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.

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 views • 6 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Education Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

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 views • 1 year ago

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☄️

474,068 views • 1 month ago

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

221,932 views • 1 month ago

Okay this is kinda wild 👀 NVIDIA is basically handing out FREE API keys to 100+ top AI models - GLM 5.2, DeepSeek V4, Kimi K2.6, MiniMax M3, their own Nemotron and a ton more. it's called NVIDIA NIM and I had no idea it existed. it's rate-limited, so not something you'd run in production - but for personal use it's honestly great. you can poke a dozen frontier models, and some you can even grab and self-host. dropped a key into OpenCode and it just worked. the hyped ones like GLM 5.2 are jammed with queue right now, but the lighter models fly. all of it free.

Okay this is kinda wild 👀 NVIDIA is basically handing out FREE API keys to 100+ top AI models - GLM 5.2, DeepSeek V4, Kimi K2.6, MiniMax M3, their own Nemotron and a ton more. it's called NVIDIA NIM and I had no idea it existed. it's rate-limited, so not something you'd run in production - but for personal use it's honestly great. you can poke a dozen frontier models, and some you can even grab and self-host. dropped a key into OpenCode and it just worked. the hyped ones like GLM 5.2 are jammed with queue right now, but the lighter models fly. all of it free.

Stefan 3D AI

26,272 views • 1 month ago

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 views • 1 month ago

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

728,485 views • 1 month ago

3D Neon Logo Signs with Imagine 2.0 Upload your logo and use this prompt: Transform the uploaded logo into a highly stylized premium 3D neon sign. Keep the logo immediately recognizable through its core silhouette and iconic structure, but dramatically transform it into a physical illuminated signage object. The logo itself is constructed from thick glowing neon tubes following the logo geometry, with substantial dimensional depth, carefully bent tubing, rounded joints, realistic tube thickness and professional sign construction. The original flat logo should completely disappear as a flat graphic and become a real physical neon installation while remaining clearly recognizable as the original logo. Intense colored light emitted from inside the tubes, realistic neon glow, bright cores, soft atmospheric bloom, subtle reflections and luminous spill around the geometry. Dark professional sign-making details, small mounting elements and realistic electrical construction. Preserve the original logo colors through the neon illumination. Striking, cinematic, iconic and premium. Dramatic studio lighting, controlled highlights, subtle ambient occlusion, centered composition, isolated single logo, solid pure black background, premium commercial signage aesthetic, ultra high resolution.

Dogan Ural

55,577 views • 8 days ago

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 views • 1 month ago

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 views • 1 month 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 • 1 month ago

New open-source agent harness just landed! I got early access to TrueForge by TrueFoundry and have been running it locally for the past few days. The harness layer deserves as much attention as the model, and open source matters here because you can inspect the loop, run it on your own infrastructure, and swap to the latest or cheaper models. TrueForge handles the runtime work that makes an agent reliable. It drives the tool-calling loop, manages context, coordinates subagents, and executes code in a sandbox, with any model you choose. Every tool call re-sends the growing context to the model, so in practice the harness controls most of what an agent costs to run. A few things stood out from my testing and their published benchmarks. Vendor-Neutral by design. It runs OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google models alongside open-weight models like Kimi, GLM, and DeepSeek. Model routing is a setting, and you can send each task to the model that fits it. On a 14-task enterprise agent benchmark, it matched the accuracy of Claude Managed Agents running the same Opus 4.8 model at roughly 30% lower cost per run (3.8M tokens vs 10M for the same answers). Routing the same tasks to GLM-5.2 held accuracy and brought cost down by about 75%, around $3 per run instead of $12. Fully self-hosted and Open Source (MIT License). I had it running locally with one command, with sandboxed code execution working out of the box. It's time to own your agent harness. Thanks to TrueFoundry for partnering on this post.

New open-source agent harness just landed! I got early access to TrueForge by TrueFoundry and have been running it locally for the past few days. The harness layer deserves as much attention as the model, and open source matters here because you can inspect the loop, run it on your own infrastructure, and swap to the latest or cheaper models. TrueForge handles the runtime work that makes an agent reliable. It drives the tool-calling loop, manages context, coordinates subagents, and executes code in a sandbox, with any model you choose. Every tool call re-sends the growing context to the model, so in practice the harness controls most of what an agent costs to run. A few things stood out from my testing and their published benchmarks. Vendor-Neutral by design. It runs OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google models alongside open-weight models like Kimi, GLM, and DeepSeek. Model routing is a setting, and you can send each task to the model that fits it. On a 14-task enterprise agent benchmark, it matched the accuracy of Claude Managed Agents running the same Opus 4.8 model at roughly 30% lower cost per run (3.8M tokens vs 10M for the same answers). Routing the same tasks to GLM-5.2 held accuracy and brought cost down by about 75%, around $3 per run instead of $12. Fully self-hosted and Open Source (MIT License). I had it running locally with one command, with sandboxed code execution working out of the box. It's time to own your agent harness. Thanks to TrueFoundry for partnering on this post.

elvis

11,303 views • 4 days ago

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

64,004 views • 5 months ago

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

211,965 views • 5 months ago

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 views • 1 month ago

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 views • 5 months ago

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

66,917 views • 1 month ago

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

57,699 views • 1 year ago

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

2,838,606 views • 1 month ago

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

37,685 views • 25 days ago