Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

MiniMax M2.5 is benchmaxed. I gave 4 models the same prompt: Create a neon "OPEN" sign in HTML. GLM 5: Clean, classic neon. Nailed it. Claude Opus 4.6: Stylized with glow. Solid. Gemini 3 Pro: Cursive with bloom lighting. Creative. MiniMax M2.5: Spelled it "O b∈ N" with broken... show more

BridgeMind

22,693 subscribers

54,212 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Bildung Wissenschaft & Technologie

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

MiniMax is the James Bond of AI agents. It uses the world's first open-weight model (MiniMax-M1), and it squeezes every bit of power from it. The agent takes a prompt and does more than any other agent in the market right now: 1. It can do Deep Research 2. It can write code 3. It can design web pages 4. It can build 3D models I built 5 different experiences using MiniMax and recorded them for you:

MiniMax is the James Bond of AI agents. It uses the world's first open-weight model (MiniMax-M1), and it squeezes every bit of power from it. The agent takes a prompt and does more than any other agent in the market right now: 1. It can do Deep Research 2. It can write code 3. It can design web pages 4. It can build 3D models I built 5 different experiences using MiniMax and recorded them for you:

Santiago

44,730 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

I tested Kimi K3 vs Claude Opus 4.8 Same prompt, an armory bay with lighting, props, and detail. Top is Kimi K3, bottom is Opus 4.8. It's not even close. Kimi K3 built a full scene with textures, proper lighting, ammo crates, weapon racks, working detail everywhere. Opus 4.8 gave me a near empty room with a couple of floating tables. No doubt it beats Opus 4.8. Kimi K3 is Fable 5 level, and it's clearly better than GPT-5.6 Sol at 3D and games. An open weight model just matched the best closed models on the market. Let that sink in.

I tested Kimi K3 vs Claude Opus 4.8 Same prompt, an armory bay with lighting, props, and detail. Top is Kimi K3, bottom is Opus 4.8. It's not even close. Kimi K3 built a full scene with textures, proper lighting, ammo crates, weapon racks, working detail everywhere. Opus 4.8 gave me a near empty room with a couple of floating tables. No doubt it beats Opus 4.8. Kimi K3 is Fable 5 level, and it's clearly better than GPT-5.6 Sol at 3D and games. An open weight model just matched the best closed models on the market. Let that sink in.

Bhavy☄️

470,635 Aufrufe • vor 24 Tagen

Fable 5 + Goose Ads is insane – literally a full ad-creative team right in Claude Code. 1. Install the skill: npx gooseworks install --all npx gooseworks login 2. Ask Claude Fable to make ads for your brand. /goose-ads create ads for my brand . Fable 5 pulls the ads already winning in your space and rebuilds them on-brand – your product, your palette, your copy – a whole batch, ready to test. It can ship a month of creative testing in a single prompt. This is also possible with Opus and Sonnet, but Fable's brand research is next level. Link below.

Shiv

221,172 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

50% cheaper Claude inference with just one line of code change! - Remove → model="claude-opus-4-8" - Add → model="ship-like/claude-opus-4-8" I verified the cost saving in my own terminal by invoking the same Anthropic model with the same prompt. The underlying engineering by Ship is actually interesting, and the patterns can be used in any production LLM stack. Essentially, a trained model is a frozen artifact. Every request performs the same forward-pass, whether it extracts a date or refactors a module, because the compute decision was made at training time, before the request existed. Ship makes that decision at inference time instead. After seeing a request, it searches over executions, involving single models, cascades, ensembles, or harnesses with tools, and serves the cheapest one that will match the reference model's quality. This is not a basic router, because picking a cheaper model per query doesn't ensure the cheaper model preserves the original's behavior, like output shape, tool-call patterns, and refusals. Ship measures this equivalence directly. Outputs stay distributionally indistinguishable from the reference model, not token-identical, since two calls to the same model already differ, but they are indistinguishable in capability and behavior. Of course, some requests execute cheaply and some cost Ship more than the customer pays, but the price per request is still a flat 50% off either way, so the execution-cost variance moves off the application's bill entirely. The video below depicts the cost savings and output in my real invocation, and I partnered with the team to put this together.

50% cheaper Claude inference with just one line of code change! - Remove → model="claude-opus-4-8" - Add → model="ship-like/claude-opus-4-8" I verified the cost saving in my own terminal by invoking the same Anthropic model with the same prompt. The underlying engineering by Ship is actually interesting, and the patterns can be used in any production LLM stack. Essentially, a trained model is a frozen artifact. Every request performs the same forward-pass, whether it extracts a date or refactors a module, because the compute decision was made at training time, before the request existed. Ship makes that decision at inference time instead. After seeing a request, it searches over executions, involving single models, cascades, ensembles, or harnesses with tools, and serves the cheapest one that will match the reference model's quality. This is not a basic router, because picking a cheaper model per query doesn't ensure the cheaper model preserves the original's behavior, like output shape, tool-call patterns, and refusals. Ship measures this equivalence directly. Outputs stay distributionally indistinguishable from the reference model, not token-identical, since two calls to the same model already differ, but they are indistinguishable in capability and behavior. Of course, some requests execute cheaply and some cost Ship more than the customer pays, but the price per request is still a flat 50% off either way, so the execution-cost variance moves off the application's bill entirely. The video below depicts the cost savings and output in my real invocation, and I partnered with the team to put this together.

Akshay 🚀

63,725 Aufrufe • vor 18 Tagen

New Claude Sonnet 5 performs at GPT 5.5 level 6x cheaper! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics crash demos Prompts: - A car crashes into a brick wall - A wrecking ball destroys a house - A catapult throws a rock at a castle wall Outputs: Sonnet 5: 15,047 tokens, $0.15 Opus 4.8: 23,063 tokens, $0.58 Sonnet 4.6: 25,824 tokens, $0.39 GPT 5.5: 31,152 tokens, $0.94 Sonnet 5 did as well as Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 on all three tests. In the wrecking ball test, it beat Opus 4.8. The cable moves smoothly and every hit connects. In the catapult test, it beat GPT 5.5. The rock always lands inside the wall. Sonnet 5 still needs better detail and graphics. But it used fewer tokens than every other model

New Claude Sonnet 5 performs at GPT 5.5 level 6x cheaper! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics crash demos Prompts: - A car crashes into a brick wall - A wrecking ball destroys a house - A catapult throws a rock at a castle wall Outputs: Sonnet 5: 15,047 tokens, $0.15 Opus 4.8: 23,063 tokens, $0.58 Sonnet 4.6: 25,824 tokens, $0.39 GPT 5.5: 31,152 tokens, $0.94 Sonnet 5 did as well as Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 on all three tests. In the wrecking ball test, it beat Opus 4.8. The cable moves smoothly and every hit connects. In the catapult test, it beat GPT 5.5. The rock always lands inside the wall. Sonnet 5 still needs better detail and graphics. But it used fewer tokens than every other model

atomic.chat

728,086 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

HERMES AGENT NOW RUNS CLAUDE OPUS 5. NEAR FABLE 5 INTELLIGENCE. HALF THE PRICE. SELF-VERIFIES ITS OWN WORK. AVAILABLE TODAY VIA NOUS PORTAL (20% OFF ALL MODELS). Anthropic shipped Opus 5 on July 24, 2026. same $5/$25 per million tokens as Opus 4.8. but the benchmarks tell a different story. WHAT CHANGED FROM OPUS 4.8: FrontierBench v0.1: Opus 5: 43.3%. Opus 4.8: 18.7%. 2.3x jump on the same test. ARC-AGI-3: Opus 5: 30.2%. 3x better than the next closest model. beat Fable 5 on 8 out of 13 benchmarks. at half the cost ($5/$25 vs $10/$50). same price as Opus 4.8. twice the intelligence. no reason to stay on 4.8. THE SPECS: model ID: claude-opus-5 context: 1M tokens (default and maximum) max output: 128K tokens thinking: on by default effort toggle: low / medium / high per request fast mode: $10/$50, 2.5x faster knowledge cutoff: May 2026 minimum cacheable prompt: 512 tokens (was 1,024) SELF-VERIFICATION (the biggest change): Opus 5 checks its own work automatically. Anthropic says: delete your verification prompts. "include a final verification step" now causes OVER-verification because the model already does it. for Hermes /goal tasks this is a direct upgrade. the judge checks evidence. the model also checks evidence. double layer of verification without extra tokens. EFFORT TOGGLE: low: fast, cheap, routine work. medium: balanced, daily tasks. high: full reasoning, complex problems. set per request. not a global switch. matches Hermes /reasoning command: /reasoning low (routine) /reasoning high (complex) Opus 5 effort toggle + Hermes reasoning control = precise cost management per turn. WHERE OPUS 5 FITS IN HERMES: DAILY DRIVER (replaces Opus 4.8): same price. 2.3x better benchmarks. set as your main model: Desktop app / Dashboard: Models → claude-opus-5 CHIEF OF STAFF: synthesis across multiple agents. reads Kanban, prioritizes, routes tasks. self-verification catches routing errors before they cascade. COMPLEX CODING: SOTA on agentic coding benchmarks. FrontierBench 43.3% = best public model for coding. set as coder profile model. /GOAL TASKS: self-verification + completion contracts = the model proves its work AND double-checks the proof. long-horizon goals finish correctly more often. MoA AGGREGATOR: strongest synthesis model at $5/$25. pair with GPT-5.6 and Grok 4.5 as references. Opus 5 aggregates. best quality at mid-range price. presets: max-quality: reference_models: - provider: openai-codex model: gpt-5.6-sol - provider: xai model: grok-4.5 aggregator: provider: anthropic model: claude-opus-5 COMPUTER USE: near-Fable 5 quality for browser automation. at half the token cost per session. computer_use tasks burn lots of vision tokens. Opus 5 halves that bill vs Fable 5. WHAT TO KEEP OPUS 5 AWAY FROM: cron monitoring: too expensive. use DeepSeek or no_agent mode. sub-agent grunt work: use GPT-5.6 Luna ($1/$6) or DeepSeek. auxiliary tasks: use Gemini Flash. routine web extraction: use a cheap model. Opus 5 is for the turns where quality compounds. planning, synthesis, verification, complex reasoning. budget models handle everything else. NOUS PORTAL: 20% OFF ALL MODELS Nous Portal currently runs a 20% discount on all models including Opus 5. $5/$25 official → $4/$20 through Nous Portal. the cheapest way to run Opus 5 right now. hermes setup --portal select claude-opus-5 as your model. discount applies automatically. Opus 5 replaces Opus 4.8 everywhere. same price. better at everything. no tradeoff. straight upgrade. hermes update /model claude-opus-5

YanXbt

16,744 Aufrufe • vor 15 Tagen

LongCat performed Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 level on real physics tasks for $0! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics Prompts: - A cannon demolishing a brick wall - A bowling ball knocking down the pins - A tornado that sucks in random objects Outputs: LongCat: 18,015 tokens, $0.00 Opus 4.8: 18,872 tokens, $0.48 GPT 5.5: 32,588 tokens, $0.98 GLM 5.2: 31,062 tokens, $0.09 On the physics LongCat came out ahead of Opus 4.8 and GLM 5.2 - cleaner collisions, nothing clipping or falling through. On detail and rendering it matched GPT 5.5, the best looking of the four. Getting this quality for free is wild!

LongCat performed Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 level on real physics tasks for $0! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics Prompts: - A cannon demolishing a brick wall - A bowling ball knocking down the pins - A tornado that sucks in random objects Outputs: LongCat: 18,015 tokens, $0.00 Opus 4.8: 18,872 tokens, $0.48 GPT 5.5: 32,588 tokens, $0.98 GLM 5.2: 31,062 tokens, $0.09 On the physics LongCat came out ahead of Opus 4.8 and GLM 5.2 - cleaner collisions, nothing clipping or falling through. On detail and rendering it matched GPT 5.5, the best looking of the four. Getting this quality for free is wild!

atomic.chat

105,523 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Claude Code + Nano Banana 2 is f*cking cracked 🤯 I built a skill inside Claude Code that writes JSON image prompts for Nano Banana 2, and the outputs look like they came from a professional photo shoot. One plain-text prompt. Claude rewrites it as structured JSON with lighting, camera, composition, style, and negative prompts. Then fires it off to Nano Banana 2. All inside Claude Code. Perfect for DTC brands and agencies who need high-volume ad creative without booking a shoot. If you're using Nano Banana 2 for product shots and lifestyle images but every generation feels like pulling a slot machine lever — random lighting, inconsistent style, plastic skin, misspelled labels ... This skill fixes the entire output: → You describe what you want in plain English → Claude rewrites it as a structured JSON prompt (lighting, camera angle, lens, depth of field, color grading — all of it) → Fires it to Nano Banana 2 via API → Saves the prompt + image in organized folders → You iterate on the style until it's dialed, then every output matches No more slot machine prompting. No more inconsistent brand imagery. No more burning credits on unusable generations. What you get: - Photo-realistic product shots and lifestyle images on demand - Full control over style, lighting, composition, and camera settings - Saved JSON prompts you can reuse across every campaign - A skill that gets smarter the more feedback you give it Built 100% in Claude Code with a custom skill + Python scripts. I put together a full playbook showing the exact skill, the JSON schema, and the workflow to set this up yourself. Want the full playbook? > Like this post > Comment "BANANA" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

NOVA

63,935 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Claude Code + Nano Banana 2 is f*cking cracked 🤯 I built a skill inside Claude Code that writes JSON image prompts for Nano Banana 2, and the outputs look like they came from a professional photo shoot. One plain-text prompt. Claude rewrites it as structured JSON with lighting, camera, composition, style, and negative prompts. Then fires it off to Nano Banana 2. All inside Claude Code. Perfect for DTC brands and agencies who need high-volume ad creative without booking a shoot. If you're using Nano Banana 2 for product shots and lifestyle images but every generation feels like pulling a slot machine lever — random lighting, inconsistent style, plastic skin, misspelled labels ... This skill fixes the entire output: → You describe what you want in plain English → Claude rewrites it as a structured JSON prompt (lighting, camera angle, lens, depth of field, color grading — all of it) → Fires it to Nano Banana 2 via API → Saves the prompt + image in organized folders → You iterate on the style until it's dialed, then every output matches No more slot machine prompting. No more inconsistent brand imagery. No more burning credits on unusable generations. What you get: - Photo-realistic product shots and lifestyle images on demand - Full control over style, lighting, composition, and camera settings - Saved JSON prompts you can reuse across every campaign - A skill that gets smarter the more feedback you give it Built 100% in Claude Code with a custom skill + Python scripts. I put together a full playbook showing the exact skill, the JSON schema, and the workflow to set this up yourself. Want the full playbook? > Like this post > Comment "BANANA" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

Mike Futia

211,756 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

this is f**king dangerous someone figured out how to make Opus 4.8 run on Fable 5's brain with one prompt access to the best model is never guaranteed. It disappeared once already this year. but you can use it forever. here's how: 1. ask Fable 5: "write the operating manual your replacement will run on" (procedures, failure modes, a 5-question self-test) 2. save the output as one .md file and drop it into a new Claude Project as the project instructions 3. switch to Opus 4.8 and now your everyday model runs off the smart one's method, no top-tier price save and bookmark this no matter what full extraction prompt is in the article below: ↓

this is f**king dangerous someone figured out how to make Opus 4.8 run on Fable 5's brain with one prompt access to the best model is never guaranteed. It disappeared once already this year. but you can use it forever. here's how: 1. ask Fable 5: "write the operating manual your replacement will run on" (procedures, failure modes, a 5-question self-test) 2. save the output as one .md file and drop it into a new Claude Project as the project instructions 3. switch to Opus 4.8 and now your everyday model runs off the smart one's method, no top-tier price save and bookmark this no matter what full extraction prompt is in the article below: ↓

Hamza Khalid

32,300 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

look what a single consumer GPU just built. gave Qwen3.5-35B-A3B one prompt: build a cloud GPU marketplace with pricing cards, deploy templates, and a benchmark leaderboard. it planned the layout, wrote the animations, populated the data, and served it. one shot. one HTML file. then i told it to iterate. split the hero, add a floating GPU with neural network animation. glassmorphism on the cards. done. done. done. three rounds, no confusion, no regressions. 4-bit quantized. 19.7 GB. single RTX 3090. full coding agent claude code harness running on localhost. no API calls leaving my machine. no subscription. no rate limits. earlier today i pointed it at my own production website. it curled the HTML, found every broken link, and told me "pretty shell, empty core. would not recommend." then built a better version from scratch. local inference stops being a demo when you actually steer it. the models are there. they understand intent. but you have to meet them halfway with good prompts, clear context, and real project structure. that's the skill gap now. not the models. the steering. more experiments coming. i genuinely cannot stop playing with this thing.

look what a single consumer GPU just built. gave Qwen3.5-35B-A3B one prompt: build a cloud GPU marketplace with pricing cards, deploy templates, and a benchmark leaderboard. it planned the layout, wrote the animations, populated the data, and served it. one shot. one HTML file. then i told it to iterate. split the hero, add a floating GPU with neural network animation. glassmorphism on the cards. done. done. done. three rounds, no confusion, no regressions. 4-bit quantized. 19.7 GB. single RTX 3090. full coding agent claude code harness running on localhost. no API calls leaving my machine. no subscription. no rate limits. earlier today i pointed it at my own production website. it curled the HTML, found every broken link, and told me "pretty shell, empty core. would not recommend." then built a better version from scratch. local inference stops being a demo when you actually steer it. the models are there. they understand intent. but you have to meet them halfway with good prompts, clear context, and real project structure. that's the skill gap now. not the models. the steering. more experiments coming. i genuinely cannot stop playing with this thing.

Sudo su

37,201 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Laguna S 2.1 performs at GLM-5.2 level on building popular games with 6x fewer params! We gave three local models the same task: build three popular arcade games that play themselves. Each game is one self-contained HTML file with a bot that plays it. Prompts: – Geometry Dash – Doodle Jump – Air Hockey Outputs: Laguna S 2.1: 10.3K tokens GLM-5.2: 26.4K tokens Hy3: 10.4K tokens Laguna held its quality against a 753B model. We think Laguna's Geometry Dash looked the best of the three, the cube clears every spike and block. GLM won Air Hockey. Its table looked the most detailed of all. Hy3 was the only model that added shooting to its Doodle Jump. But Laguna is the only model in our benchmark that runs on a MacBook with 128GB!

Laguna S 2.1 performs at GLM-5.2 level on building popular games with 6x fewer params! We gave three local models the same task: build three popular arcade games that play themselves. Each game is one self-contained HTML file with a bot that plays it. Prompts: – Geometry Dash – Doodle Jump – Air Hockey Outputs: Laguna S 2.1: 10.3K tokens GLM-5.2: 26.4K tokens Hy3: 10.4K tokens Laguna held its quality against a 753B model. We think Laguna's Geometry Dash looked the best of the three, the cube clears every spike and block. GLM won Air Hockey. Its table looked the most detailed of all. Hy3 was the only model that added shooting to its Doodle Jump. But Laguna is the only model in our benchmark that runs on a MacBook with 128GB!

atomic.chat

66,405 Aufrufe • vor 18 Tagen

Comparing AI video results: • Gen-3 • Kling AI 1.5 • Hailuo MiniMax • Luma Dream Machine I used a FLUX1.1 [pro] image as the input. Each model ran the same prompt 3 times, and I chose the best results: "Smooth side tracking shot of a woman jogging at twilight with the city skyline in the background, sharp focus on the woman as she pumps her arms with each stride as she jogs, depth of field, advertising commercial" Running, jogging, and walking are difficult for AI video models, and none of them produced a smooth result, but this is the worst they will be.

Comparing AI video results: • Gen-3 • Kling AI 1.5 • Hailuo MiniMax • Luma Dream Machine I used a FLUX1.1 [pro] image as the input. Each model ran the same prompt 3 times, and I chose the best results: "Smooth side tracking shot of a woman jogging at twilight with the city skyline in the background, sharp focus on the woman as she pumps her arms with each stride as she jogs, depth of field, advertising commercial" Running, jogging, and walking are difficult for AI video models, and none of them produced a smooth result, but this is the worst they will be.

Heather Cooper

57,672 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Fable 5 totally crushed our new contest, but it cost 6x more than Opus 4.8! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: — A train derailing off a broken bridge into the water — Two cars jumping off ramps and colliding mid-air over a canyon — A monster truck crushing a row of parked cars Outputs: Fable 5: 62,158 tokens, $3.12 GPT 5.5: 37,753 tokens, $1.14 Opus 4.8: 22,280 tokens, $0.56 GLM 5.2: 36,246 tokens, $0.08 Fable 5 did all three scenes at A+. The crashes looked real, things fell and broke the right way, and nothing went through the ground or floated. GPT 5.5 was the closest to Fable. In the Bigfoot show, we think GPT was even a little better. GLM 5.2 did not win any scene, but it was the cheapest by far. Fable is the best pick for quality, but you pay more for it.

Fable 5 totally crushed our new contest, but it cost 6x more than Opus 4.8! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: — A train derailing off a broken bridge into the water — Two cars jumping off ramps and colliding mid-air over a canyon — A monster truck crushing a row of parked cars Outputs: Fable 5: 62,158 tokens, $3.12 GPT 5.5: 37,753 tokens, $1.14 Opus 4.8: 22,280 tokens, $0.56 GLM 5.2: 36,246 tokens, $0.08 Fable 5 did all three scenes at A+. The crashes looked real, things fell and broke the right way, and nothing went through the ground or floated. GPT 5.5 was the closest to Fable. In the Bigfoot show, we think GPT was even a little better. GLM 5.2 did not win any scene, but it was the cheapest by far. Fable is the best pick for quality, but you pay more for it.

atomic.chat

2,837,028 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

After a few more hours, I think I've figured out Opus 5. Opus 5 is trained to be more agentic than anything I've used. All Claude 5 models are like that. So what changes? The way to interact with Opus 5 or contextualize it won't work the same way as with other models. It loves exploring, so it doesn't need much guidance for it. Unique preferences, artifacts, and references compliment it well and enable cleaner and more effective exploration and execution. Now that it can explore more effectively on its own and understand intent better, the best thing to do is to get out of its way (e.g., it doesn't need examples of your preferences; a clear high-level description of it works best). It's truly agentic in that sense. A good first step to provide better context for Opus 5 is to distinguish between what's situational and what needs persistence. Regardless, persistent system prompts and CLAUDE.MD needs to stay lightweight. Remove memories and tool descriptions from these. CLAUDE.MD is also a great place to tap into progressive disclosure by linking command/skills to it. On the situational side, agent skills and auto-memory can leverage progressive disclosure and the improved ability of the model to use its external context/knowledge. Conflicting and unnecessary instructions, which are common at this layer (mainly to ensure reliability), are going to throw off this model easily. That's the biggest change I had to make. Simple, clean, and clear prompts and skills work best. I had to clean a lot of my skills and system prompts. The way I prompt remains the same (usually clear and well-scoped). MCP tool descriptions are also more descriptive and have been deduped from the system prompt. Anthropic released a guide on the new rules for context engineering, which was helpful here. I started to test the recommendations and created a little artifact with the things that worked along the way. This might feel like a lot of work. Believe me, it has been frustrating. But I think we can expect future frontier models to become more agentic and smarter at figuring out the right context/gaps. The best thing to do is to prepare for that now. Boris Cherny mentioned that Opus 5 is their least prompt-injectable model yet. I am not sure if that was something they intentionally trained for or if it emerged based on how it was trained, which is to be extremely agentic in nature and more direct in execution.

After a few more hours, I think I've figured out Opus 5. Opus 5 is trained to be more agentic than anything I've used. All Claude 5 models are like that. So what changes? The way to interact with Opus 5 or contextualize it won't work the same way as with other models. It loves exploring, so it doesn't need much guidance for it. Unique preferences, artifacts, and references compliment it well and enable cleaner and more effective exploration and execution. Now that it can explore more effectively on its own and understand intent better, the best thing to do is to get out of its way (e.g., it doesn't need examples of your preferences; a clear high-level description of it works best). It's truly agentic in that sense. A good first step to provide better context for Opus 5 is to distinguish between what's situational and what needs persistence. Regardless, persistent system prompts and CLAUDE.MD needs to stay lightweight. Remove memories and tool descriptions from these. CLAUDE.MD is also a great place to tap into progressive disclosure by linking command/skills to it. On the situational side, agent skills and auto-memory can leverage progressive disclosure and the improved ability of the model to use its external context/knowledge. Conflicting and unnecessary instructions, which are common at this layer (mainly to ensure reliability), are going to throw off this model easily. That's the biggest change I had to make. Simple, clean, and clear prompts and skills work best. I had to clean a lot of my skills and system prompts. The way I prompt remains the same (usually clear and well-scoped). MCP tool descriptions are also more descriptive and have been deduped from the system prompt. Anthropic released a guide on the new rules for context engineering, which was helpful here. I started to test the recommendations and created a little artifact with the things that worked along the way. This might feel like a lot of work. Believe me, it has been frustrating. But I think we can expect future frontier models to become more agentic and smarter at figuring out the right context/gaps. The best thing to do is to prepare for that now. Boris Cherny mentioned that Opus 5 is their least prompt-injectable model yet. I am not sure if that was something they intentionally trained for or if it emerged based on how it was trained, which is to be extremely agentic in nature and more direct in execution.

elvis

37,551 Aufrufe • vor 10 Tagen

Claude Code + ChatGPT Images 2.0 is f*cking cracked 🤯 I rebuilt my static ad system inside Claude Code on the new ChatGPT Images 2.0 model. One brand name + one URL = 40 production-ready static ads. All inside Claude Code. Perfect for DTC brands and agencies who need high-volume ad creative without briefing a designer or spending hours in Canva. If you're finding winning ad concepts on Meta and manually recreating them one at a time — copying prompts, pasting product details, tweaking aspect ratios, downloading, organizing... This system eliminates the entire loop: → Give Claude a brand name and URL → It researches the brand's fonts, colors, packaging, and photography style → Builds a Brand DNA document from scratch → Fills in 40 proven ad templates (headline, us vs them, testimonial, UGC, review cards, stat callouts) with brand-specific details → Fires every prompt to ChatGPT Images 2.0 with your product photos as reference → Downloads finished ads into organized folders with an HTML gallery No manual prompt filling. No Canva templates. No copy-pasting between tools. What you get: → 40 ad formats filled with your exact brand colors, fonts, and copy → Text that actually renders correctly (the new model handles dense copy, logos, and multi-language callouts cleanly) → Product photos passed as reference so the model matches your real packaging → A reusable system — new brand, new folder, same pipeline Built 100% in Claude Code with ChatGPT Images 2.0. I put together a DIY playbook showing the exact architecture so you can build this yourself in Claude Code. Want it for free? > Like this post > Comment "CHAT" And I'll send it over (must be following so I can DM)

Mike Futia

189,250 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Claude Code + ChatGPT Images 2.0 is f*cking cracked 🤯 I rebuilt my static ad system inside Claude Code on the new ChatGPT Images 2.0 model. One brand name + one URL = 40 production-ready static ads. All inside Claude Code. Perfect for DTC brands and agencies who need high-volume ad creative without briefing a designer or spending hours in Canva. If you're finding winning ad concepts on Meta and manually recreating them one at a time — copying prompts, pasting product details, tweaking aspect ratios, downloading, organizing... This system eliminates the entire loop: → Give Claude a brand name and URL → It researches the brand's fonts, colors, packaging, and photography style → Builds a Brand DNA document from scratch → Fills in 40 proven ad templates (headline, us vs them, testimonial, UGC, review cards, stat callouts) with brand-specific details → Fires every prompt to ChatGPT Images 2.0 with your product photos as reference → Downloads finished ads into organized folders with an HTML gallery No manual prompt filling. No Canva templates. No copy-pasting between tools. What you get: → 40 ad formats filled with your exact brand colors, fonts, and copy → Text that actually renders correctly (the new model handles dense copy, logos, and multi-language callouts cleanly) → Product photos passed as reference so the model matches your real packaging → A reusable system — new brand, new folder, same pipeline Built 100% in Claude Code with ChatGPT Images 2.0. I put together a DIY playbook showing the exact architecture so you can build this yourself in Claude Code. Want it for free? > Like this post > Comment "CHAT" And I'll send it over (must be following @learnwithella so I can DM)

Ismail Khan

19,790 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

✨ Made a new mini feature on Photo AI: [ Grab from 3d model ] So the problem is we're at that stage in time (typical for AI) where image-to-3d models are not good enough but are fun to play with, but we know they'll be good enough in 1-2 years With [ Make 3d model ] you already can turn any Photo AI pic into a 3d model but it still looks hyper clunky and deformed, but it works! One cool idea I had to make that more useful and made now: Let people make a 3d model then change the view of the it with the 3d viewer, then press [ o ] and it grabs a frame of the 3d That image you can then [ Remix ] (img2img), and it becomes a real photo again and that in turn you can then turn into a video again with [ Make video ] So that essentially gives you a fully freeform camera position control to take photos with One thing I need to fix is the background/skybox, I kinda need to take the original photo and remove the person and just get the background for the 3d model viewer, in this case it should be white, but it's a start!

✨ Made a new mini feature on Photo AI: [ Grab from 3d model ] So the problem is we're at that stage in time (typical for AI) where image-to-3d models are not good enough but are fun to play with, but we know they'll be good enough in 1-2 years With [ Make 3d model ] you already can turn any Photo AI pic into a 3d model but it still looks hyper clunky and deformed, but it works! One cool idea I had to make that more useful and made now: Let people make a 3d model then change the view of the it with the 3d viewer, then press [ o ] and it grabs a frame of the 3d That image you can then [ Remix ] (img2img), and it becomes a real photo again and that in turn you can then turn into a video again with [ Make video ] So that essentially gives you a fully freeform camera position control to take photos with One thing I need to fix is the background/skybox, I kinda need to take the original photo and remove the person and just get the background for the 3d model viewer, in this case it should be white, but it's a start!

@levelsio

119,210 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr