Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Okay… DeepSeek V4 Flash actually COOKED 😭 With OpenCode, I’d place it around GPT-5.6 Terra Max—and definitely above Luna Max in this test. Almost unlimited usage for around €9, by the way. This model is a MASSIVE success. Just don’t use the wrong harness.

OmedVibeCodes's profile picture

OmedTheVibeCoder

1,221 subscribers

35,417 views • 6 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & TechnologyGaming
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

DeepSeek V4 Flash completely failed this test. Compared to Opus 4.8, GPT-5.6 Sol, Kimi K3, and the other current top models, it’s honestly not good. The gap is massive. Against Luna, however, it performs similarly well. Both have different strengths and weaknesses, so I still need to test them more. The weird part: the Pi harness performed worse than OpenCode for DeepSeek. More tests are coming, guys. Don’t worry
0:38

DeepSeek V4 Flash completely failed this test. Compared to Opus 4.8, GPT-5.6 Sol, Kimi K3, and the other current top models, it’s honestly not good. The gap is massive. Against Luna, however, it performs similarly well. Both have different strengths and weaknesses, so I still need to test them more. The weird part: the Pi harness performed worse than OpenCode for DeepSeek. More tests are coming, guys. Don’t worry

OmedTheVibeCoder

25,844 views • 7 days ago

Codex users: here's an amazing way to take advantage of the efficiency and capability of GPT-5.6 Luna Max. It's called 'sol-advisor'. 1. GPT-5.6 Sol High as orchestrator 2. GPT-5.6 Luna Max as implementer for routine tasks 3. GPT-5.6 Terra Max as implementer for complex tasks 4. Fresh GPT-5.6 Sol instance as reviewer A free and open-source plugin for Codex. Installation instructions below 👇 I dare you to install it, and tell me if you hit your weekly usage limits using 'sol-advisor'. I doubt you can.
0:21

Codex users: here's an amazing way to take advantage of the efficiency and capability of GPT-5.6 Luna Max. It's called 'sol-advisor'. 1. GPT-5.6 Sol High as orchestrator 2. GPT-5.6 Luna Max as implementer for routine tasks 3. GPT-5.6 Terra Max as implementer for complex tasks 4. Fresh GPT-5.6 Sol instance as reviewer A free and open-source plugin for Codex. Installation instructions below 👇 I dare you to install it, and tell me if you hit your weekly usage limits using 'sol-advisor'. I doubt you can.

Dan McAteer

662,343 views • 6 days ago

Timelapse #177 (14 hrs) - Picked up an RTX Pro 6000 Blackwell and wired in another 1000W PSU - running two of them now - DeepSeek v4 Flash running locally on both GPUs - Distilling DeepSeek v4 Flash down into Nanbeige (still cooking) - Kernel bench runs for DeepSeek v4 Flash and Qwen 3.8 Max - Got it into chat but couldn't reliably get it into the OMP harness yet - Private contract work - days like this are stuff I actually want to build. and when it's the high-intensity grind, i still have to show up and get it done
0:30

Timelapse #177 (14 hrs) - Picked up an RTX Pro 6000 Blackwell and wired in another 1000W PSU - running two of them now - DeepSeek v4 Flash running locally on both GPUs - Distilling DeepSeek v4 Flash down into Nanbeige (still cooking) - Kernel bench runs for DeepSeek v4 Flash and Qwen 3.8 Max - Got it into chat but couldn't reliably get it into the OMP harness yet - Private contract work - days like this are stuff I actually want to build. and when it's the high-intensity grind, i still have to show up and get it done

Elliot Arledge

15,857 views • 3 days ago

Pi Agent vs OpenCode token usage A lot of people recommended Pi Agent so I decided to check Pi Agent took 1.1k tokens in first turn OpenCode took 11.5k Setup: 1) Trimmed OpenCode (from usual 30k first turn to 11.5k) - 0 MCPs - 2 lightweight plugins (opencode-env-protect and openslimedit) - 8k char AGENTS.md - 11585 deepseek-v4-flash input tokens - for $0.0016 2) Vanilla Pi - 0 MCPs - 0 system prompt - 8k char AGENTS.md - 1114 kimi-k2.6 input tokens - for $0.0008 I think using better models with capped tokens per turn can keep usage nearly the same as uncontrolled DeepSeek V4 Flash? The challenge now is finding the sweet spot. Can't cap tokens if quality drops. We'll see. Video below - OpenCode vs Pi side by side "say hi back" first turns test, with OpenCode Go usage for each
0:21

Pi Agent vs OpenCode token usage A lot of people recommended Pi Agent so I decided to check Pi Agent took 1.1k tokens in first turn OpenCode took 11.5k Setup: 1) Trimmed OpenCode (from usual 30k first turn to 11.5k) - 0 MCPs - 2 lightweight plugins (opencode-env-protect and openslimedit) - 8k char AGENTS.md - 11585 deepseek-v4-flash input tokens - for $0.0016 2) Vanilla Pi - 0 MCPs - 0 system prompt - 8k char AGENTS.md - 1114 kimi-k2.6 input tokens - for $0.0008 I think using better models with capped tokens per turn can keep usage nearly the same as uncontrolled DeepSeek V4 Flash? The challenge now is finding the sweet spot. Can't cap tokens if quality drops. We'll see. Video below - OpenCode vs Pi side by side "say hi back" first turns test, with OpenCode Go usage for each

raymel 👋

201,405 views • 3 months ago

🚨 Deepseek V4 pro GA is being tested to few users > this is the output on the same prompt that was used for kimi k3 and GPT sol 5.6 in the quoted video > The details are solid , addition of tents , campfire and everything this model looks promising
0:55

🚨 Deepseek V4 pro GA is being tested to few users > this is the output on the same prompt that was used for kimi k3 and GPT sol 5.6 in the quoted video > The details are solid , addition of tents , campfire and everything this model looks promising

Chetaslua

172,573 views • 20 days ago

This test shows clearly why GPT 5.6 Sol wins I asked the simplest prompt ever : > Create a gmail clone, the nearest possible to the real gmail ui You can see the result, GPT 5.6 Sol and Fable make a 100% perfect But here's the price difference: → GPT 5.6 Terra: $1.04 - 8 minutes → GPT 5.6 Luna: $0.44 - 10 minutes → GPT 5.6 Sol: $6.72 - 20 minutes → Claude Fable 5: $25.09 - 40 minutes Fable is 3.7x more expensive than Sol for "the same result"
0:40

This test shows clearly why GPT 5.6 Sol wins I asked the simplest prompt ever : > Create a gmail clone, the nearest possible to the real gmail ui You can see the result, GPT 5.6 Sol and Fable make a 100% perfect But here's the price difference: → GPT 5.6 Terra: $1.04 - 8 minutes → GPT 5.6 Luna: $0.44 - 10 minutes → GPT 5.6 Sol: $6.72 - 20 minutes → Claude Fable 5: $25.09 - 40 minutes Fable is 3.7x more expensive than Sol for "the same result"

Melvyn • Builder

22,212 views • 24 days ago

🚨 The Sims one shotted by GPT-5.6 Pro this is without codex or any coding harness , one shot entire game with logic in 48 minutes, all in one .html file. cc : Mirochill for the test roon when we can have big model taste and personality ? like after GPT 5 its so robotic
1:22

🚨 The Sims one shotted by GPT-5.6 Pro this is without codex or any coding harness , one shot entire game with logic in 48 minutes, all in one .html file. cc : Mirochill for the test roon when we can have big model taste and personality ? like after GPT 5 its so robotic

Chetaslua

144,849 views • 1 month ago

qwen 3.8 max vs deepseek v4 flash 0731 vs kimi k3 vs gpt 5.6 sol – on rubik's cube and chess four frontier models built a rubik's cube stand and solved it, then built a chess board and played claude opus 5 on it the setup: Nous Research's hermes agent cli on OpenRouter tasks: 1. cube – build a 3d rubik's cube with a cli and a Three.js viewer, then solve an identical scrambled position on your own stand 2. chess – build a 3d chess stand, then play white against claude opus 5 as black, live, one move at a time. no engine, no solver, no opening book on either side. stockfish depth 14 grades every chess ply afterwards; neither player sees the score models: DeepSeek v4 flash 0731, OpenAI gpt-5.6 sol, Kimi.ai kimi k3, Qwen qwen 3.8 max gpt-5.6 sol and deepseek v4 flash solved their cubes – sol in 24 moves and seventeen seconds, deepseek in 32. qwen and kimi never got there, giving up at 96 and 207 moves then all four built chess stands and played white against claude opus 5 on them, and all four resigned: deepseek on move 13, sol on 19, kimi on 21, qwen holding out longest at 29 - build time, both stands #1 gpt-5.6 sol – 16m 43s #2 deepseek v4 flash – 97m 39s #3 kimi k3 – 166m 09s #4 qwen 3.8 max – 215m 08s - build attempts before a working stand #1 gpt-5.6 sol – 3 #2 qwen 3.8 max – 4 #3 kimi k3 – 4 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 5 - total tokens #1 gpt-5.6 sol – 6,713,754 #2 qwen 3.8 max – 17,272,507 #3 kimi k3 – 22,427,504 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 27,417,442 - total price #1 deepseek v4 flash – $0.557 #2 gpt-5.6 sol – $6.319 #3 qwen 3.8 max – $10.270 #4 kimi k3 – $16.667 observations: • deepseek v4 flash is the cheapest model here by a margin nobody else is near, and it got there while being the least efficient of the four. it burned 27.4m tokens – more than anyone, 5m more than kimi – and still finished both benchmarks for $0.557. that is $0.02 per million tokens against kimi's $0.74. it also needed the most passes to produce working stands, five, and that did not matter: all five deepseek passes together cost a thirtieth of kimi's two • so what deepseek cannot do is get it right the first time. what it can do is get it right the fifth time, for half a dollar. that is a different thing to be buying – not a good first draft, but the option to keep asking • gpt-5.6 sol is the opposite profile and the strongest of the four on pure efficiency. 16m 43s to build both stands, 6.7m tokens, three passes – under 40% of the next lowest token count and a quarter of deepseek's, on an eighth of qwen's clock. it also solved the cube fastest of anyone, 24 moves in seventeen seconds. sol is what you reach for when you want the answer now and can absorb $0.94 per million • sol's weakness is in what it does not check. its chess viewer deleted the capturing piece instead of the captured one, so pieces disappeared off the board mid-game – a defect the fifty-cent deepseek stand did not have. fast and terse turns out to be the same dial as fast and unverified • qwen 3.8 max is not the cheap open-weights option it gets treated as. $10.270 across the two benchmarks, second most expensive of the four, 18x deepseek, and by a distance the slowest – 215 minutes of build time, nearly thirteen times sol's. what the money buys is judgment: it played eighteen moves without a single error worth a hundredth of a pawn, then made exactly one bad move in the whole game, and averaged 44.6 centipawns lost across the longest game any of the four managed. it also could not solve a rubik's cube in 96 tries • kimi k3 is the one line with no reading that flatters it. most expensive at $16.667, last on the cube at 207 moves, last at chess at 478 centipawns lost per move. it is also the model that verified hardest – on the cube it wrote its own integrity check instead of trusting its output. that makes the result worse rather than better: the checking was real, and the reasoning underneath it still was not follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
1:03

qwen 3.8 max vs deepseek v4 flash 0731 vs kimi k3 vs gpt 5.6 sol – on rubik's cube and chess four frontier models built a rubik's cube stand and solved it, then built a chess board and played claude opus 5 on it the setup: Nous Research's hermes agent cli on OpenRouter tasks: 1. cube – build a 3d rubik's cube with a cli and a Three.js viewer, then solve an identical scrambled position on your own stand 2. chess – build a 3d chess stand, then play white against claude opus 5 as black, live, one move at a time. no engine, no solver, no opening book on either side. stockfish depth 14 grades every chess ply afterwards; neither player sees the score models: DeepSeek v4 flash 0731, OpenAI gpt-5.6 sol, Kimi.ai kimi k3, Qwen qwen 3.8 max gpt-5.6 sol and deepseek v4 flash solved their cubes – sol in 24 moves and seventeen seconds, deepseek in 32. qwen and kimi never got there, giving up at 96 and 207 moves then all four built chess stands and played white against claude opus 5 on them, and all four resigned: deepseek on move 13, sol on 19, kimi on 21, qwen holding out longest at 29 - build time, both stands #1 gpt-5.6 sol – 16m 43s #2 deepseek v4 flash – 97m 39s #3 kimi k3 – 166m 09s #4 qwen 3.8 max – 215m 08s - build attempts before a working stand #1 gpt-5.6 sol – 3 #2 qwen 3.8 max – 4 #3 kimi k3 – 4 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 5 - total tokens #1 gpt-5.6 sol – 6,713,754 #2 qwen 3.8 max – 17,272,507 #3 kimi k3 – 22,427,504 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 27,417,442 - total price #1 deepseek v4 flash – $0.557 #2 gpt-5.6 sol – $6.319 #3 qwen 3.8 max – $10.270 #4 kimi k3 – $16.667 observations: • deepseek v4 flash is the cheapest model here by a margin nobody else is near, and it got there while being the least efficient of the four. it burned 27.4m tokens – more than anyone, 5m more than kimi – and still finished both benchmarks for $0.557. that is $0.02 per million tokens against kimi's $0.74. it also needed the most passes to produce working stands, five, and that did not matter: all five deepseek passes together cost a thirtieth of kimi's two • so what deepseek cannot do is get it right the first time. what it can do is get it right the fifth time, for half a dollar. that is a different thing to be buying – not a good first draft, but the option to keep asking • gpt-5.6 sol is the opposite profile and the strongest of the four on pure efficiency. 16m 43s to build both stands, 6.7m tokens, three passes – under 40% of the next lowest token count and a quarter of deepseek's, on an eighth of qwen's clock. it also solved the cube fastest of anyone, 24 moves in seventeen seconds. sol is what you reach for when you want the answer now and can absorb $0.94 per million • sol's weakness is in what it does not check. its chess viewer deleted the capturing piece instead of the captured one, so pieces disappeared off the board mid-game – a defect the fifty-cent deepseek stand did not have. fast and terse turns out to be the same dial as fast and unverified • qwen 3.8 max is not the cheap open-weights option it gets treated as. $10.270 across the two benchmarks, second most expensive of the four, 18x deepseek, and by a distance the slowest – 215 minutes of build time, nearly thirteen times sol's. what the money buys is judgment: it played eighteen moves without a single error worth a hundredth of a pawn, then made exactly one bad move in the whole game, and averaged 44.6 centipawns lost across the longest game any of the four managed. it also could not solve a rubik's cube in 96 tries • kimi k3 is the one line with no reading that flatters it. most expensive at $16.667, last on the cube at 207 moves, last at chess at 478 centipawns lost per move. it is also the model that verified hardest – on the cube it wrote its own integrity check instead of trusting its output. that makes the result worse rather than better: the checking was real, and the reasoning underneath it still was not follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

72,557 views • 2 days ago

Kimi K3 just 3 shotted a whole walkable voxel town with drivable cars — Voxelville, around $3.24 in API usage. The same token cost would be $10.80 with Fable 5 and $6 with GPT 5.6 Sol. Fable 5 built its own Maplewood, GPT 5.6 Sol built Willowwick, but on price/quality Kimi K3 just cooked both of them. The era of free indie game development is closer than you think!
0:28

Kimi K3 just 3 shotted a whole walkable voxel town with drivable cars — Voxelville, around $3.24 in API usage. The same token cost would be $10.80 with Fable 5 and $6 with GPT 5.6 Sol. Fable 5 built its own Maplewood, GPT 5.6 Sol built Willowwick, but on price/quality Kimi K3 just cooked both of them. The era of free indie game development is closer than you think!

Kirill

63,180 views • 19 days ago

i recreated this with GPT 5.6 Sol & it costed me ~$5 only & 2 prompts >GPT 5.6 Sol Ultra as the main agent, admin & orchestrator >GPT 5.6 Luna Max as sub-agents >used the Codex app >used about 20% of my weekly limit on $100 plan ($100/4 * 20%) some bugs, and improvements would take another prompt but pretty good for $5!
1:00

i recreated this with GPT 5.6 Sol & it costed me ~$5 only & 2 prompts >GPT 5.6 Sol Ultra as the main agent, admin & orchestrator >GPT 5.6 Luna Max as sub-agents >used the Codex app >used about 20% of my weekly limit on $100 plan ($100/4 * 20%) some bugs, and improvements would take another prompt but pretty good for $5!

anul agarwal

15,718 views • 6 days ago

FREE DeepSeek V4 Pro and V4 Flash API. Runtime by Bad Theory Labs just dropped it. Same platform, new free model, same 2-minute setup. > Runtime already gave you free Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 access. Now they added DeepSeek V4 Pro and V4 Flash to the free tier. Absolutely FREE, YES. Same exact flow as before: → Go to runtime(.)badtheorylabs(.)com → Sign up with Google → Fill in your details during onboarding → Free balance lands automatically(But you don't need it to use DeepSeek - it's completely free right now) → Grab your API key from the dashboard → Plug into OpenCode, OpenClaw, or Hermes - done DeepSeek V4 Pro is one of the strongest coding and reasoning models available right now. Free tier also includes btl-2 - auto-routes between GLM, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Gemma. 10 million tokens per month at zero cost. 344 models total. One OpenAI-compatible endpoint. No code rebuild, no card, no limits hunting. >> Just start using the API, and when choosing a provider, select DeepSeek I tested it myself - fully working. Bookmark this before the free tier fills up.
0:23

FREE DeepSeek V4 Pro and V4 Flash API. Runtime by Bad Theory Labs just dropped it. Same platform, new free model, same 2-minute setup. > Runtime already gave you free Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 access. Now they added DeepSeek V4 Pro and V4 Flash to the free tier. Absolutely FREE, YES. Same exact flow as before: → Go to runtime(.)badtheorylabs(.)com → Sign up with Google → Fill in your details during onboarding → Free balance lands automatically(But you don't need it to use DeepSeek - it's completely free right now) → Grab your API key from the dashboard → Plug into OpenCode, OpenClaw, or Hermes - done DeepSeek V4 Pro is one of the strongest coding and reasoning models available right now. Free tier also includes btl-2 - auto-routes between GLM, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Gemma. 10 million tokens per month at zero cost. 344 models total. One OpenAI-compatible endpoint. No code rebuild, no card, no limits hunting. >> Just start using the API, and when choosing a provider, select DeepSeek I tested it myself - fully working. Bookmark this before the free tier fills up.

Atenov int.

26,920 views • 1 month ago

I paired Cloudflare OS with self hosted deepseek-v4-flash and the result is freakin amazing Imagine running this setup inside DGX spark, you get fully private work companion solving all your work stuff The thing about this type of software is it already have a good harness and it probably can work out of the box with every open weight model Cant wait for the future
0:38

I paired Cloudflare OS with self hosted deepseek-v4-flash and the result is freakin amazing Imagine running this setup inside DGX spark, you get fully private work companion solving all your work stuff The thing about this type of software is it already have a good harness and it probably can work out of the box with every open weight model Cant wait for the future

Farhan Helmy

51,578 views • 2 days ago

I refuse to believe that I built this website from a single prompt for $0.82 using DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731. > cost: $0.82 > 20.2M tokens > 310 requests for transparency, I built the prompt using GPT Sol... its currently the best model for writing a very detailed prompt still absolutely ridiculous...this is with 0 polish, btw.. I can’t imagine how good it would look if I actually polished it..
0:31

I refuse to believe that I built this website from a single prompt for $0.82 using DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731. > cost: $0.82 > 20.2M tokens > 310 requests for transparency, I built the prompt using GPT Sol... its currently the best model for writing a very detailed prompt still absolutely ridiculous...this is with 0 polish, btw.. I can’t imagine how good it would look if I actually polished it..

JUMPERZ

63,860 views • 5 days ago

GPT-5.6 vs GPT-5.5 on my custom spaceship prompt. I gave both models the exact same custom prompt. This is also the same prompt I previously gave to Fable 5. For context, GPT-5.6 Pro worked for 87 minutes, while GPT-5.5 Extra High worked for 34 minutes and 42 seconds. As I’ve said before, based on great authority GPT-5.6 will be an incremental/soldi improvement over GPT-5.5, not a “Fable killer.” My rough expectation has been that it would trade blows with Fable 5 on some benchmarks, maybe win around half depending on the category, but not clearly surpass it overall. And again fable five will have bigger model smell, but this was expected. After testing this coding output, that view feels pretty accurate. GPT-5.6 is clearly better than GPT-5.5 in several visual areas. The lighting, shading, chairs, object details, and exterior of the spaceship looked noticeably stronger. The scene was also easier to test. I do want to give GPT-5.5 credit though. It built out the rooms much much better and the planets looked better than GPT-5.6’s. It was also interesting that both GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6 produced better-looking planets than Fable 5 in this specific test. The downside with GPT-5.5 was stability. The game was much glitchier and harder to test compared to GPT-5.6. But when it comes to the core of the demo, which is the spaceship itself, Fable 5 still beat both models pretty comfortably. GPT-5.6 is impressive, but from this test, it looks exactly like what I expected which was a meaningful incremental improvement over GPT-5.5, at least for indie game demos, but not something that replaces Fable 5. In collaboration with Chetaslua
0:42

GPT-5.6 vs GPT-5.5 on my custom spaceship prompt. I gave both models the exact same custom prompt. This is also the same prompt I previously gave to Fable 5. For context, GPT-5.6 Pro worked for 87 minutes, while GPT-5.5 Extra High worked for 34 minutes and 42 seconds. As I’ve said before, based on great authority GPT-5.6 will be an incremental/soldi improvement over GPT-5.5, not a “Fable killer.” My rough expectation has been that it would trade blows with Fable 5 on some benchmarks, maybe win around half depending on the category, but not clearly surpass it overall. And again fable five will have bigger model smell, but this was expected. After testing this coding output, that view feels pretty accurate. GPT-5.6 is clearly better than GPT-5.5 in several visual areas. The lighting, shading, chairs, object details, and exterior of the spaceship looked noticeably stronger. The scene was also easier to test. I do want to give GPT-5.5 credit though. It built out the rooms much much better and the planets looked better than GPT-5.6’s. It was also interesting that both GPT-5.5 and GPT-5.6 produced better-looking planets than Fable 5 in this specific test. The downside with GPT-5.5 was stability. The game was much glitchier and harder to test compared to GPT-5.6. But when it comes to the core of the demo, which is the spaceship itself, Fable 5 still beat both models pretty comfortably. GPT-5.6 is impressive, but from this test, it looks exactly like what I expected which was a meaningful incremental improvement over GPT-5.5, at least for indie game demos, but not something that replaces Fable 5. In collaboration with Chetaslua

Chris

250,405 views • 1 month ago

GPT-5.6 Sol just changed how I build websites with AI. In this full 10-minute video, I test Sol and Terra inside Codex to build a cinematic landing page from a video reference. I cover: → Which GPT-5.6 model to use → How I analyze a full website experience → How I recreate the layout, motion and interactions → Why better prompting matters more than one-shot results → How to avoid generic AI slop The model matters—but the way you guide it matters even more. Watch the full process below 👇 Want the free template and the exact prompt I used? They’re available exclusively in the description of the YouTube version:
10:23

GPT-5.6 Sol just changed how I build websites with AI. In this full 10-minute video, I test Sol and Terra inside Codex to build a cinematic landing page from a video reference. I cover: → Which GPT-5.6 model to use → How I analyze a full website experience → How I recreate the layout, motion and interactions → Why better prompting matters more than one-shot results → How to avoid generic AI slop The model matters—but the way you guide it matters even more. Watch the full process below 👇 Want the free template and the exact prompt I used? They’re available exclusively in the description of the YouTube version:

Sourasith

261,047 views • 27 days ago

Another WTF moment. Using Codex as a fully custom game engine With the newly discovered and *insane* img2threejs skill 1) GPT imageGen a 3D item you want 2) ask GPT 5.6 Sol to use img2threejs 3) my harness brings it into the game automatically Just watch how good this is
0:31

Another WTF moment. Using Codex as a fully custom game engine With the newly discovered and *insane* img2threejs skill 1) GPT imageGen a 3D item you want 2) ask GPT 5.6 Sol to use img2threejs 3) my harness brings it into the game automatically Just watch how good this is

Nicolas Zullo

266,691 views • 16 days ago

This video by Redditor u/jovanmilic97 is a fantastic comparison of steering inputs from Checo and Max during a lap of Qatar GP. While Max is going around the track almost effortlessly, Checo is constantly fighting to tame the beast. #F1
1:34

This video by Redditor u/jovanmilic97 is a fantastic comparison of steering inputs from Checo and Max during a lap of Qatar GP. While Max is going around the track almost effortlessly, Checo is constantly fighting to tame the beast. #F1

Simon Dau

1,105,303 views • 2 years ago

They did it. Claude Opus 5 is BETTER than Fable 5 and half the price It's the smartest model ever made Plus you can actually use it without draining your bank account In this video I cover the best use cases for Opus, when I still use Fable, and where GPT 5.6 still wins:
10:52

They did it. Claude Opus 5 is BETTER than Fable 5 and half the price It's the smartest model ever made Plus you can actually use it without draining your bank account In this video I cover the best use cases for Opus, when I still use Fable, and where GPT 5.6 still wins:

Alex Finn

42,266 views • 14 days ago

Loading DeepSeek v4 Flash just reminded me how good and fast this model is and how well it runs on DGX Sparks. GLM-5.2 is really awesome, but if you want fast and concurrent inference, DS4F is still a top choice IMO. Created by DS4F in single shot The coffee guy
0:20

Loading DeepSeek v4 Flash just reminded me how good and fast this model is and how well it runs on DGX Sparks. GLM-5.2 is really awesome, but if you want fast and concurrent inference, DS4F is still a top choice IMO. Created by DS4F in single shot The coffee guy

Mia

39,686 views • 11 days ago

A 3B model just cleared a puzzle that a 1.6 TRILLION param model couldn't. You've seen this benchmark before: my sliding-puzzle test. Same Kimi & DeepSeek runs as last time. The only new thing: I dropped VibeThinker-3B in for a side-by-side. > VibeThinker → 3B > DeepSeek V4 Flash → 284B > Kimi K2.6 → 1T > DeepSeek V4 Pro → 1.6T Shuffle depths 5, 10, 12, 15, 18, 22. One wrong move scrambles the whole board, so it's pure long-chain reasoning. ✅ VibeThinker-3B: solved all six. Never lost the thread. ⚠️ The giants started cracking at depth 15: Flash, Pro, and even Kimi each blew a run, scrambling the board past the move cap. As VibeThinker was not trained for tool calling, I had it emit X and ran the move. Bigger generalist ≠ smarter.
0:48

A 3B model just cleared a puzzle that a 1.6 TRILLION param model couldn't. You've seen this benchmark before: my sliding-puzzle test. Same Kimi & DeepSeek runs as last time. The only new thing: I dropped VibeThinker-3B in for a side-by-side. > VibeThinker → 3B > DeepSeek V4 Flash → 284B > Kimi K2.6 → 1T > DeepSeek V4 Pro → 1.6T Shuffle depths 5, 10, 12, 15, 18, 22. One wrong move scrambles the whole board, so it's pure long-chain reasoning. ✅ VibeThinker-3B: solved all six. Never lost the thread. ⚠️ The giants started cracking at depth 15: Flash, Pro, and even Kimi each blew a run, scrambling the board past the move cap. As VibeThinker was not trained for tool calling, I had it emit X and ran the move. Bigger generalist ≠ smarter.

stevibe

32,494 views • 1 month ago