Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

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...

developedbyed's profile picture

Dev Ed

71,283 subscribers

414,465 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

ИскусствоОбразованиеНаука и технологии
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

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.
0:34

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 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Opus 4.6 vs Gemini 3 Pro (3/9) prompt: Build a premium interactive isometric 3D cozy room using Vite + React + Three.js (react-three-fiber/drei), with all objects modeled in code (no external assets) and subtle ambient animations. Gemini looks good on initial impression but I feel like I have way more to work with opus here (opus also did light/dark mode and took a quarter of the time to make it).
0:26

Opus 4.6 vs Gemini 3 Pro (3/9) prompt: Build a premium interactive isometric 3D cozy room using Vite + React + Three.js (react-three-fiber/drei), with all objects modeled in code (no external assets) and subtle ambient animations. Gemini looks good on initial impression but I feel like I have way more to work with opus here (opus also did light/dark mode and took a quarter of the time to make it).

Dev Ed

77,206 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

GPT-5.4 is my new default model for OpenClaw. For the last 2 months, Opus was the only model I felt could really unlock OpenClaw for serious agent tasks. GPT-5.4 is the first one that got close enough in quality to change that. In practice, it feels ~60% faster (73 tok/s vs 46), costs about half as much, and gives ~5x longer context. That combination makes OpenClaw much more snappy as a default. I tested it side by side against Opus 4.6 on deep research + slide generation, and the outputs are inspectable too. Full video below:
7:21

GPT-5.4 is my new default model for OpenClaw. For the last 2 months, Opus was the only model I felt could really unlock OpenClaw for serious agent tasks. GPT-5.4 is the first one that got close enough in quality to change that. In practice, it feels ~60% faster (73 tok/s vs 46), costs about half as much, and gives ~5x longer context. That combination makes OpenClaw much more snappy as a default. I tested it side by side against Opus 4.6 on deep research + slide generation, and the outputs are inspectable too. Full video below:

Quinn Leng

131,551 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

This is actually cool - I tried the same prompt for the new Interactive Playwright skill in Codex & GPT-5.4 xHigh - the one above is with the skill and the one below is without. What the skill does is uses the computer use capability of GPT-5.4 to look and navigate the UI. This never worked for me before, but with GPT-5.4 this is the first time I can actually see a massive difference. You can see how the first scene is much more coherent, higher fidelity and complete. The one below is missing a lot of elements and isn't as rich in detail. I'll keep using it for any UI work now.
0:32

This is actually cool - I tried the same prompt for the new Interactive Playwright skill in Codex & GPT-5.4 xHigh - the one above is with the skill and the one below is without. What the skill does is uses the computer use capability of GPT-5.4 to look and navigate the UI. This never worked for me before, but with GPT-5.4 this is the first time I can actually see a massive difference. You can see how the first scene is much more coherent, higher fidelity and complete. The one below is missing a lot of elements and isn't as rich in detail. I'll keep using it for any UI work now.

Peter Gostev (SF 24-28 August)

257,389 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Over the weekend, I added multiplayer "paint ball" dogfight to Tiny Skies, so players can fly around pelting each other with colourful paint balls, just for fun. I tried meshy and tripo to generate some 3D models for the game and the mesh vertices count are really high and lags the game a lot (probably because my game is a globe with thousands of objects - albeit mostly instanced). To my surprise, I found Gemini 3.1 Pro to be really quite good at generating good looking 3D models that are low in poly count. It generated 3D models at a much higher quality than Opus 4.6, Sonnet 4.6 and GPT 5.4. You can see the upgraded biplane models and some objects in the video below. #vibejam
0:23

Over the weekend, I added multiplayer "paint ball" dogfight to Tiny Skies, so players can fly around pelting each other with colourful paint balls, just for fun. I tried meshy and tripo to generate some 3D models for the game and the mesh vertices count are really high and lags the game a lot (probably because my game is a globe with thousands of objects - albeit mostly instanced). To my surprise, I found Gemini 3.1 Pro to be really quite good at generating good looking 3D models that are low in poly count. It generated 3D models at a much higher quality than Opus 4.6, Sonnet 4.6 and GPT 5.4. You can see the upgraded biplane models and some objects in the video below. #vibejam

Danny Limanseta

36,419 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

OPUS 4.6 WAS NERFED DUE TO DEMAND BUT OPUS 4.5 DOES NOT SEEM TO BE HIT this guy ran the same test on both models. Opus 4.6 fails consistently but Opus 4.5 passes every time he switched back to Opus 4.5 on Claude Code and said "what a difference, feels like i got Opus back finally" he is now using this test as a "quantization canary" that runs it at the start of every session before doing real work. if it fails, the model is degraded. five Opus 4.6 windows in a row failed the untransparent nerfing is pushing people to cancel their Max plans if you've been feeling like Opus got dumber lately, you're not imagining it i'd suggest switching to Opus 4.5 to see the difference for yourself
1:03

OPUS 4.6 WAS NERFED DUE TO DEMAND BUT OPUS 4.5 DOES NOT SEEM TO BE HIT this guy ran the same test on both models. Opus 4.6 fails consistently but Opus 4.5 passes every time he switched back to Opus 4.5 on Claude Code and said "what a difference, feels like i got Opus back finally" he is now using this test as a "quantization canary" that runs it at the start of every session before doing real work. if it fails, the model is degraded. five Opus 4.6 windows in a row failed the untransparent nerfing is pushing people to cancel their Max plans if you've been feeling like Opus got dumber lately, you're not imagining it i'd suggest switching to Opus 4.5 to see the difference for yourself

Om Patel

696,175 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

🚨 do you understand what just happened to Microsoft.. Microsoft just dropped seven of its own MAI models, trained from scratch with zero distillation, and said its custom-tuned models already match GPT-tier quality at 10x lower cost. The partner that pays OpenAI's bills is now quietly building the thing that replaces it. - MAI-Thinking-1 hits human-preference parity with Sonnet 4.6 and 53% on SWE Bench Pro, right next to Opus 4.6 - MAI-Code-1-Flash delivers Haiku-class coding at just 5B params and is already shipping inside GitHub Copilot - A custom MAI model tuned for Excel matched GPT-5.4 while running up to 10x more efficiently - Their real weapon isn't the weights, it's that they're already inside everyone's Office, Teams, and VS Code The hard part was never training a good model. The hard part is being the room everyone already works in. Microsoft owns the room.
1:40

🚨 do you understand what just happened to Microsoft.. Microsoft just dropped seven of its own MAI models, trained from scratch with zero distillation, and said its custom-tuned models already match GPT-tier quality at 10x lower cost. The partner that pays OpenAI's bills is now quietly building the thing that replaces it. - MAI-Thinking-1 hits human-preference parity with Sonnet 4.6 and 53% on SWE Bench Pro, right next to Opus 4.6 - MAI-Code-1-Flash delivers Haiku-class coding at just 5B params and is already shipping inside GitHub Copilot - A custom MAI model tuned for Excel matched GPT-5.4 while running up to 10x more efficiently - Their real weapon isn't the weights, it's that they're already inside everyone's Office, Teams, and VS Code The hard part was never training a good model. The hard part is being the room everyone already works in. Microsoft owns the room.

BuBBliK

171,865 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад

GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra lost to GPT-5.5 on physics at 3× the cost! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: - A monster truck backflipping onto a parked car - A stunt car jumping six buses into a brick wall - A train derailing off a broken bridge into the water Outputs: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra: 32.9K tokens, $0.33 Opus 4.8: 9.2K tokens, $0.24 GPT-5.5: 12.4K tokens, $0.11 Grok 4.5: 7.0K tokens, $0.08 Sol Ultra draws just like GPT-5.5, only with more detail and it shows clearest on the bus jump where the two look almost identical. In the other tests Sol Ultra came out worse than its predecessor and the physics really got weaker. We think GPT-5.5 took the truck flip and the train outright. With Sol Ultra you basically get GPT-5.5 with weaker physics and a nicer picture for 3x the price. Newborn Grok 4.5 failed two of the three tests and only came good on the train
0:25

GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra lost to GPT-5.5 on physics at 3× the cost! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: - A monster truck backflipping onto a parked car - A stunt car jumping six buses into a brick wall - A train derailing off a broken bridge into the water Outputs: GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra: 32.9K tokens, $0.33 Opus 4.8: 9.2K tokens, $0.24 GPT-5.5: 12.4K tokens, $0.11 Grok 4.5: 7.0K tokens, $0.08 Sol Ultra draws just like GPT-5.5, only with more detail and it shows clearest on the bus jump where the two look almost identical. In the other tests Sol Ultra came out worse than its predecessor and the physics really got weaker. We think GPT-5.5 took the truck flip and the train outright. With Sol Ultra you basically get GPT-5.5 with weaker physics and a nicer picture for 3x the price. Newborn Grok 4.5 failed two of the three tests and only came good on the train

atomic.chat

898,293 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Spent the last few days vibe coding on my NVIDIA DGX Spark. Here's what I learned. Qwen 3.5 122B took one minute and nine seconds to respond "Hi how are you doing". Unusable for vibe coding. Gemma 4 was fast but built a dot instead of a first person shooter game. GPT-OSS 120B was the sweet spot. Fast, capable, and actually produced working HTML. Open source models running locally are not replacing Claude Opus 4.6 or Codex with GPT 5.4. Not even close. But they're getting better every month. The new DGX Spark Bench is live on Real-world benchmarks for local models on local hardware. This is just the start. Full video below.
21:03

Spent the last few days vibe coding on my NVIDIA DGX Spark. Here's what I learned. Qwen 3.5 122B took one minute and nine seconds to respond "Hi how are you doing". Unusable for vibe coding. Gemma 4 was fast but built a dot instead of a first person shooter game. GPT-OSS 120B was the sweet spot. Fast, capable, and actually produced working HTML. Open source models running locally are not replacing Claude Opus 4.6 or Codex with GPT 5.4. Not even close. But they're getting better every month. The new DGX Spark Bench is live on Real-world benchmarks for local models on local hardware. This is just the start. Full video below.

BridgeMind

57,304 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

FREE $100 in credits with access to Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5. Sauna AI. No card. Gmail or Slack connect. Nobody is talking about this. Sauna AI gives you $100 in credits on signup. No card required. Just email plus Gmail or Slack connection - and Slack gets you more credits than Gmail. What's inside on the free tier: Claude Opus 4.8, Sonnet 4.6, GPT 5.5 and other current models. Limits are generous - not the usual "10 messages and you're out" situation. Real usage out of the box. Here's the exact flow: → Go to sauna(.)ai → Register with email → Connect Gmail or Slack when prompted - Slack gives more credits → Go to dashboard and start using 3 minutes. $100 in credits. Flagship models. No card. These promos disappear fast. Bookmark this post so you don't lose the link when it's gone.
0:42

FREE $100 in credits with access to Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5. Sauna AI. No card. Gmail or Slack connect. Nobody is talking about this. Sauna AI gives you $100 in credits on signup. No card required. Just email plus Gmail or Slack connection - and Slack gets you more credits than Gmail. What's inside on the free tier: Claude Opus 4.8, Sonnet 4.6, GPT 5.5 and other current models. Limits are generous - not the usual "10 messages and you're out" situation. Real usage out of the box. Here's the exact flow: → Go to sauna(.)ai → Register with email → Connect Gmail or Slack when prompted - Slack gives more credits → Go to dashboard and start using 3 minutes. $100 in credits. Flagship models. No card. These promos disappear fast. Bookmark this post so you don't lose the link when it's gone.

Atenov int.

49,506 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

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

250,919 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

Testing the new Claude Opus 4.6 vs. Gemini 3 Pro on Sider’s Artifacts! 🚀 I love turning complex articles into "interactive reading" to boost my efficiency. With the new Claude Opus 4.6 out, I ran a head-to-head comparison. Here's the breakdown: 1/ Gemini 3 Pro: The "Gamified" Experience 🎮 The interface is incredibly clean and minimalist, but the real magic is the interactivity. It’s highly engaging and fun—honestly, it feels like playing a game. It turns passive reading into an active exploration where you actually enjoy clicking through the content. 2/ Claude Opus 4.6: The "High-Tech" Analyst 🧠 The visuals are dazzling—it has a super cool, futuristic vibe. But beyond the look, the breakdown is insanely detailed. It dissects complex concepts from multiple granular angles. It feels like examining the DNA of the article. The Verdict: Choose Gemini 3 Pro for a clean layout with a fun, game-like vibe. Choose Claude Opus 4.6 for "cooler" visuals and superior, microscopic content breakdown. Both are game-changers for "chewing" through difficult papers! 📖✨ Which style do you prefer?
0:39

Testing the new Claude Opus 4.6 vs. Gemini 3 Pro on Sider’s Artifacts! 🚀 I love turning complex articles into "interactive reading" to boost my efficiency. With the new Claude Opus 4.6 out, I ran a head-to-head comparison. Here's the breakdown: 1/ Gemini 3 Pro: The "Gamified" Experience 🎮 The interface is incredibly clean and minimalist, but the real magic is the interactivity. It’s highly engaging and fun—honestly, it feels like playing a game. It turns passive reading into an active exploration where you actually enjoy clicking through the content. 2/ Claude Opus 4.6: The "High-Tech" Analyst 🧠 The visuals are dazzling—it has a super cool, futuristic vibe. But beyond the look, the breakdown is insanely detailed. It dissects complex concepts from multiple granular angles. It feels like examining the DNA of the article. The Verdict: Choose Gemini 3 Pro for a clean layout with a fun, game-like vibe. Choose Claude Opus 4.6 for "cooler" visuals and superior, microscopic content breakdown. Both are game-changers for "chewing" through difficult papers! 📖✨ Which style do you prefer?

Ace

109,206 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Opus 4.6 vs Gemini Pro 3.1 (5/9) Opus absolutely COOKS gemini, by creating an overall better cohesive design, extra features like like dark mode, poper tabs for stock analysis, news, and it even created it's own svgs for the stock tickers whilst doing it FASTER than gemini. Opus: 12 mins 23 seconds Gemini: 18 mins 31 seconds (had to reprompt it 3 extra times to fix syntax errors) prompt: Build a high-end stock analysis dashboard using React + Vite + TypeScript, with a polished TradingView/Bloomberg-style UI, left sidebar of stock tickers, smooth transitions, and premium charts (candlesticks, indicators, comparisons). Use local dummy JSON data only (prices, financials, future points) with a time-simulation mode, rich stock detail tabs (overview, financials, valuation, technicals), and add 3–5 pro features like watchlists, compare mode, alerts, portfolio sandbox, or earnings calendar—architected so a real API can be swapped in later.
0:54

Opus 4.6 vs Gemini Pro 3.1 (5/9) Opus absolutely COOKS gemini, by creating an overall better cohesive design, extra features like like dark mode, poper tabs for stock analysis, news, and it even created it's own svgs for the stock tickers whilst doing it FASTER than gemini. Opus: 12 mins 23 seconds Gemini: 18 mins 31 seconds (had to reprompt it 3 extra times to fix syntax errors) prompt: Build a high-end stock analysis dashboard using React + Vite + TypeScript, with a polished TradingView/Bloomberg-style UI, left sidebar of stock tickers, smooth transitions, and premium charts (candlesticks, indicators, comparisons). Use local dummy JSON data only (prices, financials, future points) with a time-simulation mode, rich stock detail tabs (overview, financials, valuation, technicals), and add 3–5 pro features like watchlists, compare mode, alerts, portfolio sandbox, or earnings calendar—architected so a real API can be swapped in later.

Dev Ed

286,780 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Nobody seems to know how insane GPT-5.4 is with computer use. I asked GPT-5.4 to draw the OpenAI logo in Microsoft Paint. No computer use API. Just a screenshot and basic tool calls (click, drag, press_key) all coordinate-based. The first drawing was awful. And GPT knew it. It looked at its own result and essentially went "yeah, no." What happened next is what broke my brain: It opened a browser. Went to Bing Images. Searched for the OpenAI logo. Found one. Then (and I cannot stress this enough) it used the Windows area screenshot shortcut (Win+Shift+S) to snip just the logo off the screen. Went back to Paint. Imported it. Centered it. All on its own. No instructions to do any of that. It just improvised a better strategy when the first one failed. My prompt was "Draw the OpenAI logo" with Paint already opened on the computer. Sure, it's "cheating." But honestly? That's exactly what I'd do too. And the fact that it came up with this plan from nothing but a screenshot and a coordinate system is wild.
1:34

Nobody seems to know how insane GPT-5.4 is with computer use. I asked GPT-5.4 to draw the OpenAI logo in Microsoft Paint. No computer use API. Just a screenshot and basic tool calls (click, drag, press_key) all coordinate-based. The first drawing was awful. And GPT knew it. It looked at its own result and essentially went "yeah, no." What happened next is what broke my brain: It opened a browser. Went to Bing Images. Searched for the OpenAI logo. Found one. Then (and I cannot stress this enough) it used the Windows area screenshot shortcut (Win+Shift+S) to snip just the logo off the screen. Went back to Paint. Imported it. Centered it. All on its own. No instructions to do any of that. It just improvised a better strategy when the first one failed. My prompt was "Draw the OpenAI logo" with Paint already opened on the computer. Sure, it's "cheating." But honestly? That's exactly what I'd do too. And the fact that it came up with this plan from nothing but a screenshot and a coordinate system is wild.

Clad3815

1,069,968 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад

this was one of the biggest weeks in AI because claude opus 4.6 and gpt-5.3 codex dropped basically at the SAME time. they solve the same problem in VERY different ways. - opus spins up agent teams and disappears for a while. - codex stays with you and ships ridiculously fast. i tested them both for you in this episode of The Startup Ideas Podcast (SIP) 🧃 (on yt/spot/apple/X) with my pal Morgan we set them up live, tuned them properly, and had each one build a polymarket clone from scratch. you’ll see where each one shines, where it struggles, and which approach actually fits how you work. if you’re trying to decide what to use next, this episode will save you a lot of trial and error.
48:54

this was one of the biggest weeks in AI because claude opus 4.6 and gpt-5.3 codex dropped basically at the SAME time. they solve the same problem in VERY different ways. - opus spins up agent teams and disappears for a while. - codex stays with you and ships ridiculously fast. i tested them both for you in this episode of The Startup Ideas Podcast (SIP) 🧃 (on yt/spot/apple/X) with my pal Morgan we set them up live, tuned them properly, and had each one build a polymarket clone from scratch. you’ll see where each one shines, where it struggles, and which approach actually fits how you work. if you’re trying to decide what to use next, this episode will save you a lot of trial and error.

GREG ISENBERG

92,318 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

FREE Claude Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5, GPT Image 2 and FLUX2 Pro. Berlin AI startup. No phone verification. MCP access included. The platform is Langdock. Enterprise AI workspace that passed Y Combinator and raised $3.5M. Real company, not a side project. Models are not all enabled by default - Opus 4.8 needs to be turned on manually in model settings. While you're there, enable Overusage too. Limits are solid, models are real. Here's the exact flow: → Go to langdock(.)com → Register with temp email or custom domain - no SMS verification → Enter any phone number - they don't send codes → Go to model settings and enable Opus 4.8 and other models manually → Check usage limits in the limits section MCP connection available - can connect to folders on your own PC. More details on the setup in my Telegram. End result: Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 with MCP access to your local files. Free. One note: system prompt adds some restrictions out of the box - worth knowing before you start. Bookmark this before the free tier gets locked down.
0:36

FREE Claude Opus 4.8, GPT 5.5, GPT Image 2 and FLUX2 Pro. Berlin AI startup. No phone verification. MCP access included. The platform is Langdock. Enterprise AI workspace that passed Y Combinator and raised $3.5M. Real company, not a side project. Models are not all enabled by default - Opus 4.8 needs to be turned on manually in model settings. While you're there, enable Overusage too. Limits are solid, models are real. Here's the exact flow: → Go to langdock(.)com → Register with temp email or custom domain - no SMS verification → Enter any phone number - they don't send codes → Go to model settings and enable Opus 4.8 and other models manually → Check usage limits in the limits section MCP connection available - can connect to folders on your own PC. More details on the setup in my Telegram. End result: Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 with MCP access to your local files. Free. One note: system prompt adds some restrictions out of the box - worth knowing before you start. Bookmark this before the free tier gets locked down.

Atenov int.

27,414 просмотров • 2 месяцев назад

I just compared Claude Code vs Codex vs Cursor CLI The task was to build a Next.js app with Tailwind 4 and shadcn components to collect customer feedback and showcase it with a widget. I gave all three the same prompt and let them go for 30 minutes to see what they came up with. Claude Code with Opus 4.1 Even though I told it to set up the app in the existing project folder, it tried to create a directory for it. After I interrupted and told it not to do that, it built a demo form and landing page with no errors. I had to ask it to make the demo interactive so users could submit a testimonial and preview it. The landing page looked like AI and was pretty basic, but it worked and it was done in a fraction of the time of the others. Total tokens used: 33k Codex with GPT-5 At the end of the 30 minutes I just could not get Codex to produce a working app. It got stuck in a loop of not being able to set up Tailwind 4 and despite many, MANY, attempts, I ended up with a "failed to compile" error. Total tokens used: 102k Cursor Agent with GPT-5 This was the slowest agent by far and a couple of times I actually thought it got stuck in a loop and was close to Ctrl+C'ing to cancel it. The TUI is really nice though, especially how it shows diffs and it did eventually build a working app (after one or two slight errors that needed fixing) The demo was interactive and it had a very minimal design that looked bare but also a lot less like an "AI generated" app than the Opus 4.1 design. It also wasn't too chatty and just did what it needed to do! Code quality was on a par with Opus 4.1, but it did use 5.5x as many tokens to get there. Still cheaper than Opus on a direct comparison but not when you factor in a Claude Code Max subscription. Total tokens: 188k I'll be able to do a proper comparison and record some videos when I'm back from holiday but for now, Opus is still the more capable model out of the box and Claude Code is the more complete CLI product. It will be interesting to see how Cursor evolve their CLI though with commands and subagents because I think with GPT-5 they have a real shot at providing competition for Claude Code if they can optimise output to get similar quality with less tokens. Jump to 0:40 in the video to see the two apps. Which do you think is which? ;)
1:18

I just compared Claude Code vs Codex vs Cursor CLI The task was to build a Next.js app with Tailwind 4 and shadcn components to collect customer feedback and showcase it with a widget. I gave all three the same prompt and let them go for 30 minutes to see what they came up with. Claude Code with Opus 4.1 Even though I told it to set up the app in the existing project folder, it tried to create a directory for it. After I interrupted and told it not to do that, it built a demo form and landing page with no errors. I had to ask it to make the demo interactive so users could submit a testimonial and preview it. The landing page looked like AI and was pretty basic, but it worked and it was done in a fraction of the time of the others. Total tokens used: 33k Codex with GPT-5 At the end of the 30 minutes I just could not get Codex to produce a working app. It got stuck in a loop of not being able to set up Tailwind 4 and despite many, MANY, attempts, I ended up with a "failed to compile" error. Total tokens used: 102k Cursor Agent with GPT-5 This was the slowest agent by far and a couple of times I actually thought it got stuck in a loop and was close to Ctrl+C'ing to cancel it. The TUI is really nice though, especially how it shows diffs and it did eventually build a working app (after one or two slight errors that needed fixing) The demo was interactive and it had a very minimal design that looked bare but also a lot less like an "AI generated" app than the Opus 4.1 design. It also wasn't too chatty and just did what it needed to do! Code quality was on a par with Opus 4.1, but it did use 5.5x as many tokens to get there. Still cheaper than Opus on a direct comparison but not when you factor in a Claude Code Max subscription. Total tokens: 188k I'll be able to do a proper comparison and record some videos when I'm back from holiday but for now, Opus is still the more capable model out of the box and Claude Code is the more complete CLI product. It will be interesting to see how Cursor evolve their CLI though with commands and subagents because I think with GPT-5 they have a real shot at providing competition for Claude Code if they can optimise output to get similar quality with less tokens. Jump to 0:40 in the video to see the two apps. Which do you think is which? ;)

Ian Nuttall

195,173 просмотров • 1 год назад

When using GPT-5.5, it is instantly noticeable how much more powerful it is. In Codex, I gave it a very complex prompt to create London Toy Railway with landmarks and seasons - it did an excellent job in one shot. In the second half of the video you see GPT-5.4 - it was also not bad, but very clearly worse. GPT-5.5's generation is far more ambitious, coherent and with fewer errors. This is obviously a toy example, but I've used it on much more complex real tasks, including a complex app migration and a new hard workflow - it has been working away for many hours without getting stumped. I'm getting more and more addicted to this stuff with every model release.
0:49

When using GPT-5.5, it is instantly noticeable how much more powerful it is. In Codex, I gave it a very complex prompt to create London Toy Railway with landmarks and seasons - it did an excellent job in one shot. In the second half of the video you see GPT-5.4 - it was also not bad, but very clearly worse. GPT-5.5's generation is far more ambitious, coherent and with fewer errors. This is obviously a toy example, but I've used it on much more complex real tasks, including a complex app migration and a new hard workflow - it has been working away for many hours without getting stumped. I'm getting more and more addicted to this stuff with every model release.

Peter Gostev

263,046 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

THE WAY YOU LOOK AT AI GAME DEVELOPMENT WILL CHANGE AFTER YOU WATCH THIS VIDEO "The AI Slop is Coming for Games." That's right. Introducing... Slopet League Everything you see here was built by Opus 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in _____🤫. This is not an html page, it is a functional game with a fair bit of polish working inside a real game engine. This has to be some kind of trick. NO. It downloaded a map. NO. Imported assets. Only the Octane meshes, I have other cars that were generated that look just as good. The balls, the map, the effects, the physics, animations, etc were all generated from scratch by Opus 5. GPT 5.6 Sol handled the car meshes. This is only the beginning. I made this in about a day and a half, and most of that time I was waiting on Opus to finish generation. Maybe 25 prompts. I will share my process, and many photos, proofs, evidence of this as we go. This is just a taste, I'm extremely busy this week and working on real life stuff so I'm not going to put any more time into this until next week, but believe me I'm gonna polish this into something beautiful. If you're interested, please share, bookmark, follow, and comment below. I want the world to see just how powerful the language models are TODAY. It's only going to get better from here. Buckle up folks. Oh, and What a save!
1:39

THE WAY YOU LOOK AT AI GAME DEVELOPMENT WILL CHANGE AFTER YOU WATCH THIS VIDEO "The AI Slop is Coming for Games." That's right. Introducing... Slopet League Everything you see here was built by Opus 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in _____🤫. This is not an html page, it is a functional game with a fair bit of polish working inside a real game engine. This has to be some kind of trick. NO. It downloaded a map. NO. Imported assets. Only the Octane meshes, I have other cars that were generated that look just as good. The balls, the map, the effects, the physics, animations, etc were all generated from scratch by Opus 5. GPT 5.6 Sol handled the car meshes. This is only the beginning. I made this in about a day and a half, and most of that time I was waiting on Opus to finish generation. Maybe 25 prompts. I will share my process, and many photos, proofs, evidence of this as we go. This is just a taste, I'm extremely busy this week and working on real life stuff so I'm not going to put any more time into this until next week, but believe me I'm gonna polish this into something beautiful. If you're interested, please share, bookmark, follow, and comment below. I want the world to see just how powerful the language models are TODAY. It's only going to get better from here. Buckle up folks. Oh, and What a save!

am.will

131,731 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Here's how I use BOTH Codex + Claude Code to vibe code games For my Final Fantasy Tactics game: → 1. GPT 5.4/5.3-Codex/5.2 → 2. Opus 4.6 → 3. Nano Banana 2 → 4. Playwright → Plans + AskUserQuestion → Queue + interrupt prompts → Auto test + bug fixing FULL workflow👇 00:00 Intro 02:07 Step 1: Game Overview 03:27 Step 2: Nano Banana 2 for Portraits 05:12 Step 3: GPT 5.2 / 5.4 for Planning 09:56 Step 4: AskUserQuestion in Codex 12:02 Step 5: Saving your plans and prompts 13:43 Step 6: GPT 5.3-Codex for Implementing 16:34 Step 7: Implementing Cutscenes 20:49 Step 8: LazyGit + Yazi - Staying in the terminal 22:46 Step 9: Reviewing the changes 23:49 Step 10: Steering Codex - Queued Prompts 25:36 Steo 11: Steering Codex - Interrupt Prompts 26:45 Steo 12: Claude Code and Opus 4.6 27:16 Step 13: xHigh Reasoning for Tricky Bugs 28:50 Step 14: Playwright for automated testing + fixes 30:56 Step 15: Claude Code Plan Mode Previews 32:56 Step 16: Steering Claude Code - Add Notes to Plans 35:05 Wrap-Up
35:19

Here's how I use BOTH Codex + Claude Code to vibe code games For my Final Fantasy Tactics game: → 1. GPT 5.4/5.3-Codex/5.2 → 2. Opus 4.6 → 3. Nano Banana 2 → 4. Playwright → Plans + AskUserQuestion → Queue + interrupt prompts → Auto test + bug fixing FULL workflow👇 00:00 Intro 02:07 Step 1: Game Overview 03:27 Step 2: Nano Banana 2 for Portraits 05:12 Step 3: GPT 5.2 / 5.4 for Planning 09:56 Step 4: AskUserQuestion in Codex 12:02 Step 5: Saving your plans and prompts 13:43 Step 6: GPT 5.3-Codex for Implementing 16:34 Step 7: Implementing Cutscenes 20:49 Step 8: LazyGit + Yazi - Staying in the terminal 22:46 Step 9: Reviewing the changes 23:49 Step 10: Steering Codex - Queued Prompts 25:36 Steo 11: Steering Codex - Interrupt Prompts 26:45 Steo 12: Claude Code and Opus 4.6 27:16 Step 13: xHigh Reasoning for Tricky Bugs 28:50 Step 14: Playwright for automated testing + fixes 30:56 Step 15: Claude Code Plan Mode Previews 32:56 Step 16: Steering Claude Code - Add Notes to Plans 35:05 Wrap-Up

Chong-U

47,264 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад