正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Opus 4.6 vs GPT 5.4 (High) (1/9) prompt: Build a single-file HTML/CSS/JS (no libs) demo that uses SVG to simulate a plant growing: stem extends, leaves sprout + unfurl with springy/windy “physics”, then seamlessly loops forever. For the initial impressions I'm really impressed by GPT, for speed they both... show more

Dev Ed

70,950 subscribers

660,154 次观看 • 5 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

教育科学技术

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Opus 4.6 vs Gemini 3 pro (1/9) prompt: Build a single-file HTML/CSS/JS (no libs) demo that uses SVG to simulate a plant growing: stem extends, leaves sprout + unfurl with springy/windy “physics”, then seamlessly loops forever. my dear opus...what have you done...

Opus 4.6 vs Gemini 3 pro (1/9) prompt: Build a single-file HTML/CSS/JS (no libs) demo that uses SVG to simulate a plant growing: stem extends, leaves sprout + unfurl with springy/windy “physics”, then seamlessly loops forever. my dear opus...what have you done...

Dev Ed

145,939 次观看 • 6 个月前

Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 (4/9) prompt: Build a production-quality 3D flight-tracking web app using React + Vite + Three.js (react-three-fiber + drei) that visualizes live OpenSky aircraft data on a rotatable 3D Earth, with real-time plane motion, smooth interpolation, altitude-accurate positioning, and polished lighting/post-processing. Both models did really well on this one and honestly I’m impressed with both. GPT-5.4 had the nicer post-processing out of the box. I really liked the subtle light shimmer on the airplanes when rotating the planet, and the camera work when clicking a plane felt better overall. Opus 4.6 though had a few details I liked more. It automatically went and found a much nicer Earth texture on GitHub, while with GPT-5.4 I had to reprompt it to go look for a better one. I also preferred Opus’s plane model overall, it just looked more polished, whereas GPT-5.4’s plane asset looked a bit funny. One thing I noticed with GPT-5.4 is that when you click into the plane, the camera sometimes clips through the planet, which breaks the effect a bit. Opus handled that part more cleanly. Overall this felt like a strong result from both, just with different strengths. GPT-5.4 felt better on presentation and post-processing, while Opus had better asset choices and a more premium-looking Earth/plane combo.

Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 (4/9) prompt: Build a production-quality 3D flight-tracking web app using React + Vite + Three.js (react-three-fiber + drei) that visualizes live OpenSky aircraft data on a rotatable 3D Earth, with real-time plane motion, smooth interpolation, altitude-accurate positioning, and polished lighting/post-processing. Both models did really well on this one and honestly I’m impressed with both. GPT-5.4 had the nicer post-processing out of the box. I really liked the subtle light shimmer on the airplanes when rotating the planet, and the camera work when clicking a plane felt better overall. Opus 4.6 though had a few details I liked more. It automatically went and found a much nicer Earth texture on GitHub, while with GPT-5.4 I had to reprompt it to go look for a better one. I also preferred Opus’s plane model overall, it just looked more polished, whereas GPT-5.4’s plane asset looked a bit funny. One thing I noticed with GPT-5.4 is that when you click into the plane, the camera sometimes clips through the planet, which breaks the effect a bit. Opus handled that part more cleanly. Overall this felt like a strong result from both, just with different strengths. GPT-5.4 felt better on presentation and post-processing, while Opus had better asset choices and a more premium-looking Earth/plane combo.

Dev Ed

279,565 次观看 • 5 个月前

After a weekend of testing and working on something with GPT-5.3-Codex & Opus 4.6, ChatGPT Pro + Claude Max 5x are still the best combo in my opinion Using Codex & Claude Code CLI running in tmux (the desktop apps are still a bit buggy) and they're accessible even on the go from iPhone with Termius (and VPN) Usually starting with GPT-5.3-Codex xhigh and Opus 4.6 in plan mode, discussing changes and options, and each writing their plans down to separate Markdown files Then letting GPT-5.3-Codex xhigh (or Opus 4.6) implement the changes as the first draft, then Opus 4.6 reviews them with a team of agents (works pretty well already with tmux even though still experimental) based on both prepared plans, fixes stuff, and then another review by GPT-5.3-Codex xhigh or vice versa Interesting that even Opus 4.6 still occasionally makes silly mistakes like wrong imports, partial or overly broad renaming of variables/functions, etc Fun fact, OpenAI apparently plans to use their Super Bowl ad to promote Codex - curious what that will look like

After a weekend of testing and working on something with GPT-5.3-Codex & Opus 4.6, ChatGPT Pro + Claude Max 5x are still the best combo in my opinion Using Codex & Claude Code CLI running in tmux (the desktop apps are still a bit buggy) and they're accessible even on the go from iPhone with Termius (and VPN) Usually starting with GPT-5.3-Codex xhigh and Opus 4.6 in plan mode, discussing changes and options, and each writing their plans down to separate Markdown files Then letting GPT-5.3-Codex xhigh (or Opus 4.6) implement the changes as the first draft, then Opus 4.6 reviews them with a team of agents (works pretty well already with tmux even though still experimental) based on both prepared plans, fixes stuff, and then another review by GPT-5.3-Codex xhigh or vice versa Interesting that even Opus 4.6 still occasionally makes silly mistakes like wrong imports, partial or overly broad renaming of variables/functions, etc Fun fact, OpenAI apparently plans to use their Super Bowl ad to promote Codex - curious what that will look like

Tibor Blaho

29,794 次观看 • 6 个月前

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 次观看 • 1 个月前

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 次观看 • 1 个月前

a moonshot engineer leaked the benchmark anthropic, openai and xai all buried the same week: kimi k3 beat opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6 at $0.94 a task. stop paying anthropic $200 a month for opus 5 and openai $200 for gpt-5.6 when kimi does the same work for $8 the leak showed kimi k3 winning 9 of 12 categories against opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6. within 48 hours all three labs quietly pushed pricing pages and one very specific comparison chart off their sites. nobody announced anything. they just deleted, which tells you everything the four numbers they scrubbed: cost per task · $0.94 vs $1.80 -> opus 5 charges $1.80 to finish one task. gpt-5.6 $1.04. grok 4.6 $0.61. kimi k3 $0.94 and it landed 487 of 500 clean -> anthropic is billing you double for a model that lost the benchmark it paid to promote the weights · free, sitting on huggingface right now -> the entire model is a public download. pull it, keep it, run it forever, nobody can switch it off -> a model you can hold cannot be rented at $200 a month. that single fact is what three labs deleted a chart over the switch · one line of bash -> moonshot ships an anthropic-compatible endpoint. one env variable and claude code points at kimi -> same cli, same keybindings, same /model. you change a url, opus 5 never knows it lost the seat the bill · $400 down to $8 -> opus 5 max plus gpt-5.6 pro is $400 a month. kimi runs the same daily work for $8 metered -> that is a 98% cut for output that beat both of them 9 categories to 3 here is the part they will fight me on: the frontier tax died the week this leaked and all three labs know it. once the weights are public the price has a ceiling, because anyone can serve the same model. anthropic, openai and xai are charging 2025 prices on a lead that ended in a benchmark they deleted instead of answered drop your $400/mo ai stack to $8. the run above is kimi k3 finishing the task opus 5 bills $1.80 for. the full breakdown is in the article below

a moonshot engineer leaked the benchmark anthropic, openai and xai all buried the same week: kimi k3 beat opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6 at $0.94 a task. stop paying anthropic $200 a month for opus 5 and openai $200 for gpt-5.6 when kimi does the same work for $8 the leak showed kimi k3 winning 9 of 12 categories against opus 5, gpt-5.6 and grok 4.6. within 48 hours all three labs quietly pushed pricing pages and one very specific comparison chart off their sites. nobody announced anything. they just deleted, which tells you everything the four numbers they scrubbed: cost per task · $0.94 vs $1.80 -> opus 5 charges $1.80 to finish one task. gpt-5.6 $1.04. grok 4.6 $0.61. kimi k3 $0.94 and it landed 487 of 500 clean -> anthropic is billing you double for a model that lost the benchmark it paid to promote the weights · free, sitting on huggingface right now -> the entire model is a public download. pull it, keep it, run it forever, nobody can switch it off -> a model you can hold cannot be rented at $200 a month. that single fact is what three labs deleted a chart over the switch · one line of bash -> moonshot ships an anthropic-compatible endpoint. one env variable and claude code points at kimi -> same cli, same keybindings, same /model. you change a url, opus 5 never knows it lost the seat the bill · $400 down to $8 -> opus 5 max plus gpt-5.6 pro is $400 a month. kimi runs the same daily work for $8 metered -> that is a 98% cut for output that beat both of them 9 categories to 3 here is the part they will fight me on: the frontier tax died the week this leaked and all three labs know it. once the weights are public the price has a ceiling, because anyone can serve the same model. anthropic, openai and xai are charging 2025 prices on a lead that ended in a benchmark they deleted instead of answered drop your $400/mo ai stack to $8. the run above is kimi k3 finishing the task opus 5 bills $1.80 for. the full breakdown is in the article below

starmex

30,987 次观看 • 2 天前

1-bit Kimi K3 performs at Opus 5 level on 3D physics! We ran our Atomic Chat quant of Kimi K3 locally on 4x B200 against three cloud models and gave them all the same task, to build a giant anvil drop test as a single HTML file with real physics Outputs: K3 1bit (local): 15.8K tokens, $0 API cost Kimi K3 (API): 15.3K tokens, $0.30 API cost Opus 5: 22.8K tokens, $0.77 API cost GPT 5.6: 14.5K tokens, $0.72 API cost All four got the physics right. But only Kimi made a working winch. The drum turns and the chain drags the flat car off the pad. Opus 5 drew the most detail, road markings and sparks on the hit. And you can run a model at this level on your own box now. That still feels insane to us

1-bit Kimi K3 performs at Opus 5 level on 3D physics! We ran our Atomic Chat quant of Kimi K3 locally on 4x B200 against three cloud models and gave them all the same task, to build a giant anvil drop test as a single HTML file with real physics Outputs: K3 1bit (local): 15.8K tokens, $0 API cost Kimi K3 (API): 15.3K tokens, $0.30 API cost Opus 5: 22.8K tokens, $0.77 API cost GPT 5.6: 14.5K tokens, $0.72 API cost All four got the physics right. But only Kimi made a working winch. The drum turns and the chain drags the flat car off the pad. Opus 5 drew the most detail, road markings and sparks on the hit. And you can run a model at this level on your own box now. That still feels insane to us

atomic.chat

53,845 次观看 • 23 天前

GPT-5.5 by Reasoning Effort: I've asked it in Codex to create a physics-based visualisation of RL cycles for different sized models (70b, 1t, 10t), to demonstrate how the amount of RL you can do differs by model size. My assessment of each: - Low: weird slop - Medium: kinda cooked - High: sort of tried but ultimately incoherent - Extra High: elite - really nice idea and well executed Obviously this is just one shot, but worth trying different reasoning levels for the new models, medium seems to be pretty good for GPT-5.5 and it was really bad for many previous GPT models.

GPT-5.5 by Reasoning Effort: I've asked it in Codex to create a physics-based visualisation of RL cycles for different sized models (70b, 1t, 10t), to demonstrate how the amount of RL you can do differs by model size. My assessment of each: - Low: weird slop - Medium: kinda cooked - High: sort of tried but ultimately incoherent - Extra High: elite - really nice idea and well executed Obviously this is just one shot, but worth trying different reasoning levels for the new models, medium seems to be pretty good for GPT-5.5 and it was really bad for many previous GPT models.

Peter Gostev (SF: 22-26 June)

209,258 次观看 • 4 个月前

Fable 5 totally crushed our new contest, but it cost 6x more than Opus 4.8! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: — A train derailing off a broken bridge into the water — Two cars jumping off ramps and colliding mid-air over a canyon — A monster truck crushing a row of parked cars Outputs: Fable 5: 62,158 tokens, $3.12 GPT 5.5: 37,753 tokens, $1.14 Opus 4.8: 22,280 tokens, $0.56 GLM 5.2: 36,246 tokens, $0.08 Fable 5 did all three scenes at A+. The crashes looked real, things fell and broke the right way, and nothing went through the ground or floated. GPT 5.5 was the closest to Fable. In the Bigfoot show, we think GPT was even a little better. GLM 5.2 did not win any scene, but it was the cheapest by far. Fable is the best pick for quality, but you pay more for it.

Fable 5 totally crushed our new contest, but it cost 6x more than Opus 4.8! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: — A train derailing off a broken bridge into the water — Two cars jumping off ramps and colliding mid-air over a canyon — A monster truck crushing a row of parked cars Outputs: Fable 5: 62,158 tokens, $3.12 GPT 5.5: 37,753 tokens, $1.14 Opus 4.8: 22,280 tokens, $0.56 GLM 5.2: 36,246 tokens, $0.08 Fable 5 did all three scenes at A+. The crashes looked real, things fell and broke the right way, and nothing went through the ground or floated. GPT 5.5 was the closest to Fable. In the Bigfoot show, we think GPT was even a little better. GLM 5.2 did not win any scene, but it was the cheapest by far. Fable is the best pick for quality, but you pay more for it.

atomic.chat

2,838,606 次观看 • 1 个月前

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 次观看 • 2 个月前

Codex cooked for 12 hours 19 minutes last night using a /goal 🎉 It added: - Stopwatch (count up) - Clock (with seconds) - Pomodoro - Tabata - Autocomplete Everything worked except the UI interactions around auto-complete (Codex GPT-5.5 is still not great at UI, but even Claude Opus 4.8 Ultracode struggled here). Overall, I'm really happy with the results. These are features that I've wanted for a while, and getting them close to release is awesome.

Codex cooked for 12 hours 19 minutes last night using a /goal 🎉 It added: - Stopwatch (count up) - Clock (with seconds) - Pomodoro - Tabata - Autocomplete Everything worked except the UI interactions around auto-complete (Codex GPT-5.5 is still not great at UI, but even Claude Opus 4.8 Ultracode struggled here). Overall, I'm really happy with the results. These are features that I've wanted for a while, and getting them close to release is awesome.

Paul Solt

48,887 次观看 • 1 个月前

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 次观看 • 1 个月前

#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 次观看 • 5 个月前

Okay this is really cool. Codex app has a new feature that is really useful. Highlight any text, and you'll notice a new popup. "More Details" uses GPT 5.5 Instant to explain in more detail about the highlighted portion of your text, allowing you to understand the reasoning/concept/statement/etc in greater detail. What's interesting about this versus a side chat is that it's instantaneous, and still retains context from the thread. With /side chat, you'd have to type out a prompt "what are the details on this?" With "more details" the prompt is implicit and the response is instantenous Very nice feature, as I'm always making side chats/branches to expand/learn/understand agent outputs better.

Okay this is really cool. Codex app has a new feature that is really useful. Highlight any text, and you'll notice a new popup. "More Details" uses GPT 5.5 Instant to explain in more detail about the highlighted portion of your text, allowing you to understand the reasoning/concept/statement/etc in greater detail. What's interesting about this versus a side chat is that it's instantaneous, and still retains context from the thread. With /side chat, you'd have to type out a prompt "what are the details on this?" With "more details" the prompt is implicit and the response is instantenous Very nice feature, as I'm always making side chats/branches to expand/learn/understand agent outputs better.

am.will

38,454 次观看 • 1 个月前

GPT Image 2 + Seedance 2.0 Prompt Share Created on mitte.ai I didn't use a character sheet for this generation. I directly used the character images I created in Midjourney. Since the visual style transfers into the video surprisingly well, it's actually a really effective for style transfer. This time I also added a bit more detail to the Seedance prompt itself. You can definitely achieve similar results without storyboards too, they're not mandatory but I think they're one of the best ways to previsualize scenes, pacing and even camera angles before generation. Also, this storyboard prompt is still a bit long. I'm currently experimenting with more compact version of it too. You can check the prompts below.

GPT Image 2 + Seedance 2.0 Prompt Share Created on mitte.ai I didn't use a character sheet for this generation. I directly used the character images I created in Midjourney. Since the visual style transfers into the video surprisingly well, it's actually a really effective for style transfer. This time I also added a bit more detail to the Seedance prompt itself. You can definitely achieve similar results without storyboards too, they're not mandatory but I think they're one of the best ways to previsualize scenes, pacing and even camera angles before generation. Also, this storyboard prompt is still a bit long. I'm currently experimenting with more compact version of it too. You can check the prompts below.

Kōda

41,754 次观看 • 2 个月前

HERMES AGENT NOW RUNS CLAUDE OPUS 5. NEAR FABLE 5 INTELLIGENCE. HALF THE PRICE. SELF-VERIFIES ITS OWN WORK. AVAILABLE TODAY VIA NOUS PORTAL (20% OFF ALL MODELS). Anthropic shipped Opus 5 on July 24, 2026. same $5/$25 per million tokens as Opus 4.8. but the benchmarks tell a different story. WHAT CHANGED FROM OPUS 4.8: FrontierBench v0.1: Opus 5: 43.3%. Opus 4.8: 18.7%. 2.3x jump on the same test. ARC-AGI-3: Opus 5: 30.2%. 3x better than the next closest model. beat Fable 5 on 8 out of 13 benchmarks. at half the cost ($5/$25 vs $10/$50). same price as Opus 4.8. twice the intelligence. no reason to stay on 4.8. THE SPECS: model ID: claude-opus-5 context: 1M tokens (default and maximum) max output: 128K tokens thinking: on by default effort toggle: low / medium / high per request fast mode: $10/$50, 2.5x faster knowledge cutoff: May 2026 minimum cacheable prompt: 512 tokens (was 1,024) SELF-VERIFICATION (the biggest change): Opus 5 checks its own work automatically. Anthropic says: delete your verification prompts. "include a final verification step" now causes OVER-verification because the model already does it. for Hermes /goal tasks this is a direct upgrade. the judge checks evidence. the model also checks evidence. double layer of verification without extra tokens. EFFORT TOGGLE: low: fast, cheap, routine work. medium: balanced, daily tasks. high: full reasoning, complex problems. set per request. not a global switch. matches Hermes /reasoning command: /reasoning low (routine) /reasoning high (complex) Opus 5 effort toggle + Hermes reasoning control = precise cost management per turn. WHERE OPUS 5 FITS IN HERMES: DAILY DRIVER (replaces Opus 4.8): same price. 2.3x better benchmarks. set as your main model: Desktop app / Dashboard: Models → claude-opus-5 CHIEF OF STAFF: synthesis across multiple agents. reads Kanban, prioritizes, routes tasks. self-verification catches routing errors before they cascade. COMPLEX CODING: SOTA on agentic coding benchmarks. FrontierBench 43.3% = best public model for coding. set as coder profile model. /GOAL TASKS: self-verification + completion contracts = the model proves its work AND double-checks the proof. long-horizon goals finish correctly more often. MoA AGGREGATOR: strongest synthesis model at $5/$25. pair with GPT-5.6 and Grok 4.5 as references. Opus 5 aggregates. best quality at mid-range price. presets: max-quality: reference_models: - provider: openai-codex model: gpt-5.6-sol - provider: xai model: grok-4.5 aggregator: provider: anthropic model: claude-opus-5 COMPUTER USE: near-Fable 5 quality for browser automation. at half the token cost per session. computer_use tasks burn lots of vision tokens. Opus 5 halves that bill vs Fable 5. WHAT TO KEEP OPUS 5 AWAY FROM: cron monitoring: too expensive. use DeepSeek or no_agent mode. sub-agent grunt work: use GPT-5.6 Luna ($1/$6) or DeepSeek. auxiliary tasks: use Gemini Flash. routine web extraction: use a cheap model. Opus 5 is for the turns where quality compounds. planning, synthesis, verification, complex reasoning. budget models handle everything else. NOUS PORTAL: 20% OFF ALL MODELS Nous Portal currently runs a 20% discount on all models including Opus 5. $5/$25 official → $4/$20 through Nous Portal. the cheapest way to run Opus 5 right now. hermes setup --portal select claude-opus-5 as your model. discount applies automatically. Opus 5 replaces Opus 4.8 everywhere. same price. better at everything. no tradeoff. straight upgrade. hermes update /model claude-opus-5

YanXbt

16,744 次观看 • 1 个月前

This is genuinely insane 🤯 I sent the same prompt to 2 Claude Opus 5 agents 1 agent used no MCPs 1 agent used 2 MCPS the goal was to clone a very famous game, that has over 4 billion downloads and the results are scary.. The 1st agents game looks pretty basic. but has all the mechanics in place and even has power ups. The 2nd agents game looks polished especially for 1 single prompt. the 2nd agent used higgsfield mcp to create images for all of the assets then sent those images to Meshy AI with a prompt to create them it also generated all the UI elements. the results speak for themselves. you need to start MCP maxxing

This is genuinely insane 🤯 I sent the same prompt to 2 Claude Opus 5 agents 1 agent used no MCPs 1 agent used 2 MCPS the goal was to clone a very famous game, that has over 4 billion downloads and the results are scary.. The 1st agents game looks pretty basic. but has all the mechanics in place and even has power ups. The 2nd agents game looks polished especially for 1 single prompt. the 2nd agent used higgsfield mcp to create images for all of the assets then sent those images to Meshy AI with a prompt to create them it also generated all the UI elements. the results speak for themselves. you need to start MCP maxxing

Ernesto Lopez

70,384 次观看 • 26 天前

Since many of you asked yesterday: Unkey paid us $90k for this rebrand and design. If you think that’s a lot, it really isn’t once you see how much was delivered. Good branding is not just a logo and a few gradients - it’s a huge system built to help a brand evolve across materials without relying on the same visual trick over and over. That’s exactly the kind of system we build for companies. And while today you’ll probably see another round of scary posts about design being eaten by GPT Image 2.0, remember: there are still companies willing to pay a lot for branding done by humans with taste. Those humans may use AI. AI may help speed things up. But it’s still just a tool - and like any tool, you need to learn how to use it.

Alex Barashkov

81,612 次观看 • 4 个月前

Seedance 2.0 - Cinematic Summoning VFX Prompt This prompt generates a multi-cut VFX showcase with a clear progression. It’s designed for realistic 3D with grounded physics, natural character motion and readable, production-style VFX. You don’t need to define the summon, but you can specify what is being summoned if you want control. If you leave it open, the model decides based on the character sheet. You can find gpt image 2 character sheet prompt in the quoted post. Also, this isn’t limited to summoning. You can reuse the same VFX structure for anything, just swap the effect logic. Just change the parts about summoning. Prompt in the replies 👇

Seedance 2.0 - Cinematic Summoning VFX Prompt This prompt generates a multi-cut VFX showcase with a clear progression. It’s designed for realistic 3D with grounded physics, natural character motion and readable, production-style VFX. You don’t need to define the summon, but you can specify what is being summoned if you want control. If you leave it open, the model decides based on the character sheet. You can find gpt image 2 character sheet prompt in the quoted post. Also, this isn’t limited to summoning. You can reuse the same VFX structure for anything, just swap the effect logic. Just change the parts about summoning. Prompt in the replies 👇

Kōda

28,400 次观看 • 3 个月前

This guy used Opus 5 to build a tiny device that replaced scrolling for him. Imagine a small screen, barely bigger than a watch, with hundreds of glowing blue particles floating inside. When you tilt it, they slide. When you shake it, they splash. When you hold it still, they settle like water at the bottom of a glass. It looks like actual liquid is trapped behind the screen. But it's all code running on a $15 chip. Opus 5 wrote the entire thing in C. The physics, the lighting, the way each particle reacts to your hand movements. 100 fps on a device smaller than your palm. He says he picks it up instead of reaching for his phone now. Just sits there tilting it, watching particles move.

This guy used Opus 5 to build a tiny device that replaced scrolling for him. Imagine a small screen, barely bigger than a watch, with hundreds of glowing blue particles floating inside. When you tilt it, they slide. When you shake it, they splash. When you hold it still, they settle like water at the bottom of a glass. It looks like actual liquid is trapped behind the screen. But it's all code running on a $15 chip. Opus 5 wrote the entire thing in C. The physics, the lighting, the way each particle reacts to your hand movements. 100 fps on a device smaller than your palm. He says he picks it up instead of reaching for his phone now. Just sits there tilting it, watching particles move.

Vaibhav Sisinty

120,554 次观看 • 17 天前