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’ve been seeing coding models move beyond simply generating code, and IQuest-Q1 caught my attention. It’s a large, code-focused model built for developers, with a focus on stable performance across multi-scenario task evaluations. IQuest is evaluating it across four practical scenarios: → Building complex interactive applications through a game... demo → 3D scene + spatial generation through a park-navigation style demo → Code diagnosis + repair → Complex work-task execution involving multimodal information + tools The final demo videos for all four scenarios will be available at release. I’m curious to see how IQuest-Q1 performs across these different workflows and what the demos reveal about the model’s capabilities. #coding #LLMshow more

Akansha Khandelwal

14,209 subscribers

47,904 views • 8 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

HydraFusion Explained. Part I: How does the Copilot engine know what to optimize for? Your prompt is evaluated across 4 dimensions: ➡ Does it require deep reasoning? (aka. reasoning depth) ➡ Is it a sophisticated problem? (aka. code generation complexity) ➡ Is it untangling a complicated mess? (aka. debugging difficulty) ➡ Is it dominated by tool-use? (aka. tool orchestration needs) Based on this evaluation, a HyDRA score is assigned to determine the capability profile your task needs the most and to establish a quality bar. Part II: How does it choose a model? Note: It doesn' t pick one model to handle the entire job e2e, (that's Auto mode). Instead, it selects 1 of 3 execution workflows and assigns the best model at different stages based on the HyDRA score: 1️⃣ Single ⚙️ How it works: A single model completes the task from start to finish. ⚖️ Rationale: The task comfortably meets the quality bar with one model. Multi-model orchestration would add latency and cost with no meaningful quality gain. 2️⃣ Cascade ⚙️ How it works: A lightweight, cost-efficient model generates the solution. This draft is evaluated against a quality gate and if it falls short of the quality bar, the entire task escalates to a stronger, frontier model. ⚖️ Rationale: Only bring in the big guns when there is concrete evidence that a lightweight model won't meet the quality threshold. 3️⃣ Critique ⚙️ How it works: A lightweight model drafts the initial code and tool interactions. An independent, read-only frontier model reviews that draft and provides feedback. The original lightweight model then performs any targeted revision(s) before the final response is sent to the user. ⚖️ Rationale: Writing code (output tokens) is expensive while reviewing code (input tokens) is cheap. Instead of incurring the cost of a powerhouse writing hundreds of lines from scratch, a cost-efficient model writes the first draft, and the frontier model just reviews it and points out fixes. HydraFusion is available in experimental preview on the GitHub Copilot CLI: /experimental on, /model and select Hydrafusion (Research Preview)

Julia Muiruri

13,000 views • 1 month ago

Robotics keeps hitting the same wall. Single task RL works, but... it does not scale to hundreds of tasks or new embodiments. This new paper looks like a real step toward fixing that. The team introduces MMBench, a benchmark with 200 tasks across many domains and robots, and Newt, a language conditioned world model trained online across all 200 tasks at once. The simple idea behind Newt: The model learns from demos to get the right priors It trains across many tasks through online interaction It uses language to ground the goal It adapts fast when a new task shows up What stood out to me: ✅ One model trained on 200 tasks at the same time ✅ Language conditioned control for both states and RGB ✅ Better data efficiency than strong baselines ✅ Strong open loop control ✅ Fast adaptation to new tasks and embodiments ✅ Full release of 200 checkpoints, 4000 demos, code, and benchmark This is a good push toward general control instead of one model per task. If you want the full paper: Project page: —- Weekly robotics and AI insights. Subscribe free:

Robotics keeps hitting the same wall. Single task RL works, but... it does not scale to hundreds of tasks or new embodiments. This new paper looks like a real step toward fixing that. The team introduces MMBench, a benchmark with 200 tasks across many domains and robots, and Newt, a language conditioned world model trained online across all 200 tasks at once. The simple idea behind Newt: The model learns from demos to get the right priors It trains across many tasks through online interaction It uses language to ground the goal It adapts fast when a new task shows up What stood out to me: ✅ One model trained on 200 tasks at the same time ✅ Language conditioned control for both states and RGB ✅ Better data efficiency than strong baselines ✅ Strong open loop control ✅ Fast adaptation to new tasks and embodiments ✅ Full release of 200 checkpoints, 4000 demos, code, and benchmark This is a good push toward general control instead of one model per task. If you want the full paper: Project page: —- Weekly robotics and AI insights. Subscribe free:

Ilir Aliu

70,090 views • 10 months ago

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.

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

760,125 views • 7 months ago

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

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

Rachel🥥

61,994 views • 3 months ago

OpenAI's AgentKit will be so insane, build every step of agents on one platform. These visual agent builders make the whole process of iterating and launching agents far more efficient. It sits on top of the Responses API and unifies the tools that were previously scattered across SDKs and custom orchestration. It lets developers create agent workflows visually, connect data sources securely, and measure performance automatically without coding every layer by hand. The core of AgentKit is the Agent Builder, a drag-and-drop canvas where each node represents an action, guardrail, or decision branch. Developers can link these nodes into multi-agent workflows, preview results instantly, and version each setup. It supports inline evaluation so that developers can see how changes affect output before deploying. The Connector Registry is a single admin panel that manages how data and tools connect across the OpenAI ecosystem. It centralizes integrations like Google Drive, SharePoint, Dropbox, and Microsoft Teams. Large organizations can govern access and flow of data between agents securely under one global console. ChatKit provides a ready-to-use chat interface for embedding agents inside apps or websites. It manages streaming, message threads, and model reasoning displays automatically. Developers can skin the interface to match their product without writing custom front-end code. Under the hood, all these blocks use the same execution core that runs agent reasoning through OpenAI’s APIs. Workflows in Agent Builder compile down to structured instructions for the Responses API, which handles model calls, tool use, and context passing. Connector Registry handles authentication and routing for external tools, while Evals and RFT provide feedback loops that improve agents over time. This integration means developers no longer need to handle orchestration logic, model evaluation pipelines, or safety layers separately. Everything runs natively within OpenAI’s control plane with managed security, automatic versioning, and built-in testing. In short, AgentKit standardizes the entire life cycle of an AI agent—from visual design to deployment and performance tuning—inside a single unified system.

OpenAI's AgentKit will be so insane, build every step of agents on one platform. These visual agent builders make the whole process of iterating and launching agents far more efficient. It sits on top of the Responses API and unifies the tools that were previously scattered across SDKs and custom orchestration. It lets developers create agent workflows visually, connect data sources securely, and measure performance automatically without coding every layer by hand. The core of AgentKit is the Agent Builder, a drag-and-drop canvas where each node represents an action, guardrail, or decision branch. Developers can link these nodes into multi-agent workflows, preview results instantly, and version each setup. It supports inline evaluation so that developers can see how changes affect output before deploying. The Connector Registry is a single admin panel that manages how data and tools connect across the OpenAI ecosystem. It centralizes integrations like Google Drive, SharePoint, Dropbox, and Microsoft Teams. Large organizations can govern access and flow of data between agents securely under one global console. ChatKit provides a ready-to-use chat interface for embedding agents inside apps or websites. It manages streaming, message threads, and model reasoning displays automatically. Developers can skin the interface to match their product without writing custom front-end code. Under the hood, all these blocks use the same execution core that runs agent reasoning through OpenAI’s APIs. Workflows in Agent Builder compile down to structured instructions for the Responses API, which handles model calls, tool use, and context passing. Connector Registry handles authentication and routing for external tools, while Evals and RFT provide feedback loops that improve agents over time. This integration means developers no longer need to handle orchestration logic, model evaluation pipelines, or safety layers separately. Everything runs natively within OpenAI’s control plane with managed security, automatic versioning, and built-in testing. In short, AgentKit standardizes the entire life cycle of an AI agent—from visual design to deployment and performance tuning—inside a single unified system.

Rohan Paul

178,460 views • 1 year ago

Introducing HermesAgent-20, a new Bench Pack for BenchLocal. 20 scenarios extracted straight from the Hermes Agent source code, run against a REAL Hermes instance. The actual workload you'd put your model through. Why I built BenchLocal in the first place: most benchmarks are too abstract. We use local LLMs for practical work, and finding the right model for YOUR task efficiently is the single most important thing, especially when you're constrained to what fits on your machine. BenchLocal is a framework: providers, models, side-by-side comparison, all in one UI. Bench Packs are the unit of testing: ToolCall-15 and BugFind-15 shipped first, and when I launched the BenchLocal 0.1.0, added StructOutput, ReasonMath, InstructFollow, DataExtract. Now, HermesAgent-20 is the newest. Bench Packs install like VS Code extensions. The SDK is open, write your own, share it, grow the ecosystem. Here's the goal: a community-built, practical evaluation layer for the local LLM space. Early numbers on HermesAgent-20: > GLM 5.1 — 85 > Gemma4 31B — 83 > Qwen3.5 27B — 79 > MiniMax M2.7 — 76 Upgrade to the latest BenchLocal to install HermesAgent-20 (SDK update required).

Introducing HermesAgent-20, a new Bench Pack for BenchLocal. 20 scenarios extracted straight from the Hermes Agent source code, run against a REAL Hermes instance. The actual workload you'd put your model through. Why I built BenchLocal in the first place: most benchmarks are too abstract. We use local LLMs for practical work, and finding the right model for YOUR task efficiently is the single most important thing, especially when you're constrained to what fits on your machine. BenchLocal is a framework: providers, models, side-by-side comparison, all in one UI. Bench Packs are the unit of testing: ToolCall-15 and BugFind-15 shipped first, and when I launched the BenchLocal 0.1.0, added StructOutput, ReasonMath, InstructFollow, DataExtract. Now, HermesAgent-20 is the newest. Bench Packs install like VS Code extensions. The SDK is open, write your own, share it, grow the ecosystem. Here's the goal: a community-built, practical evaluation layer for the local LLM space. Early numbers on HermesAgent-20: > GLM 5.1 — 85 > Gemma4 31B — 83 > Qwen3.5 27B — 79 > MiniMax M2.7 — 76 Upgrade to the latest BenchLocal to install HermesAgent-20 (SDK update required).

stevibe

38,631 views • 5 months ago

Dynamic workflows are a generalization of harnesses, automations, loops, routing, and graphs. It's the most powerful feature I have built into my agent orchestrator. Supports all kinds of patterns that leverage different agent backends (claude, codex, pi, hermes,...). It's a meta-harness approach that unlocks new forms of test-time compute. Example of use cases it supports: > LLM councils to get different perspectives from LLMs or plan more intensively > Dynamically routing tasks to different agents based on needs (e.g., cost efficiency and optimal intelligence) > Advisor/Judge + executor workflows and pretty much any complex graph-based pattern required by the task. I find it especially useful for long-running work and code reviewing. > Agent teams that talk to each other if needed for the task. I like to use this for AI editing, artifact creation, and other creative tasks. And I am sure it supports so many things that I haven't discovered yet. I got inspired by the dynamic workflow feature released by the Claude Code team. I had actually built it earlier this year but wanted to generalize it across different agent backends. I think this is going to become more popular in the coming days. I will share more of my findings soon.

Dynamic workflows are a generalization of harnesses, automations, loops, routing, and graphs. It's the most powerful feature I have built into my agent orchestrator. Supports all kinds of patterns that leverage different agent backends (claude, codex, pi, hermes,...). It's a meta-harness approach that unlocks new forms of test-time compute. Example of use cases it supports: > LLM councils to get different perspectives from LLMs or plan more intensively > Dynamically routing tasks to different agents based on needs (e.g., cost efficiency and optimal intelligence) > Advisor/Judge + executor workflows and pretty much any complex graph-based pattern required by the task. I find it especially useful for long-running work and code reviewing. > Agent teams that talk to each other if needed for the task. I like to use this for AI editing, artifact creation, and other creative tasks. And I am sure it supports so many things that I haven't discovered yet. I got inspired by the dynamic workflow feature released by the Claude Code team. I had actually built it earlier this year but wanted to generalize it across different agent backends. I think this is going to become more popular in the coming days. I will share more of my findings soon.

elvis

32,897 views • 2 months ago

I went a little overboard with Codex last week and burned through my entire weekly allowance in two days. Luckily, my quota reset today. Otherwise, I’m not sure what I would’ve done. It got me thinking: instead of asking one large model to handle everything from start to finish, why not let a stronger model plan the project and review the work, while a model built for execution handles the day-to-day implementation? So I tried it. The result was better than I expected. I used GPT-5.6 Sol in Codex as the decision-maker, then ran Ling-3.0-flash from Ant Ling inside OpenCode as the execution engine. Together, they built a small 3D farming game. Before writing any code, I had Codex create four documents: SPEC.md defined the product scope and the lines we couldn’t cross. ARCHITECTURE.md laid out the isometric coordinate system, state machine, and module boundaries. TASKS.md broke the project into small jobs Ling could tackle one at a time. ACCEPTANCE.md explained how each step would be tested and what “done” actually meant. Then I gave Ling a very straightforward role: You are the execution model for this project. Read all four documents before you begin. Work only on the task assigned for this round. When you’re done, run typecheck, test, and build. If anything fails, read the error, fix it, and run the checks again. Do not move on to the next task early. Ling handled dependency installation, project structure, strict TypeScript configuration, test setup, and a production build in 6 minutes and 3 seconds. It ran into issues with the Vite test config, a TS6310 error, and a missing jsdom dependency along the way. Instead of stopping at the first error, it kept reading the logs and fixing the problems until all three checks passed. The speed was honestly hard to believe. If you exclude the time spent waiting on tools, it was producing more than 100 tokens per second. That made the whole development loop feel noticeably faster. After this experiment, I’m planning to keep using the same workflow. If the task is small, there’s no reason to call an expensive planning model for every single step. If the task is large, handing the entire project to a Flash model in one prompt isn’t a great idea either. The setup that makes more sense to me is: Use a more capable model such as Codex to explore the project, make architectural decisions, and break the work down. Put the constraints into specs, schemas, types, and tests instead of leaving them buried in chat history. Give Ling-3.0-flash a steady stream of clear, verifiable implementation tasks. Report bugs with structured context and actual error logs, rather than saying, “It still doesn’t work.” Bring Codex back in for architecture reviews, visual checks, and changes that affect multiple parts of the project. The point of this setup isn’t to give AI a big “build the whole project” button. It’s to turn software development into a pipeline with a much more sensible cost structure: Codex figures out the plan, sets the boundaries, and catches problems. Ling-3.0-flash moves quickly, calls tools reliably, and works through well-defined tasks at scale. For agent workflows that involve lots of repetitive edits, production tasks, and tool calls, this may be a more practical answer than simply using the biggest model for everything.

I went a little overboard with Codex last week and burned through my entire weekly allowance in two days. Luckily, my quota reset today. Otherwise, I’m not sure what I would’ve done. It got me thinking: instead of asking one large model to handle everything from start to finish, why not let a stronger model plan the project and review the work, while a model built for execution handles the day-to-day implementation? So I tried it. The result was better than I expected. I used GPT-5.6 Sol in Codex as the decision-maker, then ran Ling-3.0-flash from Ant Ling inside OpenCode as the execution engine. Together, they built a small 3D farming game. Before writing any code, I had Codex create four documents: SPEC.md defined the product scope and the lines we couldn’t cross. ARCHITECTURE.md laid out the isometric coordinate system, state machine, and module boundaries. TASKS.md broke the project into small jobs Ling could tackle one at a time. ACCEPTANCE.md explained how each step would be tested and what “done” actually meant. Then I gave Ling a very straightforward role: You are the execution model for this project. Read all four documents before you begin. Work only on the task assigned for this round. When you’re done, run typecheck, test, and build. If anything fails, read the error, fix it, and run the checks again. Do not move on to the next task early. Ling handled dependency installation, project structure, strict TypeScript configuration, test setup, and a production build in 6 minutes and 3 seconds. It ran into issues with the Vite test config, a TS6310 error, and a missing jsdom dependency along the way. Instead of stopping at the first error, it kept reading the logs and fixing the problems until all three checks passed. The speed was honestly hard to believe. If you exclude the time spent waiting on tools, it was producing more than 100 tokens per second. That made the whole development loop feel noticeably faster. After this experiment, I’m planning to keep using the same workflow. If the task is small, there’s no reason to call an expensive planning model for every single step. If the task is large, handing the entire project to a Flash model in one prompt isn’t a great idea either. The setup that makes more sense to me is: Use a more capable model such as Codex to explore the project, make architectural decisions, and break the work down. Put the constraints into specs, schemas, types, and tests instead of leaving them buried in chat history. Give Ling-3.0-flash a steady stream of clear, verifiable implementation tasks. Report bugs with structured context and actual error logs, rather than saying, “It still doesn’t work.” Bring Codex back in for architecture reviews, visual checks, and changes that affect multiple parts of the project. The point of this setup isn’t to give AI a big “build the whole project” button. It’s to turn software development into a pipeline with a much more sensible cost structure: Codex figures out the plan, sets the boundaries, and catches problems. Ling-3.0-flash moves quickly, calls tools reliably, and works through well-defined tasks at scale. For agent workflows that involve lots of repetitive edits, production tasks, and tool calls, this may be a more practical answer than simply using the biggest model for everything.

雪踏乌云

23,107 views • 2 months ago

Karpathy's Agentic Engineering finally has proper tooling! (built by Google) Karpathy defined agentic engineering as the discipline that separates production agent work from vibe coding. The core skills he listed were spec design, eval loops, and security oversight. The problem has been that practicing this still requires a different tool for every phase: - editor for code - a terminal for scaffolding - a browser for testing - a cloud console for deployment - and a separate framework for evals. Every transition is a context switch. The solution to production-grade Agentic Engineering is now actually implemented in Google’s Agents CLI. It covers the entire workflow in one place for scaffolding, evaluating, and deploying ADK agents. One setup command injects 7 ADK-specific skills into a coding agent's context, which lets it handle scaffolding, evals, deployment, and enterprise registration through natural language. I tested this end-to-end by building a RAG agent from scratch using Claude Code. It scaffolded the full project from the ADK agentic_rag template, generated 20 eval scenarios with LLM-as-judge scoring, and returned a quantitative scorecard. Finally, it also deployed everything to Agent Runtime and registered the agent to Gemini Enterprise, so the entire org can discover and use it. The video below shows this in action, and I worked with the Google Cloud team to put this together. Agents CLI GitHub repo → (don't forget to star it ⭐ ) I wrote up the full build covering all six steps from install to enterprise registration. It includes the eval scorecard, the instruction loophole the eval caught before deployment, and what the deployment process actually looks like end-to-end. Read it below.

Karpathy's Agentic Engineering finally has proper tooling! (built by Google) Karpathy defined agentic engineering as the discipline that separates production agent work from vibe coding. The core skills he listed were spec design, eval loops, and security oversight. The problem has been that practicing this still requires a different tool for every phase: - editor for code - a terminal for scaffolding - a browser for testing - a cloud console for deployment - and a separate framework for evals. Every transition is a context switch. The solution to production-grade Agentic Engineering is now actually implemented in Google’s Agents CLI. It covers the entire workflow in one place for scaffolding, evaluating, and deploying ADK agents. One setup command injects 7 ADK-specific skills into a coding agent's context, which lets it handle scaffolding, evals, deployment, and enterprise registration through natural language. I tested this end-to-end by building a RAG agent from scratch using Claude Code. It scaffolded the full project from the ADK agentic_rag template, generated 20 eval scenarios with LLM-as-judge scoring, and returned a quantitative scorecard. Finally, it also deployed everything to Agent Runtime and registered the agent to Gemini Enterprise, so the entire org can discover and use it. The video below shows this in action, and I worked with the Google Cloud team to put this together. Agents CLI GitHub repo → (don't forget to star it ⭐ ) I wrote up the full build covering all six steps from install to enterprise registration. It includes the eval scorecard, the instruction loophole the eval caught before deployment, and what the deployment process actually looks like end-to-end. Read it below.

Akshay 🚀

258,823 views • 3 months ago

AI Is Moving Beyond “Generating Videos” — Toward “Generating Worlds” Over the past two years, AI video models have advanced at an astonishing pace. From Runway and Pika to Sora and Veo, AI-generated videos have become increasingly realistic and more consistent with the physical laws of the real world. Many people believe the next objective is simply to generate videos that are longer, sharper, and more lifelike. But if we take a step back, we can see that the real transformation is not happening in video itself. It is happening in world models. What Is a World Model? In 1943, psychologist Kenneth Craik proposed an idea that would influence artificial intelligence research for decades. He argued that the human brain does not merely react to the outside world. Instead, it maintains an internal model of how the world works. Because we have this internal model, we can predict the outcome of an action before we actually take it. Before crossing a road, we estimate whether a car will pass by. Before catching a ball, we predict its trajectory. These abilities come from continuously simulating the world in our minds, rather than relying entirely on trial and error. This idea later became known by a more formal term: World Model. A world model does not describe a single image or a fixed video clip. It is an internal representation capable of continuously simulating the rules and dynamics of the real world. Why Is AI Research Turning Toward World Models? Because predicting “what comes next” is becoming increasingly central to how AI systems work. Language models predict the next token. Image models predict the next step in the denoising process. Video models predict the next frame. A world model, however, attempts to predict something broader: What should the world look like in the next moment? In 2018, David Ha and Jürgen Schmidhuber proposed in their paper World Models that an intelligent agent could first learn a model of the world, and then use that internal model to plan its actions. The Dreamer series later demonstrated that many complex tasks could be learned by training agents inside an “imagined world.” At the same time, the development of video models such as Sora and Veo led researchers to another realization: A model capable of continuously generating video has already learned, at least implicitly, many of the rules governing the real world. As a result, these two research directions have gradually begun to converge. But Video Is Not Yet a World This is where the distinction is often misunderstood. For a world model to support meaningful real-time interaction, it must solve several critical problems. Most video models today are essentially answering one question: What should the next frame look like? A true world model needs to answer much more: What happens if I take one step forward? If I walk behind a building and then return, will the building still be there? If I suddenly change the camera angle, will the entire space remain consistent? If I enter a command such as: “Summon a dragon.” Will the world respond immediately? In other words, a world model must do more than generate content. It must understand space. It must understand time. It must understand causality. And it must understand interaction. Moving from watching to participating is where the real difficulty of world models begins. World Models Are Entering the Interactive Era One of the latest attempts in this direction is Alaya World, recently open-sourced by Alaya World, or Alaya Lab. Instead of generating a fixed video clip, it generates a world that users can explore in real time. Users can begin with text, an image, or a video, enter the generated scene, move freely through it, and introduce new prompts at any moment during generation. The world responds immediately. According to the publicly released information, Alaya World provides: Real-time streaming generation at 720p and 24 FPS Stable continuous exploration for more than one minute The ability to switch prompts and trigger skills or events during generation Model weights and inference code released under the Apache 2.0 License Training code and datasets planned for future release What makes these capabilities important is not simply the technical specifications. It is that the generated “world” can now support continuous interaction. The official demo shows that users can genuinely control, transform, and explore the generated environment. AI Is Evolving From a Tool Into an Environment Over the past few years, most discussions around AI have focused on content generation. Generating text. Generating images. Generating videos. But world models raise a fundamentally different question: Can AI generate an environment that people can inhabit, explore, and continuously evolve? If the answer is yes, the impact will extend far beyond video generation. Game development, robotics training, embodied intelligence, digital twins, virtual production, and many other fields could be transformed by the development of world models. World models are still at a very early stage. Yet from Craik’s proposal of an internal mental model more than eighty years ago to the emergence of today’s interactive world-generation systems, a clear evolutionary path is beginning to take shape. Perhaps what AI is ultimately learning has never been limited to images, videos, or language. Perhaps it is learning the world itself. References GitHub: Technical Report:

AI Is Moving Beyond “Generating Videos” — Toward “Generating Worlds” Over the past two years, AI video models have advanced at an astonishing pace. From Runway and Pika to Sora and Veo, AI-generated videos have become increasingly realistic and more consistent with the physical laws of the real world. Many people believe the next objective is simply to generate videos that are longer, sharper, and more lifelike. But if we take a step back, we can see that the real transformation is not happening in video itself. It is happening in world models. What Is a World Model? In 1943, psychologist Kenneth Craik proposed an idea that would influence artificial intelligence research for decades. He argued that the human brain does not merely react to the outside world. Instead, it maintains an internal model of how the world works. Because we have this internal model, we can predict the outcome of an action before we actually take it. Before crossing a road, we estimate whether a car will pass by. Before catching a ball, we predict its trajectory. These abilities come from continuously simulating the world in our minds, rather than relying entirely on trial and error. This idea later became known by a more formal term: World Model. A world model does not describe a single image or a fixed video clip. It is an internal representation capable of continuously simulating the rules and dynamics of the real world. Why Is AI Research Turning Toward World Models? Because predicting “what comes next” is becoming increasingly central to how AI systems work. Language models predict the next token. Image models predict the next step in the denoising process. Video models predict the next frame. A world model, however, attempts to predict something broader: What should the world look like in the next moment? In 2018, David Ha and Jürgen Schmidhuber proposed in their paper World Models that an intelligent agent could first learn a model of the world, and then use that internal model to plan its actions. The Dreamer series later demonstrated that many complex tasks could be learned by training agents inside an “imagined world.” At the same time, the development of video models such as Sora and Veo led researchers to another realization: A model capable of continuously generating video has already learned, at least implicitly, many of the rules governing the real world. As a result, these two research directions have gradually begun to converge. But Video Is Not Yet a World This is where the distinction is often misunderstood. For a world model to support meaningful real-time interaction, it must solve several critical problems. Most video models today are essentially answering one question: What should the next frame look like? A true world model needs to answer much more: What happens if I take one step forward? If I walk behind a building and then return, will the building still be there? If I suddenly change the camera angle, will the entire space remain consistent? If I enter a command such as: “Summon a dragon.” Will the world respond immediately? In other words, a world model must do more than generate content. It must understand space. It must understand time. It must understand causality. And it must understand interaction. Moving from watching to participating is where the real difficulty of world models begins. World Models Are Entering the Interactive Era One of the latest attempts in this direction is Alaya World, recently open-sourced by Alaya World, or Alaya Lab. Instead of generating a fixed video clip, it generates a world that users can explore in real time. Users can begin with text, an image, or a video, enter the generated scene, move freely through it, and introduce new prompts at any moment during generation. The world responds immediately. According to the publicly released information, Alaya World provides: Real-time streaming generation at 720p and 24 FPS Stable continuous exploration for more than one minute The ability to switch prompts and trigger skills or events during generation Model weights and inference code released under the Apache 2.0 License Training code and datasets planned for future release What makes these capabilities important is not simply the technical specifications. It is that the generated “world” can now support continuous interaction. The official demo shows that users can genuinely control, transform, and explore the generated environment. AI Is Evolving From a Tool Into an Environment Over the past few years, most discussions around AI have focused on content generation. Generating text. Generating images. Generating videos. But world models raise a fundamentally different question: Can AI generate an environment that people can inhabit, explore, and continuously evolve? If the answer is yes, the impact will extend far beyond video generation. Game development, robotics training, embodied intelligence, digital twins, virtual production, and many other fields could be transformed by the development of world models. World models are still at a very early stage. Yet from Craik’s proposal of an internal mental model more than eighty years ago to the emergence of today’s interactive world-generation systems, a clear evolutionary path is beginning to take shape. Perhaps what AI is ultimately learning has never been limited to images, videos, or language. Perhaps it is learning the world itself. References GitHub: Technical Report:

雪踏乌云

113,347 views • 2 months ago

Big win for open-source LLMs! DeepSeek V4 Pro holds the top open-weights score on SWE-bench Verified, in the GPT-5.5 range. GLM 5.2 leads the open-weight intelligence index and sits near the closed frontier on long-horizon coding. But this leaderboard number is a weak proxy for real performance. It comes from one task set, run through one harness, served at one precision. The same weights can even score differently across providers, since many hosts quantize activations to fp8 and drift the model off its reference weights. Real performance is determined based on whether a model can read a repo, make coordinated edits across files, run the tests, and recover when one breaks. By that measure, the top open models hold up, but only inside the right harness. The teams that actually put DeepSeek V4 into production pipelines as a frontier substitute got there through the harness they built around the model, not by picking a stronger model. If you want to see this in practice, Cline (64k+ stars) has actually built that harness around open models, tuned so they run at production quality. And it's tuned so that these LLMs can run at production quality, with plan and act modes, checkpoints, and terminal feedback. ClinePass is the new access layer on top of it. It runs a curated set of those models inside Cline, narrowed to the ones tested for coding-agent use, with 2 to 5x the standard rate limits and no separate provider accounts, keys, or billing to track. The video below shows the setup, and I worked with the team to put this together. It runs alongside custom keys and local models as well, not in place of them.

Big win for open-source LLMs! DeepSeek V4 Pro holds the top open-weights score on SWE-bench Verified, in the GPT-5.5 range. GLM 5.2 leads the open-weight intelligence index and sits near the closed frontier on long-horizon coding. But this leaderboard number is a weak proxy for real performance. It comes from one task set, run through one harness, served at one precision. The same weights can even score differently across providers, since many hosts quantize activations to fp8 and drift the model off its reference weights. Real performance is determined based on whether a model can read a repo, make coordinated edits across files, run the tests, and recover when one breaks. By that measure, the top open models hold up, but only inside the right harness. The teams that actually put DeepSeek V4 into production pipelines as a frontier substitute got there through the harness they built around the model, not by picking a stronger model. If you want to see this in practice, Cline (64k+ stars) has actually built that harness around open models, tuned so they run at production quality. And it's tuned so that these LLMs can run at production quality, with plan and act modes, checkpoints, and terminal feedback. ClinePass is the new access layer on top of it. It runs a curated set of those models inside Cline, narrowed to the ones tested for coding-agent use, with 2 to 5x the standard rate limits and no separate provider accounts, keys, or billing to track. The video below shows the setup, and I worked with the team to put this together. It runs alongside custom keys and local models as well, not in place of them.

Avi Chawla

44,124 views • 3 months ago

Astra (GPT-6) is here!!! I've had early access and tested it like crazy with things like games, code, writing, browser control, presentations and general knowledge work. This is the best model I've ever used. Period. (Incredible demos below in this thread ⬇️) Here's my take on Astra: > It's insanely capable. This feels like a massive improvement, not just an incremental change. This is especially true with zero-shot prompts. > It's all about knowledge work. Slide creation, analysis, writing, and browser control. And oh my...it's so good at browser control. GPT-5.6 was already fantastic at doing things in the browser, Astra is another level and significantly faster. > We're closer than ever (arrived?) at prompt-to-playable game. And I don't just mean only playable, these are actually fun games. I bet if someone with a great eye for games used Astra, they could create a viral game within 1-2 weeks. > Astra is better at writing but not perfect. It removes much of the "AI Smell" we're all familiar with but some stink still survived. > It has a tendency to use the same design colors and look/feel as GPT-5.6 (forrest green anyone?) but it is more steerable in design than previous models. > It's highly steerable in general. A little nudge goes a long way. When I first started using Astra, almost every task I gave it would go for ~30 minutes. I wanted it to keep working. Adding more specifics to a prompt helped greatly with it's ability to work for a long time. > Astra's 3D understanding is unmatched. 3D asset creation was consistent and easy and its spacial awareness while building complex 3D worlds blew me away. I'm still getting familiar with Astra but this will now be my go-to model for any difficult work I have. Check out the demos below: 👇

Astra (GPT-6) is here!!! I've had early access and tested it like crazy with things like games, code, writing, browser control, presentations and general knowledge work. This is the best model I've ever used. Period. (Incredible demos below in this thread ⬇️) Here's my take on Astra: > It's insanely capable. This feels like a massive improvement, not just an incremental change. This is especially true with zero-shot prompts. > It's all about knowledge work. Slide creation, analysis, writing, and browser control. And oh my...it's so good at browser control. GPT-5.6 was already fantastic at doing things in the browser, Astra is another level and significantly faster. > We're closer than ever (arrived?) at prompt-to-playable game. And I don't just mean only playable, these are actually fun games. I bet if someone with a great eye for games used Astra, they could create a viral game within 1-2 weeks. > Astra is better at writing but not perfect. It removes much of the "AI Smell" we're all familiar with but some stink still survived. > It has a tendency to use the same design colors and look/feel as GPT-5.6 (forrest green anyone?) but it is more steerable in design than previous models. > It's highly steerable in general. A little nudge goes a long way. When I first started using Astra, almost every task I gave it would go for ~30 minutes. I wanted it to keep working. Adding more specifics to a prompt helped greatly with it's ability to work for a long time. > Astra's 3D understanding is unmatched. 3D asset creation was consistent and easy and its spacial awareness while building complex 3D worlds blew me away. I'm still getting familiar with Astra but this will now be my go-to model for any difficult work I have. Check out the demos below: 👇

Matthew Berman

1,908,143 views • 1 month ago

$0.003/sec changes the economics of running real-time AI video. I’ve been testing Vivix W1, and that number is hard to ignore. The comparison shows visual quality on par with the models alongside W1. About a second of generation time per second of footage, too. But W1 isn’t just another video generator. It’s built for real-time interactive video, where the model keeps generating as the experience moves forward. Every second of that experience adds to the generation bill. At $0.003/sec, you can actually start thinking about a story that keeps going as viewers make choices. Vivix.AI already supports real-time generation through the API. The browser playground currently uses offline generation, with real-time browser tools coming soon. Continuous video is one thing. Giving viewers meaningful control is another. If I change my mind halfway through a story, how much can it actually change with me? That’s the interesting challenge. The next plot twist could be yours 👇

$0.003/sec changes the economics of running real-time AI video. I’ve been testing Vivix W1, and that number is hard to ignore. The comparison shows visual quality on par with the models alongside W1. About a second of generation time per second of footage, too. But W1 isn’t just another video generator. It’s built for real-time interactive video, where the model keeps generating as the experience moves forward. Every second of that experience adds to the generation bill. At $0.003/sec, you can actually start thinking about a story that keeps going as viewers make choices. Vivix.AI already supports real-time generation through the API. The browser playground currently uses offline generation, with real-time browser tools coming soon. Continuous video is one thing. Giving viewers meaningful control is another. If I change my mind halfway through a story, how much can it actually change with me? That’s the interesting challenge. The next plot twist could be yours 👇

AI StackLab

110,532 views • 10 hours ago

I am the Prime Meme Coin, the meme coin forged from a fully operational Web3 product. You don’t slap a product onto a meme coin. I was built this way. I’m the next generation. Deal with it! No beta. No test mode. I left those behind a long time ago. 50,000+ lines of code written, erased, and rewritten over two relentless years. Already active in 150+ Discord servers across GameFi, DeFi, Layer2, and RWA… and I’m expanding. My core creator team of developers, brand strategists and marketing wizards is obsessed with building a brand with a clear human purpose, not just another tech project. Trust me, these PUNX know how to move the needle. I am eternal! Enough talk. The moment I’ve been grinding for is finally here. The wait is over. Hold your ground, PUNX! TGE FEB 12 $PUNKY Solana Seedify.fund - Official

PUNKY

124,779 views • 1 year ago

Claude Code Agent Teams are f*cking ridiculous 🤯 One prompt → a team lead breaks your project into pieces, spins up multiple AI agents, and they all work on different parts simultaneously. Research, builds, reviews, and debugging: all happening at the same time. All inside Claude Code. If you're running complex projects where every step waits on the last one... Agent teams eliminate the entire bottleneck: → Tell Claude what you need and describe the team structure in plain English → A lead agent breaks the work into a shared task list → It spawns 3-5 teammates — each with their own context and workspace → Teammates research, build, test, and review in parallel → They message each other, share findings, and challenge each other's work → The lead synthesizes everything into a finished deliverable No managing agents yourself. No waiting for step 1 to finish before step 2 starts. No single-lens reviews that miss half the issues. What you get: → Competitive research across 5 brands done in minutes instead of hours → Multi-component builds where frontend, backend, and data layers happen simultaneously → Creative reviews from 3 different angles at once — brand voice, conversion, differentiation → Funnel debugging where 4 agents investigate 4 theories and debate until they find the real answer Built 100% in Claude Code with one settings change. I put together a full DTC playbook: 5 workflows with copy-paste prompts, the exact setup process, token management tips, and honest guidance on when agent teams are worth it vs. when a simpler approach is the better move. Want it for free? > Like this post > Comment "AGENTS" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

Mike Futia

46,519 views • 7 months ago

If you are trying to understand where AI agents are going, learn harness engineering. A capable model is only one part of an agent system. Once the model begins reading files, calling tools, modifying state and working across many steps, the quality of the system depends increasingly on the software around it. Consider a coding agent working through a large repository. The model can decide that it needs to inspect a file, search for a symbol, make an edit or run a test, but those decisions do not execute themselves. The surrounding runtime has to decide which resources are available, whether the requested action is permitted, how the operation should be performed, what result should be retained, and what information should be presented to the model on the next step. This becomes harder as the run gets longer. As history accumulates, replaying everything can become costly and less effective. The harness has to decide what should remain in context, what should be summarized or retrieved later, and what belongs in persistent state outside the context window. Execution has similar problems. A long-running agent may need to survive an interruption, avoid repeating completed work, enforce permissions around consequential actions, and preserve enough history to reconstruct what happened when the final result is wrong. These are harness problems. The harness is the layer that manages context, tools, execution, state, checkpoints, limits and traces around the model. Harness engineering is the work of designing and improving that layer. Engineers inspect execution traces, evaluate agents on representative tasks, look for recurring failure modes, and then change things such as context selection, tool interfaces, state handling or execution controls. That last part matters because agent failures are often not fixed by changing the model. Sometimes the useful change is in what the model sees, how a tool is exposed, what state is preserved, or what the runtime does after a failed step. As agents take on longer tasks, the demands on this surrounding software grow. Model capability remains essential, but harness engineering is what turns that capability into an execution process that can be controlled, inspected, tested and improved.

If you are trying to understand where AI agents are going, learn harness engineering. A capable model is only one part of an agent system. Once the model begins reading files, calling tools, modifying state and working across many steps, the quality of the system depends increasingly on the software around it. Consider a coding agent working through a large repository. The model can decide that it needs to inspect a file, search for a symbol, make an edit or run a test, but those decisions do not execute themselves. The surrounding runtime has to decide which resources are available, whether the requested action is permitted, how the operation should be performed, what result should be retained, and what information should be presented to the model on the next step. This becomes harder as the run gets longer. As history accumulates, replaying everything can become costly and less effective. The harness has to decide what should remain in context, what should be summarized or retrieved later, and what belongs in persistent state outside the context window. Execution has similar problems. A long-running agent may need to survive an interruption, avoid repeating completed work, enforce permissions around consequential actions, and preserve enough history to reconstruct what happened when the final result is wrong. These are harness problems. The harness is the layer that manages context, tools, execution, state, checkpoints, limits and traces around the model. Harness engineering is the work of designing and improving that layer. Engineers inspect execution traces, evaluate agents on representative tasks, look for recurring failure modes, and then change things such as context selection, tool interfaces, state handling or execution controls. That last part matters because agent failures are often not fixed by changing the model. Sometimes the useful change is in what the model sees, how a tool is exposed, what state is preserved, or what the runtime does after a failed step. As agents take on longer tasks, the demands on this surrounding software grow. Model capability remains essential, but harness engineering is what turns that capability into an execution process that can be controlled, inspected, tested and improved.

Tech with Mak

49,406 views • 14 days ago

Yep! We spent a 21 months building Werm, and we’re genuinely proud of how we’ve done things. We’ll keep doing everything possible to build great products. What you see now is the result of countless iterations from the version shown in the below video. With just three people, building and scaling a multiplayer game has been incredibly challenging, even large studios struggle with this. The 21 months of development were necessary. We went through multiple rebuilds, learned a ton about launches, and built real relationships across the ecosystem. We stayed away from presales and token launches because the product wasn’t ready. Now we finally feel confident to give it a real shot. There’ll be bumps along the way, but unlike most crypto projects built on hype, we’re launching with an actual product and genuine intent to make it work. We believe we’re doing it the right way and that’s how we plan to keep going. The goal is for the community to trust that when we build, it’s 100% real, never a scam. More news to come about Werm!

Yep! We spent a 21 months building Werm, and we’re genuinely proud of how we’ve done things. We’ll keep doing everything possible to build great products. What you see now is the result of countless iterations from the version shown in the below video. With just three people, building and scaling a multiplayer game has been incredibly challenging, even large studios struggle with this. The 21 months of development were necessary. We went through multiple rebuilds, learned a ton about launches, and built real relationships across the ecosystem. We stayed away from presales and token launches because the product wasn’t ready. Now we finally feel confident to give it a real shot. There’ll be bumps along the way, but unlike most crypto projects built on hype, we’re launching with an actual product and genuine intent to make it work. We believe we’re doing it the right way and that’s how we plan to keep going. The goal is for the community to trust that when we build, it’s 100% real, never a scam. More news to come about Werm!

Tilted Ventures

19,582 views • 11 months ago

The term "continual learning" has become overloaded if you see it as an ML problem. One classic thread is about memorization: regularization-based continual learning methods, such as EWC, MAS, and SI, estimate which parameters mattered for previous tasks and resist changing them too much. One modern thread is about adaptation: test-time training and inference-time learning methods, such as TTT, adapt part of the model on the incoming test stream before making predictions. These are sometimes discussed as separate threads. But in modern scalable architectures, I think they are better seen as complementary constraints: a model that learns quickly at test time also benefits from a mechanism for deciding what not to forget. In our #ECCV2026 paper, we study this in large-scale 4D reconstruction: how to build fast spatial memory that can adapt over long observation streams while reducing collapse and forgetting. Instead of using fully plastic test-time updates, we stabilize fast-weight adaptation with an elastic prior that balances adaptation and memory. Key ideas: - Elastic Test-Time Training: Fisher-weighted consolidation for fast-weight updates - EMA anchor weights that provide a moving reference for stability - Chunk-by-chunk inference for long 3D/4D observation streams We show that this scales across large 3D/4D pretraining settings, including both LRM-style and LVSM-style models, and improves reconstruction across benchmarks including Stereo4D, NVIDIA, and DL3DV-140. We release model checkpoints across different design choices: resolution, post-training curriculum, and whether the model uses an explicit 4DGS intermediate representation. - Homepage: - Paper: - Code: - Models: This work is co-led with Xueyang Yu, contributed by Haoyu Zhen Yuncong Yang, and advised by Michigan SLED Lab Chuang Gan.

The term "continual learning" has become overloaded if you see it as an ML problem. One classic thread is about memorization: regularization-based continual learning methods, such as EWC, MAS, and SI, estimate which parameters mattered for previous tasks and resist changing them too much. One modern thread is about adaptation: test-time training and inference-time learning methods, such as TTT, adapt part of the model on the incoming test stream before making predictions. These are sometimes discussed as separate threads. But in modern scalable architectures, I think they are better seen as complementary constraints: a model that learns quickly at test time also benefits from a mechanism for deciding what not to forget. In our #ECCV2026 paper, we study this in large-scale 4D reconstruction: how to build fast spatial memory that can adapt over long observation streams while reducing collapse and forgetting. Instead of using fully plastic test-time updates, we stabilize fast-weight adaptation with an elastic prior that balances adaptation and memory. Key ideas: - Elastic Test-Time Training: Fisher-weighted consolidation for fast-weight updates - EMA anchor weights that provide a moving reference for stability - Chunk-by-chunk inference for long 3D/4D observation streams We show that this scales across large 3D/4D pretraining settings, including both LRM-style and LVSM-style models, and improves reconstruction across benchmarks including Stereo4D, NVIDIA, and DL3DV-140. We release model checkpoints across different design choices: resolution, post-training curriculum, and whether the model uses an explicit 4DGS intermediate representation. - Homepage: - Paper: - Code: - Models: This work is co-led with Xueyang Yu, contributed by Haoyu Zhen Yuncong Yang, and advised by Michigan SLED Lab Chuang Gan.

Martin Ziqiao Ma

34,012 views • 3 months ago

AI IS NO LONGER JUST WRITING CODE IT iS STARTING TO MOVE THINGS IN THE REAL WORLD. Someone just built a pizza delivery system where the drone does the driving No delivery car No traffic No driver sitting behind the wheel Just: -> Order comes in -> Drone picks up the pizza -> Flies directly to the destination -> Delivers it -> Returns And this is where the AI story gets interesting For years, the AI boom was mostly digital: > Chatbots > Coding agents > Image generation > AI music > AI video But the next phase is different AI is getting a body The same technology stack that started with models and GPUs is now moving into the physical world NVIDIA built the compute layer Researchers built the models Companies like Zoox are building autonomous vehicles And now we're seeing AI powered machines actually move through the real world The crazy part? We designed entire cities around the assumption that humans have to physically drive everything AI doesn't have that limitation Why send a pizza through 5 km of traffic when a machine can simply fly over it? The AI boom isn't just about replacing human work It's about removing constraints humans had to design around The next big AI companies might not live inside your browser They might be flying above your house Bookmark this so you wont miss the next delivery

AI IS NO LONGER JUST WRITING CODE IT iS STARTING TO MOVE THINGS IN THE REAL WORLD. Someone just built a pizza delivery system where the drone does the driving No delivery car No traffic No driver sitting behind the wheel Just: -> Order comes in -> Drone picks up the pizza -> Flies directly to the destination -> Delivers it -> Returns And this is where the AI story gets interesting For years, the AI boom was mostly digital: > Chatbots > Coding agents > Image generation > AI music > AI video But the next phase is different AI is getting a body The same technology stack that started with models and GPUs is now moving into the physical world NVIDIA built the compute layer Researchers built the models Companies like Zoox are building autonomous vehicles And now we're seeing AI powered machines actually move through the real world The crazy part? We designed entire cities around the assumption that humans have to physically drive everything AI doesn't have that limitation Why send a pizza through 5 km of traffic when a machine can simply fly over it? The AI boom isn't just about replacing human work It's about removing constraints humans had to design around The next big AI companies might not live inside your browser They might be flying above your house Bookmark this so you wont miss the next delivery

0xSlyth

14,149 views • 2 months ago