Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

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

New Opus 4.8 crashed Opus 4.7 at physics on canvas! We gave both models the same three prompts: simulate a real physics phenomenon on raw HTML5 canvas. Prompt 1: "A triple pendulum swings into chaos and paints glowing trails with its tip" Prompt 2: "A 1 kg block bounces... show more

atomic.chat

17,227 subscribers

638,609 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Gaming Bildung Wissenschaft & Technologie

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

39 Kommentare

Profilbild von Hugo Plat

Hugo Platvor 4 Monaten

thanks I’ll buy Opus 4.8 to pass my physics exam

Profilbild von atomic.chat

atomic.chatvor 4 Monaten

@the_great_hug0 the right decision!

Profilbild von Chandraprakash Darji

Chandraprakash Darjivor 4 Monaten

This is the result from sonnet with medium thinking

Profilbild von atomic.chat

atomic.chatvor 4 Monaten

Sonnet did solid job here

Profilbild von Chandraprakash Darji

Chandraprakash Darjivor 4 Monaten

I think it is better then 4.7

Profilbild von LiberalSismo

LiberalSismovor 4 Monaten

Now gives us examples about something that we would use in real life and not for just make an X post.

Profilbild von Shounak Das

Shounak Dasvor 4 Monaten

Skill Issue

Profilbild von Hutch, D.O.

Hutch, D.O.vor 4 Monaten

Fun exercise. Thought I'd have my agent Sirius give it a shot. What I think he did pretty good. @OpenAIDevs

Profilbild von atomic.chat

atomic.chatvor 4 Monaten

@OpenAIDevs sirius did pretty well! Appreciate seeing builders run the same experiment with their own agents :))

Profilbild von iksammy1

iksammy1vor 4 Monaten

Impressive

Profilbild von cws test

cws testvor 4 Monaten

nice

Profilbild von Alexander Benz

Alexander Benzvor 4 Monaten

The pendulum test is the best physics benchmark I've seen. Canvas code that produces realistic chaos requires actually modeling the system, not just pattern-matching from training data.

Profilbild von atomic.chat

atomic.chatvor 4 Monaten

exactly! and fake motion vs real chaotic dynamics shows up immediately

Profilbild von Venkatesh

Venkateshvor 4 Monaten

For these comparisons you need to launch opus 4.7 2x times vs opus 4.8 2x. You could be just looking at run to run variations of how these LLMs work.

Profilbild von insightformer

insightformervor 4 Monaten

Very interesting comparison visualizations. It clearly shows the differences between the models.

Profilbild von WeSee

WeSeevor 4 Monaten

We're slowly reaching the point where model upgrades feel less like "better chat" and more like software evolution.

Profilbild von Tech With Matteo

Tech With Matteovor 4 Monaten

the pendulum one is wild, i use Opus daily for coding and the jump from 4.7 to 4.8 on complex stuff is pretty noticeable

Profilbild von rpello

rpellovor 4 Monaten

Have these prompts run on each model’s release date? Or have you used a today’s 4.7 (crippled) version?

Profilbild von atomic.chat

atomic.chatvor 4 Monaten

opus 4.7 is crippled:))

Profilbild von Samir Patil

Samir Patilvor 4 Monaten

4.8 is wild 🔥 Built Claude Pulse for exactly this — live KV cache timer + usage right on claude .ai.

Profilbild von BruzWJ

BruzWJvor 4 Monaten

tbh the triple pendulum render looks slick but a canvas physics demo doesnt really tell me if the model holds up on actual coding work

Profilbild von Cristobal Santana

Cristobal Santanavor 4 Monaten

Nice. The pi-digits collision one is a good test because it needs exact physics, not just something that looks plausible. Curious whether it holds up on messier problems like fluids or soft-body collisions, where the math gets harder to fake visually.

Profilbild von Sathish Harry

Sathish Harryvor 4 Monaten

992 isn't a random number. The Galperin billiard: collisions ≈ π × √(M/m). With a 100,000:1 mass ratio, that's π × 316 ≈ 993. Opus 4.8 essentially solved the physics. 4.7 got 241 not even close. The benchmark is the whole point.

Profilbild von Rohit

Rohitvor 4 Monaten

That's impressive! It's fascinating to see how Opus 4.8 handles complex physics simulations. Looking forward to more insights from your comparisons.

Profilbild von atomic.chat

atomic.chatvor 4 Monaten

@ai_rohitt glad you enjoyed it! More side by side runs on the way

Profilbild von Sebastian Buzdugan

Sebastian Buzduganvor 4 Monaten

did either use a fixed timestep because variable dt usually makes canvas physics demos lie

Profilbild von Build with Jeje

Build with Jejevor 4 Monaten

opus 4.8 math model is so great. only the limit sucks 😔

Profilbild von GiovanniArturi

GiovanniArturivor 3 Monaten

Sorry, but what as to do Opus with local AI models? It can only run remotely on Anthropic servers via APIs.

Profilbild von 🐺 steve 🐺

🐺 steve 🐺vor 4 Monaten

CC @RayKurz

Profilbild von Noureddine

Noureddinevor 4 Monaten

4.8 crashing on physics implies an over-eager alignment filter. Complex simulations can hit safety boundaries if intermediate steps are misinterpreted as harmful or exploit prompts.

Profilbild von Gia huy

Gia huyvor 4 Monaten

本当に面白そう！バージョン4.8がバージョン4.7を打ち負かしたんだね。どんな物理現象が再現されているんだろう？楽しみ！

Profilbild von Ex0 Byte

Ex0 Bytevor 4 Monaten

i want to use this to improve my memory system! can i use atomic chat to benchmark my self improving memory system?

Profilbild von Ziv Chen

Ziv Chenvor 4 Monaten

Should it be Opus 4.8 or 4.6? Opus 4.7 has received mixed reviews.

Profilbild von Life Around Earth

Life Around Earthvor 4 Monaten

the detail in that pendulum prompt is actually a solid benchmark for chaos visualization

Profilbild von atomic.chat

atomic.chatvor 4 Monaten

Yeeah, exactly why we picked it!

Profilbild von Blum

Blumvor 4 Monaten

wild how clearly opus 4.8 dominates 4.7 here

Profilbild von AIじいさん

AIじいさんvor 4 Monaten

壁を通りぬけるのは面白いんじゃ🤣

Profilbild von Theoden

Theodenvor 4 Monaten

We definitely should see more hard, thick balls hitting the wall more often

Profilbild von Snowdog_base

Snowdog_basevor 3 Monaten

Snowdog has been watching this for 3 hours. 🐾❄️ Not the physics. Not the AI benchmark. Just the bouncing balls. 🟡 Same energy as staring at snow falling at 3am. ❄️🍯 $SD #Snowdog

Ähnliche Videos

New Z.ai GLM-5.2 beats Kimi K2.7 Code on physics contest! We gave both models the same three prompts and asked them to build self contained HTML5 sims with real physics and no libraries: 1. Pool break 2. Block on a bed of springs 3. Galton board Outputs: GLM-5.2: 12,640 tokens Kimi K2.7 Code: 7,420 tokens GLM 5.2 nailed all three, and it did it with way more detail and polish. The break conserved momentum, the block bounced off the springs and the Galton beads spread into a clean bell curve. Kimi struggled on every scene: its block fell straight through the springs, its break didn't look realistic with the balls colliding all wrong, and on the Galton board its balls overlapped and piled into each other instead of spreading out

New Z.ai GLM-5.2 beats Kimi K2.7 Code on physics contest! We gave both models the same three prompts and asked them to build self contained HTML5 sims with real physics and no libraries: 1. Pool break 2. Block on a bed of springs 3. Galton board Outputs: GLM-5.2: 12,640 tokens Kimi K2.7 Code: 7,420 tokens GLM 5.2 nailed all three, and it did it with way more detail and polish. The break conserved momentum, the block bounced off the springs and the Galton beads spread into a clean bell curve. Kimi struggled on every scene: its block fell straight through the springs, its break didn't look realistic with the balls colliding all wrong, and on the Galton board its balls overlapped and piled into each other instead of spreading out

atomic.chat

60,899 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

New Fable 5 beats Opus 4.8 on real world physics simulations We gave both models the same three prompts and asked them to build self contained HTML5 sims with real physics and no libraries: 1. Chaotic double pendulum 2. Galton board 3. Water in a spinning drum (WCSPH) Generation cost Fable 5: $3.35 on 68.7k tokens, time 14m 47s Opus 4.8: $0.93 on 38.9k tokens, time 8m 10s Fable clearly did better on the water simulation, producing a much more solid and continuous body of water. Opus left larger gaps near the walls, scattered particles around the scene, and struggled to keep the fluid stable.

New Fable 5 beats Opus 4.8 on real world physics simulations We gave both models the same three prompts and asked them to build self contained HTML5 sims with real physics and no libraries: 1. Chaotic double pendulum 2. Galton board 3. Water in a spinning drum (WCSPH) Generation cost Fable 5: $3.35 on 68.7k tokens, time 14m 47s Opus 4.8: $0.93 on 38.9k tokens, time 8m 10s Fable clearly did better on the water simulation, producing a much more solid and continuous body of water. Opus left larger gaps near the walls, scattered particles around the scene, and struggled to keep the fluid stable.

atomic.chat

1,588,172 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

New in Venice Studio: Doodle. Draw on the canvas, add a prompt, and Venice turns it into the real thing.

New in Venice Studio: Doodle. Draw on the canvas, add a prompt, and Venice turns it into the real thing.

Venice

22,467 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

1-bit GLM-5.2 GGUF vs. Claude 4.8 Opus vs. GPT-5.5 We gave 3 models the same prompt and compared one-shot outputs. The 1-bit GLM-5.2 GGUF ran locally on a Mac Studio M3 Ultra with 256GB RAM at ~21.6 tok/s. Which output do you like best? GGUF:

1-bit GLM-5.2 GGUF vs. Claude 4.8 Opus vs. GPT-5.5 We gave 3 models the same prompt and compared one-shot outputs. The 1-bit GLM-5.2 GGUF ran locally on a Mac Studio M3 Ultra with 256GB RAM at ~21.6 tok/s. Which output do you like best? GGUF:

Unsloth AI

1,544,677 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Opus 5 crushed Fable 5 at 3D destruction physics for 2x cheaper! We gave four models the same task: build three self-contained HTML scenes with real physics Prompts: - A tornado that sucks in a whole field - A wrecking ball taking down an apartment block - An overloaded truck collapsing a truss bridge Outputs: - Opus 5: 55.9K tokens, $1.40 - Fable 5: 55.1K tokens, $2.82 - Kimi K3: 35.7K tokens, $0.55 - GPT 5.6: 20.1K tokens, $0.31 Opus got all three right unlike the other models. Houses fly up the funnel and out the top, the wall breaks where the ball hits and the rubble piles up, the bridge drops the truck into the river. Fable had almost nothing on the ground for the tornado to pick up, its building collapsed on its own before the ball even touched it and its bridge blew into sticks all at once. GPT is the cheapest here but its ball never reached the building at all and its bridge fell apart in a way nothing falls apart in real life. Kimi K3, the new Chinese frontier model, ended up in the same place as GPT

Opus 5 crushed Fable 5 at 3D destruction physics for 2x cheaper! We gave four models the same task: build three self-contained HTML scenes with real physics Prompts: - A tornado that sucks in a whole field - A wrecking ball taking down an apartment block - An overloaded truck collapsing a truss bridge Outputs: - Opus 5: 55.9K tokens, $1.40 - Fable 5: 55.1K tokens, $2.82 - Kimi K3: 35.7K tokens, $0.55 - GPT 5.6: 20.1K tokens, $0.31 Opus got all three right unlike the other models. Houses fly up the funnel and out the top, the wall breaks where the ball hits and the rubble piles up, the bridge drops the truck into the river. Fable had almost nothing on the ground for the tornado to pick up, its building collapsed on its own before the ball even touched it and its bridge blew into sticks all at once. GPT is the cheapest here but its ball never reached the building at all and its bridge fell apart in a way nothing falls apart in real life. Kimi K3, the new Chinese frontier model, ended up in the same place as GPT

atomic.chat

1,483,260 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

The difference between GPT-6 Astra and Fable 5.1 is obvious here. Same prompt, both building a website with real-time fluid physics. Move the cursor and the water reacts, waves spread, run into each other, and slowly flatten out. Built end to end on Higgsfield Supercomputer.

The difference between GPT-6 Astra and Fable 5.1 is obvious here. Same prompt, both building a website with real-time fluid physics. Move the cursor and the water reacts, waves spread, run into each other, and slowly flatten out. Built end to end on Higgsfield Supercomputer.

Higgsfield AI 🧩

45,355 Aufrufe • vor 25 Tagen

We compared 1-bit Kimi K3 to Claude Opus 5 and GPT 5.6. We gave 4 models the same prompt: Create a glass aquarium whose side panel develops a visible crack and then bursts. 1-bit Kimi K3 GGUF ran locally on 4x B200s at 36 tok/s. GitHub repo:

We compared 1-bit Kimi K3 to Claude Opus 5 and GPT 5.6. We gave 4 models the same prompt: Create a glass aquarium whose side panel develops a visible crack and then bursts. 1-bit Kimi K3 GGUF ran locally on 4x B200s at 36 tok/s. GitHub repo:

Unsloth AI

415,146 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

GLM-5.2 is now available on AI/ML API! We asked it and Opus 4.8 to one-shot a playable Backrooms, same prompt. Opus got the flashlight working but you can't run and can't pause. GLM-5.2 built the full mechanics. Opus: 2:14sec & $1.94 GLM: 1:08sec & $0.37 Docs, guides & setup below:

GLM-5.2 is now available on AI/ML API! We asked it and Opus 4.8 to one-shot a playable Backrooms, same prompt. Opus got the flashlight working but you can't run and can't pause. GLM-5.2 built the full mechanics. Opus: 2:14sec & $1.94 GLM: 1:08sec & $0.37 Docs, guides & setup below:

AI/ML API

475,343 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Rockstar spent 7 years, 2,000+ developers, and $500 million to build Red Dead Redemption 2. Kimi K3 rebuilt the same scene in 10 hours. One prompt. 4 million tokens. It's open source. 2.8 trillion parameters. A 1 million token context window. It beats Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.6. It sits on par with Fable 5. Fable 5 results, at Sonnet pricing. The wall between you and a AAA game used to be a studio. Now it's a prompt.

Rockstar spent 7 years, 2,000+ developers, and $500 million to build Red Dead Redemption 2. Kimi K3 rebuilt the same scene in 10 hours. One prompt. 4 million tokens. It's open source. 2.8 trillion parameters. A 1 million token context window. It beats Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.6. It sits on par with Fable 5. Fable 5 results, at Sonnet pricing. The wall between you and a AAA game used to be a studio. Now it's a prompt.

Dep

99,354 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

New Google Gemma 4 12B claims near-26B performance - we tested both! We ran both models locally on one RTX 4090 and gave each the same task: write a self-contained HTML5 canvas animation with real physics in one file without libraries. Three scenes - a Galton board, two blocks colliding off a wall, and a chaotic triple pendulum Outputs: Gemma 4 26B-A4B: 15 GB VRAM usage, 6.9k tokens, 138 tok/s Gemma 4 12B: 9 GB VRAM usage, 8.9k tokens, 80 tok/s Same Gemma 4 family, but the 26B-A4B won every scene and ran ~1.7x faster - on just 4B active params. The 12B stayed very close though, on almost half the VRAM - which makes it the ideal model for a 16 GB laptop

New Google Gemma 4 12B claims near-26B performance - we tested both! We ran both models locally on one RTX 4090 and gave each the same task: write a self-contained HTML5 canvas animation with real physics in one file without libraries. Three scenes - a Galton board, two blocks colliding off a wall, and a chaotic triple pendulum Outputs: Gemma 4 26B-A4B: 15 GB VRAM usage, 6.9k tokens, 138 tok/s Gemma 4 12B: 9 GB VRAM usage, 8.9k tokens, 80 tok/s Same Gemma 4 family, but the 26B-A4B won every scene and ran ~1.7x faster - on just 4B active params. The 12B stayed very close though, on almost half the VRAM - which makes it the ideal model for a 16 GB laptop

atomic.chat

152,748 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Opus 4.6 vs Gemini Pro 3.1 (7/9) I wanted to do a physics simulation test, overall both models did a good job in this department, however Opus added nice animations to things like "Fan", "Magnet" whilst gemini just rendered them out as a red circle. Opus also included way more effects in its toolbox, like rocket, connecting shapes with rope, springs etc. Should note that in all of these tests, Opus one shotted all of them, whilst gemini took an extra 3-5 prompts to get the project compile :) prompt: Build a polished physics sandbox toy using React + Vite with a real physics engine (Matter.js or Rapier), where users can spawn, grab, throw, and connect objects with springs, hinges, and ropes, plus interactive gadgets like fans and thrusters.

Opus 4.6 vs Gemini Pro 3.1 (7/9) I wanted to do a physics simulation test, overall both models did a good job in this department, however Opus added nice animations to things like "Fan", "Magnet" whilst gemini just rendered them out as a red circle. Opus also included way more effects in its toolbox, like rocket, connecting shapes with rope, springs etc. Should note that in all of these tests, Opus one shotted all of them, whilst gemini took an extra 3-5 prompts to get the project compile :) prompt: Build a polished physics sandbox toy using React + Vite with a real physics engine (Matter.js or Rapier), where users can spawn, grab, throw, and connect objects with springs, hinges, and ropes, plus interactive gadgets like fans and thrusters.

Dev Ed

28,179 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

I made $40K on YouTube last month and never turned on a camera, it was 7 ChatGPT prompts Here's what I typed > Prompt 1: generate 10 viral video ideas in my niche from the latest trends > Prompt 2: write a full script with a hook, story arc, and CTA that maximizes watch time > Prompt 3: build me a faceless channel, script it, voice it, edit it, make it run without me > Prompt 4: generate a clickworthy, SEO-optimized title, description, and tags > Prompt 5: write a 15-second hook people physically can't stop watching > Prompt 6: create a 30-day growth and monetization plan from zero > Prompt 7: turn the video into a blog post, a Reel, a TikTok, and a thread 7 prompts, 1 laptop, 0 cameras the channel never needed my face, it needed my prompts

I made $40K on YouTube last month and never turned on a camera, it was 7 ChatGPT prompts Here's what I typed > Prompt 1: generate 10 viral video ideas in my niche from the latest trends > Prompt 2: write a full script with a hook, story arc, and CTA that maximizes watch time > Prompt 3: build me a faceless channel, script it, voice it, edit it, make it run without me > Prompt 4: generate a clickworthy, SEO-optimized title, description, and tags > Prompt 5: write a 15-second hook people physically can't stop watching > Prompt 6: create a 30-day growth and monetization plan from zero > Prompt 7: turn the video into a blog post, a Reel, a TikTok, and a thread 7 prompts, 1 laptop, 0 cameras the channel never needed my face, it needed my prompts

Woody

70,247 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

this is f**king dangerous someone just figured out how to get fable 5 reasoning in opus 4.8 with one prompt you have less than 24 hours to set this up as this takes away 20% of your usage limit here is how: 1) Paste the prompt and ask it to "make an operating manual" 2) Create a New Claude Project and "Add this .md in Project instructions 3) Use Opus 4.8 High/Max and now you have Fable 5 reasoning at 1/5th the price save and bookmark it no matter what

this is f**king dangerous someone just figured out how to get fable 5 reasoning in opus 4.8 with one prompt you have less than 24 hours to set this up as this takes away 20% of your usage limit here is how: 1) Paste the prompt and ask it to "make an operating manual" 2) Create a New Claude Project and "Add this .md in Project instructions 3) Use Opus 4.8 High/Max and now you have Fable 5 reasoning at 1/5th the price save and bookmark it no matter what

Avid

954,179 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 (High) (6/9) Testing out how well these models to with cloth physics simulation, and honestly both where pretty close here but my god I am shocked how good GPT 5.4 is with optimizing this scene whilst opus 4.6 felt quite janky and lower fps. GPT 5.4 also got the cutting working properly whilst Opus was just floating about. I do want to heavily stress the fact that making this prompt, Opus 4.6 cost the whole 100% of the session ($20 pro plan) + $3 in credits whilst GPT 5.4 only cost 10% of the usage. prompt: Build a premium Vite + React interactive cloth simulation of a cozy room curtain using real particle/constraint physics, with structural + shear springs, damping, collisions, and stable real-time deformation. Users should be able to drag the curtain, add wind, and cut constraints, while the experience stays polished, visually elegant, and numerically stable.

Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 (High) (6/9) Testing out how well these models to with cloth physics simulation, and honestly both where pretty close here but my god I am shocked how good GPT 5.4 is with optimizing this scene whilst opus 4.6 felt quite janky and lower fps. GPT 5.4 also got the cutting working properly whilst Opus was just floating about. I do want to heavily stress the fact that making this prompt, Opus 4.6 cost the whole 100% of the session ($20 pro plan) + $3 in credits whilst GPT 5.4 only cost 10% of the usage. prompt: Build a premium Vite + React interactive cloth simulation of a cozy room curtain using real particle/constraint physics, with structural + shear springs, damping, collisions, and stable real-time deformation. Users should be able to drag the curtain, add wind, and cut constraints, while the experience stays polished, visually elegant, and numerically stable.

Dev Ed

414,465 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Gemini 2.5 Flash demolishes my Galton Board test, I could not get 4omini, 4o mini high, or 03 to produce this. I found that Gemini 2.5 Flash understands my intents almost instantly, code produced is tight and neat. The prompt is a merging of various steps. It took me 5 steps to achieve this in Gemini 2.5 Flash, I gave up on OpenAI models after about half an hour. My iterations are obviously not exact. But people can test with this one prompt for more objective comparison. Please try this prompt on your end to confirm: -------------------------------------------------- Create a self-contained HTML file for a Galton board simulation using client-side JavaScript and a 2D physics engine (like Matter.js, included via CDN). The simulation should be rendered on an HTML5 canvas and meet the following criteria: 1. **Single File:** All necessary HTML, CSS, and JavaScript code must be within this single `.html` file. 2. **Canvas Size:** The overall simulation area (canvas) should be reasonably sized to fit on a standard screen without requiring extensive scrolling or zooming (e.g., around 500x700 pixels). 3. **Physics:** Utilize a 2D rigid body physics engine for realistic ball-peg and ball-wall interactions. 4. **Obstacles (Pegs):** Create static, circular pegs arranged in full-width horizontal rows extending across the usable width of the board (not just a triangle). The pegs should be small enough and spaced appropriately for balls to navigate and bounce between them. 5. **Containment:** * Include static, sufficiently thick side walls and a ground at the bottom to contain the balls within the board. * Implement *physical* static dividers between the collection bins at the bottom. These dividers must be thick enough to prevent balls from passing through them, ensuring accurate accumulation in each bin. 6. **Ball Dropping:** Balls should be dropped from a controlled, narrow area near the horizontal center at the top of the board to ensure they enter the peg field consistently. 7. **Bins:** The collection area at the bottom should be divided into distinct bins by the physical dividers. The height of the bins should be sufficient to clearly visualize the accumulation of balls. 8. **Visualization:** Use a high-contrast color scheme to clearly distinguish between elements. Specifically, use yellow for the structural elements (walls, top guides, physical bin dividers, ground), a contrasting color (like red) for the pegs, and a highly contrasting color (like dark grey or black) for the balls. 9. **Demonstration:** The simulation should visually demonstrate the formation of the normal (or binomial) distribution as multiple balls fall through the pegs and collect in the bins. Ensure the physics parameters (restitution, friction, density) and ball drop rate are tuned for a smooth and clear demonstration of the distribution. #OpenAI Sam Altman Greg Brockman AshutoshShrivastava Aidan McLaughlin

Gemini 2.5 Flash demolishes my Galton Board test, I could not get 4omini, 4o mini high, or 03 to produce this. I found that Gemini 2.5 Flash understands my intents almost instantly, code produced is tight and neat. The prompt is a merging of various steps. It took me 5 steps to achieve this in Gemini 2.5 Flash, I gave up on OpenAI models after about half an hour. My iterations are obviously not exact. But people can test with this one prompt for more objective comparison. Please try this prompt on your end to confirm: -------------------------------------------------- Create a self-contained HTML file for a Galton board simulation using client-side JavaScript and a 2D physics engine (like Matter.js, included via CDN). The simulation should be rendered on an HTML5 canvas and meet the following criteria: 1. Single File: All necessary HTML, CSS, and JavaScript code must be within this single `.html` file. 2. Canvas Size: The overall simulation area (canvas) should be reasonably sized to fit on a standard screen without requiring extensive scrolling or zooming (e.g., around 500x700 pixels). 3. Physics: Utilize a 2D rigid body physics engine for realistic ball-peg and ball-wall interactions. 4. Obstacles (Pegs): Create static, circular pegs arranged in full-width horizontal rows extending across the usable width of the board (not just a triangle). The pegs should be small enough and spaced appropriately for balls to navigate and bounce between them. 5. Containment: * Include static, sufficiently thick side walls and a ground at the bottom to contain the balls within the board. * Implement physical static dividers between the collection bins at the bottom. These dividers must be thick enough to prevent balls from passing through them, ensuring accurate accumulation in each bin. 6. Ball Dropping: Balls should be dropped from a controlled, narrow area near the horizontal center at the top of the board to ensure they enter the peg field consistently. 7. Bins: The collection area at the bottom should be divided into distinct bins by the physical dividers. The height of the bins should be sufficient to clearly visualize the accumulation of balls. 8. Visualization: Use a high-contrast color scheme to clearly distinguish between elements. Specifically, use yellow for the structural elements (walls, top guides, physical bin dividers, ground), a contrasting color (like red) for the pegs, and a highly contrasting color (like dark grey or black) for the balls. 9. Demonstration: The simulation should visually demonstrate the formation of the normal (or binomial) distribution as multiple balls fall through the pegs and collect in the bins. Ensure the physics parameters (restitution, friction, density) and ball drop rate are tuned for a smooth and clear demonstration of the distribution. #OpenAI Sam Altman Greg Brockman AshutoshShrivastava Aidan McLaughlin

RameshR

247,923 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

So Runway Gen 4.5 finally adds image-to-video, the workflow most pros rely on for consistency. We put it head to head with Kling AI and Google Flow VEO using the same reference images and prompts (below) to evaluate motion quality, stability, and cinematic realism. 1. Action/WaterPhysics Test Prompt: Cinematic, wide-shot of a man running in a shallow river. The camera is tracking the man from behind as he runs up the river. Handheld camera shake as the camera follows the man. 2. Fire Physics Test Prompt: Cinematic, wide-shot of terrified woman running towards her burning barn. She abruptly stops, and puts in hands on her head as she watches her barn burn down. 3. VFX test prompt: Cinematic, wide-shot of a hooded figure. Flashes of purple magic and smoke whirl around the figure. The figure lifts its arms as the purple magic and smoke intensifies. 4. 2D Animation Test Prompt: 2D animated shot of a waiting at a bus stop in a thunderstorm. The man turns, walks to the bench, and sits down. 5. 3D Animation Test Prompt: 3D animated shot of an octopus. The octopus reaches into a coral and picks up a glowing white gem. 6. Conversation Test Prompt: slow camera push-in as two friends are having a conversation at a coffee shop Overall verdict: Despite the “world’s best” claim, Runway Gen 4.5 is not there yet. Prompt adherence is solid, but motion, physics, and cinematic realism still lag behind tools like Kling and VEO. Great platform, mid-tier model for now.

So Runway Gen 4.5 finally adds image-to-video, the workflow most pros rely on for consistency. We put it head to head with Kling AI and Google Flow VEO using the same reference images and prompts (below) to evaluate motion quality, stability, and cinematic realism. 1. Action/WaterPhysics Test Prompt: Cinematic, wide-shot of a man running in a shallow river. The camera is tracking the man from behind as he runs up the river. Handheld camera shake as the camera follows the man. 2. Fire Physics Test Prompt: Cinematic, wide-shot of terrified woman running towards her burning barn. She abruptly stops, and puts in hands on her head as she watches her barn burn down. 3. VFX test prompt: Cinematic, wide-shot of a hooded figure. Flashes of purple magic and smoke whirl around the figure. The figure lifts its arms as the purple magic and smoke intensifies. 4. 2D Animation Test Prompt: 2D animated shot of a waiting at a bus stop in a thunderstorm. The man turns, walks to the bench, and sits down. 5. 3D Animation Test Prompt: 3D animated shot of an octopus. The octopus reaches into a coral and picks up a glowing white gem. 6. Conversation Test Prompt: slow camera push-in as two friends are having a conversation at a coffee shop Overall verdict: Despite the “world’s best” claim, Runway Gen 4.5 is not there yet. Prompt adherence is solid, but motion, physics, and cinematic realism still lag behind tools like Kling and VEO. Great platform, mid-tier model for now.

Curious Refuge

25,712 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten

We ran a test between the new Qwen3.8-Max, Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol. 3 models. same prompt. one-shot with the /design command. Reviewed gameplay features, UX/UI and cost. 🔹 Qwen3.8-Max → 9/10 · $0.0248 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol → 9/10 · $0.150 🔹 Opus 5 → 8.5/10 · $0.253 Qwen3.8-Max is approximately 4.2× cheaper than GPT-5.6, Sol, Opus 5 and has the same level of UI, UX, and gameplay.

We ran a test between the new Qwen3.8-Max, Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol. 3 models. same prompt. one-shot with the /design command. Reviewed gameplay features, UX/UI and cost. 🔹 Qwen3.8-Max → 9/10 · $0.0248 🔹 GPT-5.6 Sol → 9/10 · $0.150 🔹 Opus 5 → 8.5/10 · $0.253 Qwen3.8-Max is approximately 4.2× cheaper than GPT-5.6, Sol, Opus 5 and has the same level of UI, UX, and gameplay.

Command Code

179,535 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Prompt: Create an interactive New Year's Eve fireworks display using HTML/CSS/JS in a single HTML file. When the user clicks, a rocket should launch and explode into colorful particles with gravity and drag physics. Include a 'Grand Finale' button that automatically launches a barrage of fireworks that form the glowing text 'HELLO 2026' in the sky.

Prompt: Create an interactive New Year's Eve fireworks display using HTML/CSS/JS in a single HTML file. When the user clicks, a rocket should launch and explode into colorful particles with gravity and drag physics. Include a 'Grand Finale' button that automatically launches a barrage of fireworks that form the glowing text 'HELLO 2026' in the sky.

Diego | AI 🚀 - e/acc

34,210 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

A brush full of dreams, a night full of stars, and a town transformed by magic.🪄🎨 Created it on FlovaAI PROMPT: 3D style animation. A cozy, cluttered attic art studio filled with glowing potion bottles, sketches pinned to the walls, and warm light streaming through a large circular window. A young female artist with her hair in a messy bun, wearing an apron, paints on an easel. The painting of a glowing creature magically comes to life, leaping off the canvas as a vibrant, translucent creature made of swirling iridescent cosmic light and sparkles. The creature runs out into a cobblestone European village square at night, leaving a trail of glowing rainbows and magical stardust that transforms the town, ending with the night sky swirling into a beautiful, vibrant Starry Night style pattern. Whimsical, magical, high-end digital animation, warm and cinematic lighting. #Flovaai #Flovacpp

A brush full of dreams, a night full of stars, and a town transformed by magic.🪄🎨 Created it on FlovaAI PROMPT: 3D style animation. A cozy, cluttered attic art studio filled with glowing potion bottles, sketches pinned to the walls, and warm light streaming through a large circular window. A young female artist with her hair in a messy bun, wearing an apron, paints on an easel. The painting of a glowing creature magically comes to life, leaping off the canvas as a vibrant, translucent creature made of swirling iridescent cosmic light and sparkles. The creature runs out into a cobblestone European village square at night, leaving a trail of glowing rainbows and magical stardust that transforms the town, ending with the night sky swirling into a beautiful, vibrant Starry Night style pattern. Whimsical, magical, high-end digital animation, warm and cinematic lighting. #Flovaai #Flovacpp

Soulful Ai

28,560 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

$This is F**king dangerous Someone figured out how to get dramatically sharper reasoning out of Opus 4.8 with one setup. Here is how: Ask Claude to write you an "operating manual" for how it should reason through your work Create a new Claude Project and paste that .md into the Project instructions Run Opus 4.8 on High or Max effort Now the model reasons against a real framework instead of improvising every response. Same model. Far better output. And Opus 4.8 already costs a fraction of Fable 5. Save and bookmark this. Follow CyrilXBT$

This is F**king dangerous Someone figured out how to get dramatically sharper reasoning out of Opus 4.8 with one setup. Here is how: Ask Claude to write you an "operating manual" for how it should reason through your work Create a new Claude Project and paste that .md into the Project instructions Run Opus 4.8 on High or Max effort Now the model reasons against a real framework instead of improvising every response. Same model. Far better output. And Opus 4.8 already costs a fraction of Fable 5. Save and bookmark this. Follow CyrilXBT

CyrilXBT

198,085 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten