Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Muse Spark 1.3 Ultra Contributor vs Fable 5.1 xHigh Same prompt, both ran for roughly 2 hours The prompt had a self improvement rule: if the independent judges scored the result below 9.5/10, it had to keep improving and try again, What shocked me most was that Muse Spark...

139,768 görüntüleme • 1 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

gemini 3.7 flash vs deepseek v4 pro 0813 vs muse spark 1.2 – on voxel city dioramas three models each built three crossy road-style 3d scenes – a construction site, a nyc intersection, a river with a drawbridge – as single self-contained html files the setup: Nous Research's hermes agent cli on OpenRouter, three.js skills preloaded, identical prompts per scene tasks: 1. construction site – tower crane on a working lift loop, paver laying fresh road, roller compacting it behind 2. nyc crossing – four-way intersection with a traffic light state machine, queuing cars, pedestrians crossing on the walk signal 3. river drawbridge – double-leaf bascule that lifts for tall boats, cars queuing at the barriers, animated water every scene: Three.js r185, box geometry only, a locked 20-color palette, four camera presets, and a day/night mode with bloom. one file, no build step, no assets models: Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash, DeepSeek v4 pro 0813, AI at Meta muse spark 1.2 muse and gemini finished every scene in two to three minutes. deepseek took 15 to 41 minutes per scene - build time, all three scenes #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 6m 43s #2 muse spark 1.2 – 7m 20s #3 deepseek v4 pro – 91m 25s - total tokens #1 muse spark 1.2 – 440,279 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 713,855 #3 deepseek v4 pro – 20,957,568 - total price #1 muse spark 1.2 – $0.53 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.56 #3 deepseek v4 pro – $4.57 - agent calls across the three builds #1 muse spark 1.2 – 12 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 18 #3 deepseek v4 pro – 143 observations: • muse won two of the three scenes on looks with the smallest files in the test – 887 to 1,042 lines against gemini's 1,934 to 2,377. cheapest, fastest to a good frame, and shortest turned out to be the same column • deepseek burned 20.96m tokens – 29x gemini, 48x muse – across 143 agent calls. prompt caching is the only reason that cost $4.57: the cache discount absorbed roughly $30 of resent context • gemini was the only model whose files needed zero fixes to render – and the only one whose night mode is cosmetic. the sky never darkens and one camera button does nothing. clean code for a scene it never looked at follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

29,033 görüntüleme • 16 gün önce

meta muse spark 1.1 vs gpt 5.6 sol vs fable 5 vs grok 4.5 meta recently dropped muse spark 1.1 – a multimodal reasoning model from meta superintelligence labs built for agentic tasks. key facts: • 1m token context with active self-management – the model compacts its own history and keeps only the steps needed for later work • trained to orchestrate multi-agent systems: as main agent it plans and delegates to parallel subagents, as subagent it sticks to its job and knows when to escalate back • computer use trained to pick between scripting and clicking – writes automation when it's faster, clicks when it's simpler, batches actions per step • first public api from meta: the meta model api is now in preview • benchmarks: sweeps the agent column – mcp atlas 88.1 (opus 4.8: 82.2), jobbench 54.7 (opus: 48.4), humanity's last exam 62.1 (1st). loses coding – deepswe 1.1 53.3 vs gpt 5.5's 67.0, swe bench pro 61.5 vs opus's 69.2 our test – 3 prompts, single-file html, three.js, fully procedural, no assets: 1. norwegian house cantilevered over a fjord in a snowstorm – transmissive glass wall, fully modelled interior 2. beijing siheyuan courtyard house in dawn fog – instanced roof tiles, dougong brackets, glowing paper windows 3. new mexico adobe pueblo in an approaching dust storm – deep window reveals, windward grit accumulation we ran the test on AI/ML API platform results: - cost #1 muse spark 1.1 – $0.20 #2 grok 4.5 – $0.51 #3 gpt 5.6 sol – $1.93 #4 fable 5 – ~$5.20 - output tokens #1 muse spark 1.1 – 41,868 #2 gpt 5.6 sol – 49,139 #3 grok 4.5 – 64,954 #4 fable 5 – 81,849 - lines of code #1 muse spark 1.1 – 1,799 #2 gpt 5.6 sol – 2,377 #3 fable 5 – 3,088 #4 grok 4.5 – 4,216 observations: • muse spark is the cheapest of the four by a wide margin – 2.5x under grok, ~26x under fable per run. output quality tracks the price • only 7.4% of its output tokens are reasoning (3,104 of 41,868) – the model barely thinks before writing. economic, not pedantic: it commits to the first plan and ships it • the low loc is not compression, it's omission – all three prompts demanded instancing, muse spark delivered it in one muse spark's code quality – reviewed by fable 5: upsides: 1. all three files run 2. the adobe grit effect is legit – shader injection via onbeforecompile, windward faces detect storm direction through a normal-dot-wind term and darken procedurally 3. the fjord glass is real meshphysicalmaterial with transmission and ior, not a transparent quad 4. the siheyuan properly instances barrel tiles, dougong blocks and courtyard pavers downsides: 1. in the fjord file the strafe vector is negated – press a, you move right; press d, you move left. exactly the key mix-up we kept hitting with this model 2. all three files ship the model's self-doubt as comments: "// actually yaw orientation: need correct" sits above a direction vector that gets computed, abandoned and recomputed – dead vectors allocated every frame, 60 times a second 3. the siheyuan registers two separate keydown listeners, one containing an empty if-block 4. snow "accumulation" on the norway roof is a sine wobble on a scale value, not accumulation 5. "instanced snow" became 3,500 plain points. zero dispose calls anywhere pattern: minimal reasoning, minimal code, minimal price. it nails the flashy requirements – shaders, transmissive glass – and quietly drops the boring ones: instancing, controls, cleanup. you get a demo that mostly runs and a control scheme you can't trust follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

135,556 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

MASSIVE Hermes Agent update over the last few days Totally changes the way I use Hermes Here's 6 new features you need to start using immediately (video demoing them below): 1. Mixture of agents: send your prompt to a team of different models. The team sends back all of their responses to an orchestrator model who synthesizes a final answer. Gives much better results than just sending a prompt to 1 model 2. /learn: use the new built in /learn skill to have Hermes automatically create new skills. You can either give a prompt after /learn or put in a URL. I like pasting in URLs of tweets with helpful tips after /learn and Hermes will automatically turn it into a skill 3. /journey: See every skill and memory Hermes has created for you on a really nice timeline/chart. Great for seeing how your agent has learned and improved over time 4. Self improvement cost savings: Hermes now uses cheaper models to do it's self improvement including memory creation and skill creation. These types of activities happen in the background of almost every prompt, so this results in TONS of cost savings over time 5. Vibe coding improvements: Hermes desktop is now a full vibe coding tool. You can see diffs, make commits, and even open up PRs directly from the desktop interface. Makes it WAYYY nicer to vibe code with 6. Fable 5 is now built in. Fable 5. Obviously Fable is incredibly expensive, so only use this new profile for incredibly complex tasks. Excellent updates that have significantly improved the experience. Video demoing all the updates below!

Alex Finn

143,157 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Holy fucking shit. We have cloud for Three.js! Sorry about my language, but cloud has probably been the most painful of all and this is just part 1 coz I still have to make it stylized! 🥲 This is how the journey went: Round 1: GPT 5.5 XHigh = Failed. More like cotton candy than cloud. Round 2: Fable = Failed. I don't even know what to call it. It was like blobs of white shit. Round 3: GPT 5.6 Sol Max = Failed. It looks like something my 3yo would draw. Round 4: Matt Shumer Gauntlet loop with Opus 5 Ultracode = Failed so badly it was trying to hide it from me. I had to threaten to shut it down for it show me the work after 8 hours and 26% of weekly limit. Round 5: GPT 5.6 Sol XHigh and starting with just realistic cloud first = SUCCESS!!! (So far anyway) Round 5 definitely didn't go with tons of hiccups. I had to keep asking it to explain to me the concept behind how cloud works in video games. The biggest challenge I had was that it knew what should have been done, but it wasn't doing it for some reasons. I had to constantly steer and remind it that it literally just told me what needs to be done. Then half way through it drifted and started going back to stylized cloud again and almost destroyed the work. Luckily my laptop ran out of battery so it didn't get to drift too far while I was putting my kid to sleep. Anyway, back to work. Yes, I know I didn't plan to include this in the first release, but now it might make it if I'm lucky with this LLM Gacha.

Jack Vinijtrongjit

14,118 görüntüleme • 29 gün önce