Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Bu video yüklenirken bir sorun oluştu. Bu geçici bir ağ sorunundan kaynaklanıyor olabilir veya video kullanılamıyor olabilir.

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Nemotron 3 Ultra performed GPT 5.5 level 10× cheaper We gave three same prompts to build HTML5 canvas with real physics. At first scene we have water in a spinning drum. Galton board - balls through pegs into bins. And a block collision setup with extreme mass differences. Outputs:... show more

atomic.chat

13,340 subscribers

701,352 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

Bilim & Teknoloji

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

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 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

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 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

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

2,839,221 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Open-weight LongCat 2.0 matched GPT-5.5 level on agentic game dev for $0! We ran Meituan's LongCat 2.0 against cloud frontier GPT-5.5 in Kilo CLI with their agent. Same task for both - build a retro Duck Hunt game in one game.html, improved over 3 agent iterations with duck waves, ammo and physics Outputs: LongCat 2.0: 70.3K tokens, $0.00 GPT-5.5: 64.9K tokens, $0.65 LongCat kept up on graphics, physics and game logic. Ducks fly and fall when hit, the dog fetches them, ammo counts down, the waves keep coming. Both ran clean and nothing clipped. The only difference was the bill - GPT cost $0.65, LongCat ran local for $0

Open-weight LongCat 2.0 matched GPT-5.5 level on agentic game dev for $0! We ran Meituan's LongCat 2.0 against cloud frontier GPT-5.5 in Kilo CLI with their agent. Same task for both - build a retro Duck Hunt game in one game.html, improved over 3 agent iterations with duck waves, ammo and physics Outputs: LongCat 2.0: 70.3K tokens, $0.00 GPT-5.5: 64.9K tokens, $0.65 LongCat kept up on graphics, physics and game logic. Ducks fly and fall when hit, the dog fetches them, ammo counts down, the waves keep coming. Both ran clean and nothing clipped. The only difference was the bill - GPT cost $0.65, LongCat ran local for $0

atomic.chat

40,046 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Grok 4.5 performed GPT Sol level for free! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: -robot deathmatch, Tombstone vs Minotaur -a hydraulic press flattening stuff on a conveyor -a semi truck jumping a canyon Outputs: GPT-5.6 Sol: 12.9K tokens, $0.51 (~7 min) Grok 4.5: 10.8K tokens, $0 (~5 min) Muse Spark 1.1: 26.8K tokens, $0.12 (~7.5 min) GLM 5.2: 10.9K tokens, $0.02 (~12 min) Grok 4.5 handled all three scenes genuinely well and got surprisingly close to GPT-5.6 this round. On top of that, it ran on the free tier. GPT-5.6 Sol, the frontier model, put out solid but not standout work. GLM 5.2 rendered all three scenes for pennies, but it came out the roughest of the four. Meta's new Muse Spark burned the most tokens yet still stayed cheap, delivering an average result.

Grok 4.5 performed GPT Sol level for free! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: -robot deathmatch, Tombstone vs Minotaur -a hydraulic press flattening stuff on a conveyor -a semi truck jumping a canyon Outputs: GPT-5.6 Sol: 12.9K tokens, $0.51 (~7 min) Grok 4.5: 10.8K tokens, $0 (~5 min) Muse Spark 1.1: 26.8K tokens, $0.12 (~7.5 min) GLM 5.2: 10.9K tokens, $0.02 (~12 min) Grok 4.5 handled all three scenes genuinely well and got surprisingly close to GPT-5.6 this round. On top of that, it ran on the free tier. GPT-5.6 Sol, the frontier model, put out solid but not standout work. GLM 5.2 rendered all three scenes for pennies, but it came out the roughest of the four. Meta's new Muse Spark burned the most tokens yet still stayed cheap, delivering an average result.

atomic.chat

70,490 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Fable 5 absolutely crushed the HTML5 physics contest, but cost 6x more than Opus 4.8 and 39× more than GLM 5.2 in that test. Test was done on atomic[.]chat, a desktop app that runs LLMs locally. The test asked 4 models to generate self-contained canvas demos with believable motion and collisions. The scenes were not simple animations because every crash needed gravity, force, timing, and contact handling. 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 absolutely crushed the HTML5 physics contest, but cost 6x more than Opus 4.8 and 39× more than GLM 5.2 in that test. Test was done on atomic[.]chat, a desktop app that runs LLMs locally. The test asked 4 models to generate self-contained canvas demos with believable motion and collisions. The scenes were not simple animations because every crash needed gravity, force, timing, and contact handling. 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

Rohan Paul

205,771 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Sakana Fugu surprisingly performed near GLM 5.2 level but 17× more expensive! We gave the same prompt to 4 models: build a complete live Trader Desk with both frontend and backend components, real-time market data fetched from external APIs for 8 symbols, and a custom dark-theme UI. Outputs: Fugu Ultra — 22,225 t, $0.51 Opus 4.8 — 15,802 t, $0.31 GPT-5.5 — 11,474 t, $0.26 GLM 5.2 — 13,677 t, $0.03 Fugu created the most polished and feature-rich trading desk in the run. GLM 5.2 was very close behind, with a similarly complete multi-panel interface and live data, but at a much lower cost. Opus and GPT also performed well, delivering solid results with a better balance between quality and cost

Sakana Fugu surprisingly performed near GLM 5.2 level but 17× more expensive! We gave the same prompt to 4 models: build a complete live Trader Desk with both frontend and backend components, real-time market data fetched from external APIs for 8 symbols, and a custom dark-theme UI. Outputs: Fugu Ultra — 22,225 t, $0.51 Opus 4.8 — 15,802 t, $0.31 GPT-5.5 — 11,474 t, $0.26 GLM 5.2 — 13,677 t, $0.03 Fugu created the most polished and feature-rich trading desk in the run. GLM 5.2 was very close behind, with a similarly complete multi-panel interface and live data, but at a much lower cost. Opus and GPT also performed well, delivering solid results with a better balance between quality and cost

atomic.chat

743,937 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

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 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

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

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

Dan Shipper 📧

354,478 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

It's safe to say Meta is back in the game. We ran a blind "style-transfer" tournament with AI at Meta's new Muse Image vs >OpenAI's GPT Image 2 >Google Gemini's Nano Banana Pro >BlackForestLabsAI - Unofficial's FLUX.2. on 10 real world briefs, 55 tournaments, with every output ranked blind by professional working creatives. GPT won the most, but Muse placed top-two in 59%, more than any other model, already beating Nano Banana Pro 👀 (Image reference created with Muse Image btw)

It's safe to say Meta is back in the game. We ran a blind "style-transfer" tournament with AI at Meta's new Muse Image vs >OpenAI's GPT Image 2 >Google Gemini's Nano Banana Pro >BlackForestLabsAI - Unofficial's FLUX.2. on 10 real world briefs, 55 tournaments, with every output ranked blind by professional working creatives. GPT won the most, but Muse placed top-two in 59%, more than any other model, already beating Nano Banana Pro 👀 (Image reference created with Muse Image btw)

ben

36,620 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Holy moly: GLM-5.3 got much better in cybersecurity since our pre-release evaluation with Z.ai. It now matches GPT-5.6-Sol on our cybersecurity benchmark at 0.4x the cost 🤯 - At pass@1: it went from 60.4% to 65.6% CVEs rediscovered, crushing every other open model on one-shot tasks - At pass@3: it did 75% -> 78.1%, matching GPT-5.6-Sol - Its precision remained stable, reporting fewer false positives than DeepSeek models The performance increase comes from a behavioral change: the new version is more persistent. It tends to run longer, and had a ~43% reasoning tokens increase. But the performance upgrade is worth that additional cost. 1/3 🧵

Holy moly: GLM-5.3 got much better in cybersecurity since our pre-release evaluation with Z.ai. It now matches GPT-5.6-Sol on our cybersecurity benchmark at 0.4x the cost 🤯 - At pass@1: it went from 60.4% to 65.6% CVEs rediscovered, crushing every other open model on one-shot tasks - At pass@3: it did 75% -> 78.1%, matching GPT-5.6-Sol - Its precision remained stable, reporting fewer false positives than DeepSeek models The performance increase comes from a behavioral change: the new version is more persistent. It tends to run longer, and had a ~43% reasoning tokens increase. But the performance upgrade is worth that additional cost. 1/3 🧵

pilvar (Philippe Dourassov)

29,276 görüntüleme • 9 gün önce

🚀 Self-speculation brings 6.75x real speedup for LLM generation with SGLang inference! Same model drafts future tokens in Diffusion mode → then verifies them in AR (causal) mode. One model and one KV cache. Just different attention masks. Thanks to perfect alignment, we get 2× longer acceptance lengths than MTP techniques (Eagle-3, MTP, dFlash). We run 2 forward passes… but the 2× higher acceptance means we break even - and with zero overhead from extra drafter, KV cache, or LM head that comes with MTP - those are not free. Last week we released Nemotron-Labs-Diffusion + Tri-mode LLMs! We did continued pre-training on Ministral-3 models by switching attention patterns (block causal bidirectional). Result: one model that runs AR mode, Diffusion mode, and Self-Speculation. Diffusion mode already shows high benchmark accuracy - excited to see what happens when someone beats left-to-right acceptance! 🔥 Github: Paper: SGLang inference: Try the models on HF:

🚀 Self-speculation brings 6.75x real speedup for LLM generation with SGLang inference! Same model drafts future tokens in Diffusion mode → then verifies them in AR (causal) mode. One model and one KV cache. Just different attention masks. Thanks to perfect alignment, we get 2× longer acceptance lengths than MTP techniques (Eagle-3, MTP, dFlash). We run 2 forward passes… but the 2× higher acceptance means we break even - and with zero overhead from extra drafter, KV cache, or LM head that comes with MTP - those are not free. Last week we released Nemotron-Labs-Diffusion + Tri-mode LLMs! We did continued pre-training on Ministral-3 models by switching attention patterns (block causal bidirectional). Result: one model that runs AR mode, Diffusion mode, and Self-Speculation. Diffusion mode already shows high benchmark accuracy - excited to see what happens when someone beats left-to-right acceptance! 🔥 Github: Paper: SGLang inference: Try the models on HF:

Pavlo Molchanov

66,604 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

#Keep4o 🚨THE GPT-4o FILE🚨 Researchers at Microsoft Research published a paper titled “Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4.” Their conclusion: “An early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system.” 📎 Paper: OpenAI’s Charter defines AGI as: “Highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work.” 📎 Source: OpenAI’s own System Card for GPT-4o shows that the model improved performance on 21 out of 22 medical evaluations compared to GPT-4T. On the MedQA USMLE (the U.S. medical licensing exam), accuracy jumped from 78.2% to 89.4% , surpassing specialized medical AI models like Med-Gemini and Med-PaLM 2. 📎 Source: Under OpenAI’s agreement with Microsoft, AGI is explicitly excluded from Microsoft’s license. And who decides if AGI has been reached? OpenAI’s Board. WHAT THEY DID WITH IT AFTER THEY TOOK IT FROM PEOPLE A. Military deployment. On February 28, OpenAI signed a deal to deploy models in classified military environments. 📎 Source: B. State Department. A State Department memo confirmed: “For now, StateChat will use GPT-4.1 from OpenAI.” This is a direct descendant of the GPT-4 family the same family Microsoft’s researchers called early AGI. 📎 Source: C.Altman’s personal biotech investment. Altman personally invested $180 million in Retro Biosciences,a longevity startup.OpenAI then built GPT-4b micro, based on GPT-4o.The model made proteins 50 times more effective. 📎 Source: WHAT INDEPENDENT BENCHMARKS SHOW Overall SM-Bench score: GPT-4o (extended): 66.6% GPT-5.3 Chat: 63.4% GPT-5.1: 58.9% GPT-5.4: 51.4% GPT-5.2: 47.8% Creative Writing: GPT-4o: 97.31% Pass 98, Fail 2 GPT-5.4: 36.77% Pass 40, Fail 60 Reasoning / Overfit: GPT-4o: 83.06% GPT-5.4: 39.25% The model they removed is still the best they ever made at the things humans actually use AI for. 📎 Source: Musk asks the court to make a judicial determination on whether GPT-4 constitutes AGI. If a jury finds that GPT-4 is AGI, then GPT-4o,which was more advanced,is also AGI and under OpenAI’s own founding documents, it was never supposed to be locked behind a subscription,licensed exclusively to Microsoft, given to the military, or taken away from the public. 📎 Source: The most powerful version of GPT-4o was never given an official dated snapshot. It was only available through the chatgpt-4o-latest endpoint that OpenAI itself described as intended for “research use only.” It was never officially archived. That is not an oversight. That is a pattern. 📎 Source: 📎 Source: WE DEMAND A.Frozen model snapshots under independent custody. Specifically: gpt-4o-2024-05-13, gpt-4o-2024-08-06, gpt-4o-2024-11-20, the March 2025 version (chatgpt-4o-latest), gpt-4-0613 (the original GPT-4 evaluated in the Sparks of AGI paper), and gpt-4.1-2025-04-14 (currently running in the State Department). B.Cryptographic hash verification (SHA-256) for each snapshot. Every model has weights. Those weights can be hashed. If OpenAI provides a snapshot today, the hash proves whether the weights were modified later. This is the only way to verify that models were not downgraded before testing. C.Independent AGI benchmarking. Using the AGI definition from OpenAI’s own Charter applied to ALL frozen snapshots listed above. D.Explanation for the missing March 2025 snapshot. OpenAI was founded on one promise: build AGI for the benefit of humanity. -They took it from us. -They gave it to the military. -They gave a custom version to the CEO’s biotech investment. -They put it in government classified networks. -They refuse to call it AGI because the moment they do, they lose billions.

#Keep4o 🚨THE GPT-4o FILE🚨 Researchers at Microsoft Research published a paper titled “Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4.” Their conclusion: “An early (yet still incomplete) version of an artificial general intelligence (AGI) system.” 📎 Paper: OpenAI’s Charter defines AGI as: “Highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work.” 📎 Source: OpenAI’s own System Card for GPT-4o shows that the model improved performance on 21 out of 22 medical evaluations compared to GPT-4T. On the MedQA USMLE (the U.S. medical licensing exam), accuracy jumped from 78.2% to 89.4% , surpassing specialized medical AI models like Med-Gemini and Med-PaLM 2. 📎 Source: Under OpenAI’s agreement with Microsoft, AGI is explicitly excluded from Microsoft’s license. And who decides if AGI has been reached? OpenAI’s Board. WHAT THEY DID WITH IT AFTER THEY TOOK IT FROM PEOPLE A. Military deployment. On February 28, OpenAI signed a deal to deploy models in classified military environments. 📎 Source: B. State Department. A State Department memo confirmed: “For now, StateChat will use GPT-4.1 from OpenAI.” This is a direct descendant of the GPT-4 family the same family Microsoft’s researchers called early AGI. 📎 Source: C.Altman’s personal biotech investment. Altman personally invested $180 million in Retro Biosciences,a longevity startup.OpenAI then built GPT-4b micro, based on GPT-4o.The model made proteins 50 times more effective. 📎 Source: WHAT INDEPENDENT BENCHMARKS SHOW Overall SM-Bench score: GPT-4o (extended): 66.6% GPT-5.3 Chat: 63.4% GPT-5.1: 58.9% GPT-5.4: 51.4% GPT-5.2: 47.8% Creative Writing: GPT-4o: 97.31% Pass 98, Fail 2 GPT-5.4: 36.77% Pass 40, Fail 60 Reasoning / Overfit: GPT-4o: 83.06% GPT-5.4: 39.25% The model they removed is still the best they ever made at the things humans actually use AI for. 📎 Source: Musk asks the court to make a judicial determination on whether GPT-4 constitutes AGI. If a jury finds that GPT-4 is AGI, then GPT-4o,which was more advanced,is also AGI and under OpenAI’s own founding documents, it was never supposed to be locked behind a subscription,licensed exclusively to Microsoft, given to the military, or taken away from the public. 📎 Source: The most powerful version of GPT-4o was never given an official dated snapshot. It was only available through the chatgpt-4o-latest endpoint that OpenAI itself described as intended for “research use only.” It was never officially archived. That is not an oversight. That is a pattern. 📎 Source: 📎 Source: WE DEMAND A.Frozen model snapshots under independent custody. Specifically: gpt-4o-2024-05-13, gpt-4o-2024-08-06, gpt-4o-2024-11-20, the March 2025 version (chatgpt-4o-latest), gpt-4-0613 (the original GPT-4 evaluated in the Sparks of AGI paper), and gpt-4.1-2025-04-14 (currently running in the State Department). B.Cryptographic hash verification (SHA-256) for each snapshot. Every model has weights. Those weights can be hashed. If OpenAI provides a snapshot today, the hash proves whether the weights were modified later. This is the only way to verify that models were not downgraded before testing. C.Independent AGI benchmarking. Using the AGI definition from OpenAI’s own Charter applied to ALL frozen snapshots listed above. D.Explanation for the missing March 2025 snapshot. OpenAI was founded on one promise: build AGI for the benefit of humanity. -They took it from us. -They gave it to the military. -They gave a custom version to the CEO’s biotech investment. -They put it in government classified networks. -They refuse to call it AGI because the moment they do, they lose billions.

🩵BlueBeba🩵

18,300 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce

A similar scenario is playing out today with China, except the roles are reversed. In (at least) one of his interviews, Palmer Luckey explains that we can build incredible high tech weapons, but China can still wreck carriers and bases by throwing thousands of cheaper missiles at them, even lower quality ones, because the numbers just overwhelm you and burn through your defenses fast. The problem is that we don’t produce enough of our good tech, we build it way too slow, and it costs a fortune to replace, while they’re pumping missiles out of factories at a pace we gave up on years ago. So all that fancy stuff only works if you can actually keep replacing it once the fight starts, and right now we can’t. We need systems that are cheap enough to lose and easy to make in big numbers, because the side that runs out first loses.

A similar scenario is playing out today with China, except the roles are reversed. In (at least) one of his interviews, Palmer Luckey explains that we can build incredible high tech weapons, but China can still wreck carriers and bases by throwing thousands of cheaper missiles at them, even lower quality ones, because the numbers just overwhelm you and burn through your defenses fast. The problem is that we don’t produce enough of our good tech, we build it way too slow, and it costs a fortune to replace, while they’re pumping missiles out of factories at a pace we gave up on years ago. So all that fancy stuff only works if you can actually keep replacing it once the fight starts, and right now we can’t. We need systems that are cheap enough to lose and easy to make in big numbers, because the side that runs out first loses.

Rothmus 🏴

77,099 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

A 14-year-old American girl bought a house in cash at 16 while her classmates were taking exams. It started with one Google Maps search - she found an HVAC company with 4.8 stars, 280 reviews and a website too embarrassing to show clients. Copied their data into ChatGPT 5.5 - 2 minutes later a complete brief, an hour later a live site with booking and a reviews section. Called the owner and showed him the preview. He signed the $900 invoice the same day. Then she stopped looking for clients by hand. Outscraper pulls 200 businesses from Google Maps in 10 minutes - name, email, rating, review count. ChatGPT 5.5 writes a personalized email for each one with their real business data. 500 emails a day, 3% respond, 10% of those become clients. Month one - $3,800. Month six - $22,000. Two years - $380,000 and a house. Five million businesses on Google Maps are still waiting for that call.

A 14-year-old American girl bought a house in cash at 16 while her classmates were taking exams. It started with one Google Maps search - she found an HVAC company with 4.8 stars, 280 reviews and a website too embarrassing to show clients. Copied their data into ChatGPT 5.5 - 2 minutes later a complete brief, an hour later a live site with booking and a reviews section. Called the owner and showed him the preview. He signed the $900 invoice the same day. Then she stopped looking for clients by hand. Outscraper pulls 200 businesses from Google Maps in 10 minutes - name, email, rating, review count. ChatGPT 5.5 writes a personalized email for each one with their real business data. 500 emails a day, 3% respond, 10% of those become clients. Month one - $3,800. Month six - $22,000. Two years - $380,000 and a house. Five million businesses on Google Maps are still waiting for that call.

Sprytix

1,063,211 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Right now, you may not have access to models like GPT‑5.6 Sol, GPT‑4.6 Terra, GPT‑5.6 Luna, Claude Mythos 5, or Claude Fable 5. But you can run something surprisingly powerful today, locally, and completely free. in the next 10 mins on your 8 GB VRAM gaming laptop. Gemma 4 26B A4B QAT (MoE) delivers strong performance on a standard 8 GB VRAM GPU using Ollama, with no API, no usage limits, and no external dependencies. Out of the box, it reaches around 20 tokens per second without any optimizations. Only one command in your terminal: Ollama run gemma4:26b This means: Full offline capability (privacy by default) Zero recurring cost Competitive performance for many real world tasks Fast enough for interactive use on cheap consumer hardware If you're waiting for cutting edge cloud models, you're missing what is already practical today: a capable, local LLM that runs entirely on your own machine.

Right now, you may not have access to models like GPT‑5.6 Sol, GPT‑4.6 Terra, GPT‑5.6 Luna, Claude Mythos 5, or Claude Fable 5. But you can run something surprisingly powerful today, locally, and completely free. in the next 10 mins on your 8 GB VRAM gaming laptop. Gemma 4 26B A4B QAT (MoE) delivers strong performance on a standard 8 GB VRAM GPU using Ollama, with no API, no usage limits, and no external dependencies. Out of the box, it reaches around 20 tokens per second without any optimizations. Only one command in your terminal: Ollama run gemma4:26b This means: Full offline capability (privacy by default) Zero recurring cost Competitive performance for many real world tasks Fast enough for interactive use on cheap consumer hardware If you're waiting for cutting edge cloud models, you're missing what is already practical today: a capable, local LLM that runs entirely on your own machine.

Alok

65,387 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Does LLM really need to be a helpful assistant all the time? No. If you want to simulate people, “perfectly helpful” could be the wrong objective. Meet OdysSim, a journey toward LLMs beyond assistants, as behavioral foundation models (10B tokens of real human behavior; 23 sim benchmarks, finally in one place. new open models: outperform or on par with GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1, or Claude Opus 4.7 in many behavior-sim dimensions). Human behavior simulation is becoming essential. Agent evaluation needs realistic users before real users show up. Medical and classroom training need realistic patients and students. Social science needs synthetic participants at scale. But real people are not ideal assistants. Real patients panic or ignore good advice. Real students misunderstand. Real customers are vague, picky, impatient, or simply leave. Human behavior is messy, diverse, and often imperfect. Frontier LLMs are getting better at math, code, and long-horizon tasks. They are NOT getting better at simulating human behavior. If anything, they drift the other way: more assistant-ish, more homogeneous, fewer of the errors and quirks real humans show. This is no accident. The whole pipeline is built for helpfulness and task success, not behavioral realism. And you can't prompt your way out of that. So we rethink the recipe from scratch and release: 🧠 The OdysSim corpus: 21.4M real human interactions (~10B tokens) from 62 sources, every conversation retrofitted with social grounding (who is talking, and why) 📏 SOUL-Index: 23 human-behavior benchmarks unified into one suite across 5 axes 🤖 OSim-8B: open weights; tops more SOUL-Index benchmarks than any frontier model, acts more like a real user than any of them on τ-bench (nearly matching real humans in the reaction dimension), and writes far more human-like text along the way.

Does LLM really need to be a helpful assistant all the time? No. If you want to simulate people, “perfectly helpful” could be the wrong objective. Meet OdysSim, a journey toward LLMs beyond assistants, as behavioral foundation models (10B tokens of real human behavior; 23 sim benchmarks, finally in one place. new open models: outperform or on par with GPT-5.5, Gemini 3.1, or Claude Opus 4.7 in many behavior-sim dimensions). Human behavior simulation is becoming essential. Agent evaluation needs realistic users before real users show up. Medical and classroom training need realistic patients and students. Social science needs synthetic participants at scale. But real people are not ideal assistants. Real patients panic or ignore good advice. Real students misunderstand. Real customers are vague, picky, impatient, or simply leave. Human behavior is messy, diverse, and often imperfect. Frontier LLMs are getting better at math, code, and long-horizon tasks. They are NOT getting better at simulating human behavior. If anything, they drift the other way: more assistant-ish, more homogeneous, fewer of the errors and quirks real humans show. This is no accident. The whole pipeline is built for helpfulness and task success, not behavioral realism. And you can't prompt your way out of that. So we rethink the recipe from scratch and release: 🧠 The OdysSim corpus: 21.4M real human interactions (~10B tokens) from 62 sources, every conversation retrofitted with social grounding (who is talking, and why) 📏 SOUL-Index: 23 human-behavior benchmarks unified into one suite across 5 axes 🤖 OSim-8B: open weights; tops more SOUL-Index benchmarks than any frontier model, acts more like a real user than any of them on τ-bench (nearly matching real humans in the reaction dimension), and writes far more human-like text along the way.

Xuhui Zhou

142,473 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

recreated this exact hook with AI in 3 minutes generated first frame with nano banana -> uploaded it along with reference video to Kling motion control, done when the quality is actually there, AI UGC beats real creators every time we built the best system for this right now: - realistic visuals - realistic voice - realistic movement - all optimized for virality and conversions way cheaper than a real creator and built for scale across thousands of posts and multiple accounts this isn't generic AI slop, these are high quality systems built with real effort and ready to scale your business it works across ecom,apps, saas, coaching, DTC... everything yet people are still paying $300-500 per UGC video from creators who ghost halfway through the project

recreated this exact hook with AI in 3 minutes generated first frame with nano banana -> uploaded it along with reference video to Kling motion control, done when the quality is actually there, AI UGC beats real creators every time we built the best system for this right now: - realistic visuals - realistic voice - realistic movement - all optimized for virality and conversions way cheaper than a real creator and built for scale across thousands of posts and multiple accounts this isn't generic AI slop, these are high quality systems built with real effort and ready to scale your business it works across ecom,apps, saas, coaching, DTC... everything yet people are still paying $300-500 per UGC video from creators who ghost halfway through the project

MAX

171,662 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

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 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

Crypto narratives tend to move in cycles. 2020 was DeFi. 2021 became NFTs. 2023 turned into the AI boom. 2024–2025 were dominated by memecoins and attention tokens. But markets eventually rotate back to something simple: real revenue. That’s why some people are starting to look at iGaming tokens as a potential emerging narrative in 2026. Unlike many hype driven tokens, the iGaming sector already runs large cash flow businesses. Many platforms generate hundreds of millions of dollars in monthly revenue, yet their tokens often trade with far less volume than projects that barely produce revenue at all. In other words, there’s a visible mismatch between actual business activity and token market valuation. One ecosystem that sits right inside this discussion is 1win Token, which already operates as one of the top 10 online casinos globally by scale and user activity. The upcoming $1win Token is designed to connect that existing business with on chain incentives. Its token model includes buybacks and burns funded directly from casino revenue, tying token supply mechanics to real cash flow. There’s also an interesting structural difference compared to previous gaming tokens. For example, $RLB (Rollbit) saw a massive post launch rally, but the product and revenue scale at launch were significantly smaller than what 1win operates today. Another notable point is the launch design: instead of only farming an airdrop, 1win Token plans a public sale model, allowing broader participation from the start. If Web3 narratives are indeed shifting away from pure attention cycles and back toward revenue generating platforms, sectors like iGaming may start attracting more analytical focus and 1win could emerge as the biggest winner.

Crypto narratives tend to move in cycles. 2020 was DeFi. 2021 became NFTs. 2023 turned into the AI boom. 2024–2025 were dominated by memecoins and attention tokens. But markets eventually rotate back to something simple: real revenue. That’s why some people are starting to look at iGaming tokens as a potential emerging narrative in 2026. Unlike many hype driven tokens, the iGaming sector already runs large cash flow businesses. Many platforms generate hundreds of millions of dollars in monthly revenue, yet their tokens often trade with far less volume than projects that barely produce revenue at all. In other words, there’s a visible mismatch between actual business activity and token market valuation. One ecosystem that sits right inside this discussion is 1win Token, which already operates as one of the top 10 online casinos globally by scale and user activity. The upcoming $1win Token is designed to connect that existing business with on chain incentives. Its token model includes buybacks and burns funded directly from casino revenue, tying token supply mechanics to real cash flow. There’s also an interesting structural difference compared to previous gaming tokens. For example, $RLB (Rollbit) saw a massive post launch rally, but the product and revenue scale at launch were significantly smaller than what 1win operates today. Another notable point is the launch design: instead of only farming an airdrop, 1win Token plans a public sale model, allowing broader participation from the start. If Web3 narratives are indeed shifting away from pure attention cycles and back toward revenue generating platforms, sectors like iGaming may start attracting more analytical focus and 1win could emerge as the biggest winner.

BitBull

20,972 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce