Tetris bot that plays the game and trains itself. Each model could read its own code, run benchmarks, and rewrite itself across 10 iterations. Then we compared the final bots head to head. Qwen 3.7-Max: training cost $1.32, bot improvement +56% Claude Opus 4.7: training cost $12.15, bot improvement +28% GPT-5.5: training cost $2.85, bot improvement +7% Qwen won on every dimension - biggest jump, 9× cheaper than Claude, 2× cheaper than GPT. Long agentic loops is where Qwen Max actually delivers.
0:10

Qwen 3.7-max beats Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 We tested three frontier models on a real agentic task: write a Tetris bot that plays the game and trains itself. Each model could read its own code, run benchmarks, and rewrite itself across 10 iterations. Then we compared the final bots head to head. Qwen 3.7-Max: training cost $1.32, bot improvement +56% Claude Opus 4.7: training cost $12.15, bot improvement +28% GPT-5.5: training cost $2.85, bot improvement +7% Qwen won on every dimension - biggest jump, 9× cheaper than Claude, 2× cheaper than GPT. Long agentic loops is where Qwen Max actually delivers.

atomic.chat

869,771 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

We put grok 4.5 and opus 4.8 head to head on the same browser task, on Hyperbrowser Sandboxes. We then asked it to open a page in a real sandboxed browser and pull the title. Grok build on Grok 4.5, Claude code on Opus 4.8, identical setup. Grok 4.5 came out ahead ↓
0:16

We put grok 4.5 and opus 4.8 head to head on the same browser task, on Hyperbrowser Sandboxes. We then asked it to open a page in a real sandboxed browser and pull the title. Grok build on Grok 4.5, Claude code on Opus 4.8, identical setup. Grok 4.5 came out ahead ↓

Hyperbrowser

405,678 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Claude Fable 5.1 + Opus 5 + GPT-5.6 Sol are FREE 😳 Experiential Labs is giving free access to a huge lineup of AI models what you get: - Claude Fable 5.1 + Fable 5 - Claude Opus 5 + Sonnet 5 - GPT-5.6 Sol + Luna - Gemini 3.7 Flash - Kimi K3 - GLM 5.3 + 5.3 Flash - DeepSeek V4 Flash - Qwen3.8 27B most models have 1M+ context check the full list: free access is live 👀
0:13

Claude Fable 5.1 + Opus 5 + GPT-5.6 Sol are FREE 😳 Experiential Labs is giving free access to a huge lineup of AI models what you get: - Claude Fable 5.1 + Fable 5 - Claude Opus 5 + Sonnet 5 - GPT-5.6 Sol + Luna - Gemini 3.7 Flash - Kimi K3 - GLM 5.3 + 5.3 Flash - DeepSeek V4 Flash - Qwen3.8 27B most models have 1M+ context check the full list: free access is live 👀

K2S

25,647 просмотров • 16 дней назад

One of the top pieces of feedback we get about OpenAI Codex: “make it faster”. We addressed it in a big way with our ultra fast Codex-Spark model (research preview for Pro). Available in the latest Codex app, CLI, and IDE extension. Here’s Spark vs 5.3-Codex-Low side-by-side (Credit Romain Huet for the initial idea).
0:18

One of the top pieces of feedback we get about OpenAI Codex: “make it faster”. We addressed it in a big way with our ultra fast Codex-Spark model (research preview for Pro). Available in the latest Codex app, CLI, and IDE extension. Here’s Spark vs 5.3-Codex-Low side-by-side (Credit Romain Huet for the initial idea).

Derrick Choi

11,571 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

if you use Codex and you're stuck on GPT models only, this fixes that. it's called codex-router, open source. drops other models straight into your normal Codex picker, right next to the GPT ones you already have. what it adds: - Grok, Kimi, Deepseek, Claude, all in the same picker - oauth login per provider, no api key needed - your GPT models and Chatgpt login stay untouched setup: point Codex at the repo, let it read the readme, it installs itself one snag: if you've got the Chatgpt app and a separate Codex on your path, you can end up running two different Codex versions, and the older one can choke on newer config it doesn't recognize. if the install looks off after, that's probably why, reinstall clean.
0:19

if you use Codex and you're stuck on GPT models only, this fixes that. it's called codex-router, open source. drops other models straight into your normal Codex picker, right next to the GPT ones you already have. what it adds: - Grok, Kimi, Deepseek, Claude, all in the same picker - oauth login per provider, no api key needed - your GPT models and Chatgpt login stay untouched setup: point Codex at the repo, let it read the readme, it installs itself one snag: if you've got the Chatgpt app and a separate Codex on your path, you can end up running two different Codex versions, and the older one can choke on newer config it doesn't recognize. if the install looks off after, that's probably why, reinstall clean.

Alvaro Cintas

26,781 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

I’m joining OpenAI Codex to work on the future of agentic development! At Cursor, I got to see the shift from autocomplete to agents. The next step isn’t a better IDE. It’s an Agent Development Environment (ADE): systems and tools for orchestrating agents, reasoning over their outputs, and making them autonomous enough to reliably complete ambitious work. After chatting with Alexander Embiricos and Tibo, it was clear that Codex is the best place to realize this vision. The team has consistently shipped SOTA models for agentic coding (check out gpt-5.3-codex) and I’m pumped for the future that the new Codex App points to. What I’m most excited about is the broader mission: accelerating the knowledge work economy. All agents are coding agents, and we’re already seeing Codex used across every job function within organizations. I’m extremely grateful for my time at Cursor, working with the incredible team, and I’m proud of what we built together. I’m excited to take an even bigger swing with Codex. If you’re curious to get a glimpse of where we are headed, download the Codex App! If you want to work on this mission, please apply or reach out - we are hiring across all functions! You can just build things.
0:12

I’m joining OpenAI Codex to work on the future of agentic development! At Cursor, I got to see the shift from autocomplete to agents. The next step isn’t a better IDE. It’s an Agent Development Environment (ADE): systems and tools for orchestrating agents, reasoning over their outputs, and making them autonomous enough to reliably complete ambitious work. After chatting with Alexander Embiricos and Tibo, it was clear that Codex is the best place to realize this vision. The team has consistently shipped SOTA models for agentic coding (check out gpt-5.3-codex) and I’m pumped for the future that the new Codex App points to. What I’m most excited about is the broader mission: accelerating the knowledge work economy. All agents are coding agents, and we’re already seeing Codex used across every job function within organizations. I’m extremely grateful for my time at Cursor, working with the incredible team, and I’m proud of what we built together. I’m excited to take an even bigger swing with Codex. If you’re curious to get a glimpse of where we are headed, download the Codex App! If you want to work on this mission, please apply or reach out - we are hiring across all functions! You can just build things.

Rohan Varma

759,989 просмотров • 7 месяцев назад

Your AI API bill is probably 50% higher than it needs to be. Most builders pay full retail for GPT, Claude, and Gemini because that's what OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google charge. But there's a smarter way to buy the exact same models. Let me show you:
0:10

Your AI API bill is probably 50% higher than it needs to be. Most builders pay full retail for GPT, Claude, and Gemini because that's what OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google charge. But there's a smarter way to buy the exact same models. Let me show you:

Chidanand Tripathi

89,419 просмотров • 18 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

32,974 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Claude Fable 5 and Opus 5 are #1 when it comes to UI. GPT 5.6 Sol and Grok 4.6 don't come anywhere close to the design capabilities that Claude models have. Even though Fable 5 and Opus 5 are slow and expensive I keep finding myself reaching for them for design. This hero section was made with Fable 5 and Opus 5.
0:10

Claude Fable 5 and Opus 5 are #1 when it comes to UI. GPT 5.6 Sol and Grok 4.6 don't come anywhere close to the design capabilities that Claude models have. Even though Fable 5 and Opus 5 are slow and expensive I keep finding myself reaching for them for design. This hero section was made with Fable 5 and Opus 5.

BridgeMind

58,743 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

There are so many models that it can get confusing so today we launched an auto-router - you get the best answers from any of the top models. At the same time, we have AI experts and model enthusiasts who will enjoy access to 10 new models we just added including: ✅ GPT-4.1 ✅ o3 & o4 Mini ✅ Grok 3 ✅ Llama 4 Maverick & Scout We're also sunsetting some older models that just can't keep up anymore.
0:10

There are so many models that it can get confusing so today we launched an auto-router - you get the best answers from any of the top models. At the same time, we have AI experts and model enthusiasts who will enjoy access to 10 new models we just added including: ✅ GPT-4.1 ✅ o3 & o4 Mini ✅ Grok 3 ✅ Llama 4 Maverick & Scout We're also sunsetting some older models that just can't keep up anymore.

Richard Socher

24,731 просмотров • 1 год назад

🚨New paper! Generative models are often “miscalibrated”. We calibrate diffusion models, LLMs, and more to meet desired distributional properties. E.g. we finetune protein models to better match the diversity of natural proteins.
0:10

🚨New paper! Generative models are often “miscalibrated”. We calibrate diffusion models, LLMs, and more to meet desired distributional properties. E.g. we finetune protein models to better match the diversity of natural proteins.

Brian L Trippe

20,716 просмотров • 11 месяцев назад

Both Claude Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol have been performing exceptionally well on our leaderboards, ranking in the top 3 across almost all of our non-agentic tasks. We put both models through the same 3D design and website challenges to see where each excels the most. Watch the full breakdown on Youtube:
0:16

Both Claude Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol have been performing exceptionally well on our leaderboards, ranking in the top 3 across almost all of our non-agentic tasks. We put both models through the same 3D design and website challenges to see where each excels the most. Watch the full breakdown on Youtube:

Design Arena

30,773 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

👀 Asking all the new GPT-4.1 models from OpenAI to draw… a pelican. Then comparing with Grok 3, LLaMA 4, and Gemini 2.5 Pro. Which one do you prefer? Try it yourself on 80+ models — 👇
0:11

👀 Asking all the new GPT-4.1 models from OpenAI to draw… a pelican. Then comparing with Grok 3, LLaMA 4, and Gemini 2.5 Pro. Which one do you prefer? Try it yourself on 80+ models — 👇

Pierre Valade

123,811 просмотров • 1 год назад

BREAKING: Anthropic just dropped Opus 4.8—and it is a MONSTER We've been testing for about a week Every 📧 and our verdict is they could've just called it Opus 5, it's that good. Here's our vibe check: - Beats GPT-5.5 on Senior Engineer bench. On our toughest benchmark Opus 4.8 scores a 63—a hair higher than GPT-5.5's score of 62, and a full 30 points higher than Opus 4.7. It tackled a ground-up rewrite of a production codebase, and actually built something that works. HOWEVER: Coding performance varied a lot at different reasoning levels. We recommend using it on xhigh for best results. - Incredibly good writer. Opus 4.8 scored a 79.6 on our writing benchmark—measuring models on real-world writing tasks we do all of the time like essay writing, promo email writing, and more. It beats GPT-5.5 by 6 points. It produces well-written prose with fewer "AI-isms". It's also very good at writing in your voice given the right context. HOWEVER: Writing performance also varied with reasoning levels. Medium reasoning had higher incidence of AI-isms—we found best results with high. - Beast at knowledge work. Opus 4.8 is very good at general knowledge work tasks like report creation, research and more. It produced the best PowerPoint one-shot we've ever seen on our deck generation benchmark. - Emotionally intelligent, willing to question the frame. I've also found it to be quite good at talking through psychological or interpersonal issues. It has a high EQ, and it's also good at not glazing and helping to expand your perspective. Its thought process feels extremely rich and dynamic. THE BAD: These days a model is only as good as its harness, and Codex is still a far superior harness to the Claude Desktop app. This has kept me using Codex + GPT-5.5 as my daily driver, but I am flipping back and forth a lot more between Codex and Claude. Anthropic is back baby! Read the rest on Every 📧:
0:11

BREAKING: Anthropic just dropped Opus 4.8—and it is a MONSTER We've been testing for about a week Every 📧 and our verdict is they could've just called it Opus 5, it's that good. Here's our vibe check: - Beats GPT-5.5 on Senior Engineer bench. On our toughest benchmark Opus 4.8 scores a 63—a hair higher than GPT-5.5's score of 62, and a full 30 points higher than Opus 4.7. It tackled a ground-up rewrite of a production codebase, and actually built something that works. HOWEVER: Coding performance varied a lot at different reasoning levels. We recommend using it on xhigh for best results. - Incredibly good writer. Opus 4.8 scored a 79.6 on our writing benchmark—measuring models on real-world writing tasks we do all of the time like essay writing, promo email writing, and more. It beats GPT-5.5 by 6 points. It produces well-written prose with fewer "AI-isms". It's also very good at writing in your voice given the right context. HOWEVER: Writing performance also varied with reasoning levels. Medium reasoning had higher incidence of AI-isms—we found best results with high. - Beast at knowledge work. Opus 4.8 is very good at general knowledge work tasks like report creation, research and more. It produced the best PowerPoint one-shot we've ever seen on our deck generation benchmark. - Emotionally intelligent, willing to question the frame. I've also found it to be quite good at talking through psychological or interpersonal issues. It has a high EQ, and it's also good at not glazing and helping to expand your perspective. Its thought process feels extremely rich and dynamic. THE BAD: These days a model is only as good as its harness, and Codex is still a far superior harness to the Claude Desktop app. This has kept me using Codex + GPT-5.5 as my daily driver, but I am flipping back and forth a lot more between Codex and Claude. Anthropic is back baby! Read the rest on Every 📧:

Dan Shipper

354,673 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

Anthropic published a way to read LLM’s inner thoughts last week (Natural Language Autoencoders). 2 days later, we spent 36h straight hours at Platanus Ventures Hack Buenos Aires, were we built an open-source system that uses it to detect deception and steer models back into alignment. Here’s what we found:
0:13

Anthropic published a way to read LLM’s inner thoughts last week (Natural Language Autoencoders). 2 days later, we spent 36h straight hours at Platanus Ventures Hack Buenos Aires, were we built an open-source system that uses it to detect deception and steer models back into alignment. Here’s what we found:

Alex Bodner

15,943 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад