Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

ox alpha vs deepseek v4 flash vision vs grok 4.6 vs gemini 3.7 flash vs – on photo-to-3d four vision models got one photograph each and had to rebuild the place inside it as a Three.js scene. twelve scenes, twelve first-try runs, zero console errors the setup: one reference...

thehypedotnews's profile picture

thehype.

4,675 subscribers

24,272 views • 27 days ago •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

17 Comments

AntSeed's profile picture
AntSeed27 days ago

@threejs Just use it on AntSeed for free

thehype.'s profile picture
thehype.27 days ago

@threejs 👌

Ola's profile picture
Ola27 days ago

@threejs This is actually really cool! They all have their good and bad scenes, but it shows you how far we've come

thehype.'s profile picture
thehype.27 days ago

@threejs so true

Addy Crezee | thehype. | /function1's profile picture
Addy Crezee | thehype. | /function127 days ago

@threejs wow, this ox alpha is strong, especially the last one with the motel — cool details but slow, yeah

thehype.'s profile picture
thehype.27 days ago

@threejs waiting for the release 😉

Alina Fomina's profile picture
Alina Fomina27 days ago

@threejs ox alpha 🔥 let's see if rumors as the next glm are true

thehype.'s profile picture
thehype.27 days ago

@threejs will be 🔥

Kseniya Lukashuk's profile picture
Kseniya Lukashuk27 days ago

@threejs 🇺🇸🦅

Vladimir Arustamov's profile picture
Vladimir Arustamov27 days ago

@threejs it must be joke...

Ares's profile picture
Ares26 days ago

@threejs Include Sonnet

thehype.'s profile picture
thehype.26 days ago

@threejs what do you think @n1ckstr3 ? 😎

Fajar M Reza's profile picture
Fajar M Reza26 days ago

@threejs Photo-to-3D comparisons need reproducible scenes before first-try success becomes trustworthy.

Racun's profile picture
Racun27 days ago

@threejs Photo-to-3D isn't a vision task, it's a geometry problem. All these models will hallucinate plausible textures on unseen surfaces instead of admitting occlusion. The benchmark needs multi-view consistency metrics, not single-frame "make it look 3D" prompts. Current V...

AidarosGo's profile picture
AidarosGo21 days ago

@threejs All of them are baddass. AI racing will never stop. Each model will surpass others in period of time in recycling endless race.

nickster's profile picture
nickster27 days ago

@threejs ox alpha can replace every single guy in the office for $0. think about it

thehype.'s profile picture
thehype.27 days ago

@threejs it won’t be free forever, but we got the point 😆

Related Videos

glm 5.3 vs qwen 3.8 vs gemini 3.7 vs deepseek v4 flash four models designed and built three structures each on a physics-backed site, with no dimensions anywhere in the brief the setup: our own agent loop on OpenRouter, a construction site as the tool set – footings, walls, arches, roofs, scaffold, a lamp. the site enforces physics and nothing else: unsupported brick falls, a roof needs walls under it, a worker reaches 3.2 m above whatever he stands on, an arch needs centring until the keystone is set, concrete cures before it carries. no budget ceiling – material cost is tallied and reported, never blocked. tasks: 1. house – a plot and a palette, no plan. shape, height and material are the model's call 2. lighthouse – a headland cut by a gully, with a rock stack standing 30 m offshore. the lamp must burn, it must be the highest thing built, and the keeper must be able to walk to it 3. bridge – a river with one islet and banks at different heights. cross it however you want models: Z.ai glm 5.3 flash, Qwen qwen 3.8 flash, Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash, DeepSeek v4 flash vision all twelve objects were finished and signed off by the models themselves. tallest lighthouse is qwen's at 38.4 m, planted on the offshore stack with a bridge run out to it – the only model that read the site that way. deepseek signed off its bridge on an empty riverbed: 0 bricks, 107 minutes, $1.16m of material tallied - total cost, three builds #1 glm 5.3 flash – $0.201 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.871 #3 qwen 3.8 flash – $1.058 #4 deepseek v4 flash – $1.567 - wall clock, three builds #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 91m #2 glm 5.3 flash – 228m #3 deepseek v4 flash – 502m #4 qwen 3.8 flash – 912m - total tokens #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 3,567,052 #2 glm 5.3 flash – 4,732,748 #3 qwen 3.8 flash – 13,469,333 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 18,230,076 - defects logged by the site #1 deepseek v4 flash – 59 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 132 #3 glm 5.3 flash – 221 #4 qwen 3.8 flash – 350 - material tallied across three builds #1 gemini 3.7 flash – $359,884 #2 glm 5.3 flash – $583,358 #3 deepseek v4 flash – $1,327,484 #4 qwen 3.8 flash – $2,188,625 observations: • glm is the cheap one and nothing here is close – $0.201 for three buildings, $0.042 per million tokens, 6x under gemini's rate • what glm spends it on is bulk, not care: 166,228 bricks in one house and 156 defect weight, the worst single object in the set • gemini is the efficiency line – 91 minutes and 3.57m tokens for all three and an eighth of qwen's clock • gemini also builds the smallest of everything. its lighthouse is 22.5 m against qwen's 38.4, its house 6.9 m against 19.3 • qwen is the maximalist: 1.18m bricks, $2.19m of material, tallest on all three tasks, and 912 minutes – 15 hours – to get there conclusion: twelve finished objects for $3.80 all in, and a 7.8x price spread between the cheapest model and the priciest! follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
1:09

glm 5.3 vs qwen 3.8 vs gemini 3.7 vs deepseek v4 flash four models designed and built three structures each on a physics-backed site, with no dimensions anywhere in the brief the setup: our own agent loop on OpenRouter, a construction site as the tool set – footings, walls, arches, roofs, scaffold, a lamp. the site enforces physics and nothing else: unsupported brick falls, a roof needs walls under it, a worker reaches 3.2 m above whatever he stands on, an arch needs centring until the keystone is set, concrete cures before it carries. no budget ceiling – material cost is tallied and reported, never blocked. tasks: 1. house – a plot and a palette, no plan. shape, height and material are the model's call 2. lighthouse – a headland cut by a gully, with a rock stack standing 30 m offshore. the lamp must burn, it must be the highest thing built, and the keeper must be able to walk to it 3. bridge – a river with one islet and banks at different heights. cross it however you want models: Z.ai glm 5.3 flash, Qwen qwen 3.8 flash, Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash, DeepSeek v4 flash vision all twelve objects were finished and signed off by the models themselves. tallest lighthouse is qwen's at 38.4 m, planted on the offshore stack with a bridge run out to it – the only model that read the site that way. deepseek signed off its bridge on an empty riverbed: 0 bricks, 107 minutes, $1.16m of material tallied - total cost, three builds #1 glm 5.3 flash – $0.201 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.871 #3 qwen 3.8 flash – $1.058 #4 deepseek v4 flash – $1.567 - wall clock, three builds #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 91m #2 glm 5.3 flash – 228m #3 deepseek v4 flash – 502m #4 qwen 3.8 flash – 912m - total tokens #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 3,567,052 #2 glm 5.3 flash – 4,732,748 #3 qwen 3.8 flash – 13,469,333 #4 deepseek v4 flash – 18,230,076 - defects logged by the site #1 deepseek v4 flash – 59 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 132 #3 glm 5.3 flash – 221 #4 qwen 3.8 flash – 350 - material tallied across three builds #1 gemini 3.7 flash – $359,884 #2 glm 5.3 flash – $583,358 #3 deepseek v4 flash – $1,327,484 #4 qwen 3.8 flash – $2,188,625 observations: • glm is the cheap one and nothing here is close – $0.201 for three buildings, $0.042 per million tokens, 6x under gemini's rate • what glm spends it on is bulk, not care: 166,228 bricks in one house and 156 defect weight, the worst single object in the set • gemini is the efficiency line – 91 minutes and 3.57m tokens for all three and an eighth of qwen's clock • gemini also builds the smallest of everything. its lighthouse is 22.5 m against qwen's 38.4, its house 6.9 m against 19.3 • qwen is the maximalist: 1.18m bricks, $2.19m of material, tallest on all three tasks, and 912 minutes – 15 hours – to get there conclusion: twelve finished objects for $3.80 all in, and a 7.8x price spread between the cheapest model and the priciest! follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

26,360 views • 23 days ago

gemini 3.7 flash vs deepseek v4 pro 0813 vs muse spark 1.2 – on voxel city dioramas three models each built three crossy road-style 3d scenes – a construction site, a nyc intersection, a river with a drawbridge – as single self-contained html files the setup: Nous Research's hermes agent cli on OpenRouter, three.js skills preloaded, identical prompts per scene tasks: 1. construction site – tower crane on a working lift loop, paver laying fresh road, roller compacting it behind 2. nyc crossing – four-way intersection with a traffic light state machine, queuing cars, pedestrians crossing on the walk signal 3. river drawbridge – double-leaf bascule that lifts for tall boats, cars queuing at the barriers, animated water every scene: Three.js r185, box geometry only, a locked 20-color palette, four camera presets, and a day/night mode with bloom. one file, no build step, no assets models: Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash, DeepSeek v4 pro 0813, AI at Meta muse spark 1.2 muse and gemini finished every scene in two to three minutes. deepseek took 15 to 41 minutes per scene - build time, all three scenes #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 6m 43s #2 muse spark 1.2 – 7m 20s #3 deepseek v4 pro – 91m 25s - total tokens #1 muse spark 1.2 – 440,279 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 713,855 #3 deepseek v4 pro – 20,957,568 - total price #1 muse spark 1.2 – $0.53 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.56 #3 deepseek v4 pro – $4.57 - agent calls across the three builds #1 muse spark 1.2 – 12 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 18 #3 deepseek v4 pro – 143 observations: • muse won two of the three scenes on looks with the smallest files in the test – 887 to 1,042 lines against gemini's 1,934 to 2,377. cheapest, fastest to a good frame, and shortest turned out to be the same column • deepseek burned 20.96m tokens – 29x gemini, 48x muse – across 143 agent calls. prompt caching is the only reason that cost $4.57: the cache discount absorbed roughly $30 of resent context • gemini was the only model whose files needed zero fixes to render – and the only one whose night mode is cosmetic. the sky never darkens and one camera button does nothing. clean code for a scene it never looked at follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
0:45

gemini 3.7 flash vs deepseek v4 pro 0813 vs muse spark 1.2 – on voxel city dioramas three models each built three crossy road-style 3d scenes – a construction site, a nyc intersection, a river with a drawbridge – as single self-contained html files the setup: Nous Research's hermes agent cli on OpenRouter, three.js skills preloaded, identical prompts per scene tasks: 1. construction site – tower crane on a working lift loop, paver laying fresh road, roller compacting it behind 2. nyc crossing – four-way intersection with a traffic light state machine, queuing cars, pedestrians crossing on the walk signal 3. river drawbridge – double-leaf bascule that lifts for tall boats, cars queuing at the barriers, animated water every scene: Three.js r185, box geometry only, a locked 20-color palette, four camera presets, and a day/night mode with bloom. one file, no build step, no assets models: Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash, DeepSeek v4 pro 0813, AI at Meta muse spark 1.2 muse and gemini finished every scene in two to three minutes. deepseek took 15 to 41 minutes per scene - build time, all three scenes #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 6m 43s #2 muse spark 1.2 – 7m 20s #3 deepseek v4 pro – 91m 25s - total tokens #1 muse spark 1.2 – 440,279 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 713,855 #3 deepseek v4 pro – 20,957,568 - total price #1 muse spark 1.2 – $0.53 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.56 #3 deepseek v4 pro – $4.57 - agent calls across the three builds #1 muse spark 1.2 – 12 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 18 #3 deepseek v4 pro – 143 observations: • muse won two of the three scenes on looks with the smallest files in the test – 887 to 1,042 lines against gemini's 1,934 to 2,377. cheapest, fastest to a good frame, and shortest turned out to be the same column • deepseek burned 20.96m tokens – 29x gemini, 48x muse – across 143 agent calls. prompt caching is the only reason that cost $4.57: the cache discount absorbed roughly $30 of resent context • gemini was the only model whose files needed zero fixes to render – and the only one whose night mode is cosmetic. the sky never darkens and one camera button does nothing. clean code for a scene it never looked at follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

29,033 views • 1 month ago

glm 5.3 flash is 7.5x cheaper, but 3.4x slower than gemini 3.7 flash Z.ai glm 5.3 flash – shipped aug 26, $0.07/$0.25 per 1m Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash – shipped aug 13, $0.38/$1.88 per 1m we put the two models on one job: write one html file that draws an animated 3d scene in the browser. no images, no downloads, and it has to look the same on every load. the setup: three scenes – a glass aquarium in a lit room, the solar system, a night city under a thunderstorm. identical brief word for word, reasoning effort high, 64k output cap. the numbers below are not the whole run. they cover the three scenes we kept – the best one per task from each model, the ones in the video. - total generation time for the three scenes #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 10m 36s #2 glm 5.3 flash – 36m 30s - tokens spent on those three scenes #1 glm 5.3 flash – 110k #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 111k - cost of those three scenes #1 glm 5.3 flash – $0.027 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.202 observations: • glm's first 10 attempts: 7 blank pages. it kept inventing short random helpers and forgetting to define one of them. the fix was one line in the brief: use exactly one random helper, named rand(), and don't invent shorthands next to it. next 12 attempts: 11 alive, 0 crashes. • glm spends 66% of its output on reasoning, gemini 57%. that is the whole speed gap. • gemini's storm came back as a black rectangle in 4 of 6 runs. glm's best storm has a branching bolt, lit rain and wet asphalt – for $0.01. conclusion: same three scenes, same token spend – glm 5.3 flash billed $0.027 and took 36m 30s, gemini 3.7 flash billed $0.202 and took 10m 36s. glm wins gemini on price and made the best storm of the whole run follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
0:30

glm 5.3 flash is 7.5x cheaper, but 3.4x slower than gemini 3.7 flash Z.ai glm 5.3 flash – shipped aug 26, $0.07/$0.25 per 1m Google DeepMind gemini 3.7 flash – shipped aug 13, $0.38/$1.88 per 1m we put the two models on one job: write one html file that draws an animated 3d scene in the browser. no images, no downloads, and it has to look the same on every load. the setup: three scenes – a glass aquarium in a lit room, the solar system, a night city under a thunderstorm. identical brief word for word, reasoning effort high, 64k output cap. the numbers below are not the whole run. they cover the three scenes we kept – the best one per task from each model, the ones in the video. - total generation time for the three scenes #1 gemini 3.7 flash – 10m 36s #2 glm 5.3 flash – 36m 30s - tokens spent on those three scenes #1 glm 5.3 flash – 110k #2 gemini 3.7 flash – 111k - cost of those three scenes #1 glm 5.3 flash – $0.027 #2 gemini 3.7 flash – $0.202 observations: • glm's first 10 attempts: 7 blank pages. it kept inventing short random helpers and forgetting to define one of them. the fix was one line in the brief: use exactly one random helper, named rand(), and don't invent shorthands next to it. next 12 attempts: 11 alive, 0 crashes. • glm spends 66% of its output on reasoning, gemini 57%. that is the whole speed gap. • gemini's storm came back as a black rectangle in 4 of 6 runs. glm's best storm has a branching bolt, lit rain and wet asphalt – for $0.01. conclusion: same three scenes, same token spend – glm 5.3 flash billed $0.027 and took 36m 30s, gemini 3.7 flash billed $0.202 and took 10m 36s. glm wins gemini on price and made the best storm of the whole run follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

15,997 views • 25 days ago

deepseek v4.1 flash ran all four three.js scenes for $0.15. gemini 3.8 flash needed $1.25 we put the two models on one job: a self-contained html page that renders an animated 3d scene with three.js – a storm at sea, a spiral galaxy, a tornado over farmland, a tesla coil on a dark table. same prompt - calls until all four scenes were usable #1 deepseek v4.1 flash – 6 #2 gemini 3.8 flash – 12 - time #1 deepseek v4.1 flash – 13m 57s #2 gemini 3.8 flash – 32m 02s - cost #1 deepseek v4.1 flash – $0.15 #2 gemini 3.8 flash – $1.25 observations: • gemini blew out the exposure on 4 of 5 first attempts – a white blob where the tesla coil should be. the prompt had a paragraph on exposure. it did not help. • both models overcorrect in the fix loop: "too bright" becomes "almost black". round two is where it lands. same four scenes, 6 calls and $0.15 against 12 calls and $1.25!
0:28

deepseek v4.1 flash ran all four three.js scenes for $0.15. gemini 3.8 flash needed $1.25 we put the two models on one job: a self-contained html page that renders an animated 3d scene with three.js – a storm at sea, a spiral galaxy, a tornado over farmland, a tesla coil on a dark table. same prompt - calls until all four scenes were usable #1 deepseek v4.1 flash – 6 #2 gemini 3.8 flash – 12 - time #1 deepseek v4.1 flash – 13m 57s #2 gemini 3.8 flash – 32m 02s - cost #1 deepseek v4.1 flash – $0.15 #2 gemini 3.8 flash – $1.25 observations: • gemini blew out the exposure on 4 of 5 first attempts – a white blob where the tesla coil should be. the prompt had a paragraph on exposure. it did not help. • both models overcorrect in the fix loop: "too bright" becomes "almost black". round two is where it lands. same four scenes, 6 calls and $0.15 against 12 calls and $1.25!

thehype.

62,603 views • 10 days ago

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemini 3.8 Flash at 3D geometry test: six self-contained three.js stereometry scenes — a (3,8) torus knot, a Klein bottle, a great stellated dodecahedron, a hyperboloid ruled by 120 straight rods, a level-3 Menger sponge, a thick Möbius strip. one shot each, no libraries beyond three.js, every surface painted with a live iridescent rainbow that has to crawl across the geometry. cost: Gemini 3.8 Flash — $0.11 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash — $0.27 • gemini delivers all six figures for 2.4× less — 21k output tokens against deepseek's 168k • gemini is 5× faster — every scene under 25 seconds, deepseek took up to 3 minutes on the Möbius strip • deepseek wins the torus knot: its rope is vivid and glossy, while gemini rendered the same knot nearly black • neither model can build a real Klein bottle. both hand back a twisted tube and call it done try both on aimlapi[.]com
0:30

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Gemini 3.8 Flash at 3D geometry test: six self-contained three.js stereometry scenes — a (3,8) torus knot, a Klein bottle, a great stellated dodecahedron, a hyperboloid ruled by 120 straight rods, a level-3 Menger sponge, a thick Möbius strip. one shot each, no libraries beyond three.js, every surface painted with a live iridescent rainbow that has to crawl across the geometry. cost: Gemini 3.8 Flash — $0.11 DeepSeek V4.1 Flash — $0.27 • gemini delivers all six figures for 2.4× less — 21k output tokens against deepseek's 168k • gemini is 5× faster — every scene under 25 seconds, deepseek took up to 3 minutes on the Möbius strip • deepseek wins the torus knot: its rope is vivid and glossy, while gemini rendered the same knot nearly black • neither model can build a real Klein bottle. both hand back a twisted tube and call it done try both on aimlapi[.]com

AI/ML API

39,692 views • 10 days ago

hy3 vs mimo-v2.5 vs deepseek v4 flash vs minimax m3 the four models on top of the openrouter leaderboard by tokens this week: #1 hy3 (Tencent Hy) – 7.5t #2 mimo-v2.5 (Xiaomi MiMo) – 6.56t #3 deepseek v4 flash (DeepSeek) – 5.24t #4 minimax m3 (MiniMax (official)) – 4.21t so we tested them. 3 prompts, single-file html, Three.js from a cdn, fully procedural, no external assets. all run via AI/ML API each prompt is a transparent cutaway machine that has to be mechanically correct, not decorative: • 4-stroke engine with full oil circulation – slider-crank kinematics, cam at 2:1, valve lift driven by lobes, oil loop from sump to gallery to big-end • watt walking-beam steam engine – four-bar vector-loop closure, eccentric-driven slide valve, steam events synced to real port position • francis reaction water turbine – 20 guide vanes on a regulating ring, 17 lofted runner blades, gpu particle advection, precessing vortex rope at part load the takeaway up front: none of the four cleared all three scenes on the first attempt. but the price spread between them is roughly 70x – hy3 fixed included costs less than two cents overall results (summed across all 3 scenes): cost #1 hy3 – $0.016 #2 deepseek v4 flash – $0.025 #3 mimo-v2.5 – $0.97 #4 minimax m3 – $1.17 tokens #1 hy3 – 19,326 #2 deepseek v4 flash – 63,126 #3 mimo-v2.5 – 322,523 #4 minimax m3 – 702,900 lines of code #1 hy3 – 1,047 #2 mimo-v2.5 – 2,759 #3 deepseek v4 flash – 3,273 #4 minimax m3 – 3,354 scenes needing a second attempt #1 hy3 – 1 (engine) #1 mimo-v2.5 – 1 (turbine) #1 minimax m3 – 1 (turbine) #4 deepseek v4 flash – 2 (steam engine, turbine) observations: 1. the token spread is the real story – minimax burns 36x hy3's tokens and lands in the same place, one retry, ~3.3k lines 2. hy3 is the outlier on density: 1,047 lines total, fewest tokens, cheapest run, and only one scene needed a second pass. deepseek is the opposite trade – near-hy3 pricing but the most retries 3. mimo and minimax seem to overthink instead of writing the code. minimax spent 359.1k tokens on the steam engine and produced 1,346 lines – the tokens are going somewhere other than the file 4. the francis turbine broke three of the four. the spec that separates them is the one with 20 linked guide vanes and gpu particle advection, not the one with the most parts overall impression: none of these models excelled at any of the tasks we gave them. but they were close, and they were extremely cheap. the gap that matters isn't quality anymore – it's that hy3 ran all three scenes for less than two cents while the frontier labs charge dollars for the same work right now you pick these because they're good for the zero price you pay. soon that's something openai and anthropic will have to think about follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
0:55

hy3 vs mimo-v2.5 vs deepseek v4 flash vs minimax m3 the four models on top of the openrouter leaderboard by tokens this week: #1 hy3 (Tencent Hy) – 7.5t #2 mimo-v2.5 (Xiaomi MiMo) – 6.56t #3 deepseek v4 flash (DeepSeek) – 5.24t #4 minimax m3 (MiniMax (official)) – 4.21t so we tested them. 3 prompts, single-file html, Three.js from a cdn, fully procedural, no external assets. all run via AI/ML API each prompt is a transparent cutaway machine that has to be mechanically correct, not decorative: • 4-stroke engine with full oil circulation – slider-crank kinematics, cam at 2:1, valve lift driven by lobes, oil loop from sump to gallery to big-end • watt walking-beam steam engine – four-bar vector-loop closure, eccentric-driven slide valve, steam events synced to real port position • francis reaction water turbine – 20 guide vanes on a regulating ring, 17 lofted runner blades, gpu particle advection, precessing vortex rope at part load the takeaway up front: none of the four cleared all three scenes on the first attempt. but the price spread between them is roughly 70x – hy3 fixed included costs less than two cents overall results (summed across all 3 scenes): cost #1 hy3 – $0.016 #2 deepseek v4 flash – $0.025 #3 mimo-v2.5 – $0.97 #4 minimax m3 – $1.17 tokens #1 hy3 – 19,326 #2 deepseek v4 flash – 63,126 #3 mimo-v2.5 – 322,523 #4 minimax m3 – 702,900 lines of code #1 hy3 – 1,047 #2 mimo-v2.5 – 2,759 #3 deepseek v4 flash – 3,273 #4 minimax m3 – 3,354 scenes needing a second attempt #1 hy3 – 1 (engine) #1 mimo-v2.5 – 1 (turbine) #1 minimax m3 – 1 (turbine) #4 deepseek v4 flash – 2 (steam engine, turbine) observations: 1. the token spread is the real story – minimax burns 36x hy3's tokens and lands in the same place, one retry, ~3.3k lines 2. hy3 is the outlier on density: 1,047 lines total, fewest tokens, cheapest run, and only one scene needed a second pass. deepseek is the opposite trade – near-hy3 pricing but the most retries 3. mimo and minimax seem to overthink instead of writing the code. minimax spent 359.1k tokens on the steam engine and produced 1,346 lines – the tokens are going somewhere other than the file 4. the francis turbine broke three of the four. the spec that separates them is the one with 20 linked guide vanes and gpu particle advection, not the one with the most parts overall impression: none of these models excelled at any of the tasks we gave them. but they were close, and they were extremely cheap. the gap that matters isn't quality anymore – it's that hy3 ran all three scenes for less than two cents while the frontier labs charge dollars for the same work right now you pick these because they're good for the zero price you pay. soon that's something openai and anthropic will have to think about follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

17,145 views • 2 months ago

you can now use Ox Alpha, Kimi K3, gemini 3.7 flash and 47 other models for FREEE with no credit card 😳 aihubmix just opened a 50-model free catalog, every model $0/M in and out. the models: -Ox Aplha -gemini-3.7-flash -glm-5.2 -kimi-k3 -minimax-m3 how to set it up (2 min): step 1: sign up at email or oauth, no card step 2: create an api key one key, all models, free and paid alike step 3: call any -free model base url: model: coding-glm-5.2-free, gpt-5.5-free, whatever that's it the free catalog is live in 2 minutes works in any openai-compatible tool. save this if you want a simple multi model setup later
0:31

you can now use Ox Alpha, Kimi K3, gemini 3.7 flash and 47 other models for FREEE with no credit card 😳 aihubmix just opened a 50-model free catalog, every model $0/M in and out. the models: -Ox Aplha -gemini-3.7-flash -glm-5.2 -kimi-k3 -minimax-m3 how to set it up (2 min): step 1: sign up at email or oauth, no card step 2: create an api key one key, all models, free and paid alike step 3: call any -free model base url: model: coding-glm-5.2-free, gpt-5.5-free, whatever that's it the free catalog is live in 2 minutes works in any openai-compatible tool. save this if you want a simple multi model setup later

painn

81,048 views • 29 days 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.

84,777 views • 1 month 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.

27,487 views • 3 months ago

GPT-5.6 LUNA AND DEEPSEEK V4 FLASH ARE BOTH FREE RIGHT NOW -- ONE IN A CHATBOT, THE OTHER IN A BROWSER IDE • ChatGPT, the chatbot > GPT-5.6 Luna is now the default on Free and Go: > Unlimited text chats and a Think button land next week. • MonkeyCode, the browser IDE > 30M tokens a day, resets daily, no card: > DeepSeek V4 Flash, Qwen, GLM, Kimi and MiniMax behind it. > Cloud workspace at 1 vCPU and 4GB, nothing to install. Luna posts 62% fewer factual errors than the model it replaces. MonkeyCode is open source from Chaitin and runs on their cloud, so aim it at side projects. One is live today -> The other arrives next week.
0:24

GPT-5.6 LUNA AND DEEPSEEK V4 FLASH ARE BOTH FREE RIGHT NOW -- ONE IN A CHATBOT, THE OTHER IN A BROWSER IDE • ChatGPT, the chatbot > GPT-5.6 Luna is now the default on Free and Go: > Unlimited text chats and a Think button land next week. • MonkeyCode, the browser IDE > 30M tokens a day, resets daily, no card: > DeepSeek V4 Flash, Qwen, GLM, Kimi and MiniMax behind it. > Cloud workspace at 1 vCPU and 4GB, nothing to install. Luna posts 62% fewer factual errors than the model it replaces. MonkeyCode is open source from Chaitin and runs on their cloud, so aim it at side projects. One is live today -> The other arrives next week.

slash1s

33,804 views • 1 month ago

🚨 GMI estimated ~$0.11 in savings on one 3-step Python coding workflow. I gave GMI Router the same e-commerce codebase and split the work into 3 requests: 👉 Code analysis → Cost Mode → DeepSeek-V4-Flash → ~$0.046 saved 👉 Debugging → Balanced Mode → DeepSeek-V4-Flash → ~$0.042 saved 👉 Implementation + testing → Quality Mode → DeepSeek-V4-Flash → ~$0.019 saved Total: ~$0.11 estimated savings vs Claude Opus 4.8, based on GMI's estimated token usage. But here's what caught my attention: Router selected the same model for all 3 tasks — even though I changed the mode each time. And that's actually the point. GMI Cloud 's Router is cache-aware. When the same model can handle the next request, sticking with it can help preserve cache reuse and reduce cost. There's another reason: These tasks weren't especially difficult. So even in Quality Mode, Router didn't need to move to a heavier model. The result: 1 codebase. 3 tasks. 3 routing modes. 1 lightweight model. ~$0.11 estimated savings. This is why request-level routing is more interesting than simply assigning a different model to every task.
1:11

🚨 GMI estimated ~$0.11 in savings on one 3-step Python coding workflow. I gave GMI Router the same e-commerce codebase and split the work into 3 requests: 👉 Code analysis → Cost Mode → DeepSeek-V4-Flash → ~$0.046 saved 👉 Debugging → Balanced Mode → DeepSeek-V4-Flash → ~$0.042 saved 👉 Implementation + testing → Quality Mode → DeepSeek-V4-Flash → ~$0.019 saved Total: ~$0.11 estimated savings vs Claude Opus 4.8, based on GMI's estimated token usage. But here's what caught my attention: Router selected the same model for all 3 tasks — even though I changed the mode each time. And that's actually the point. GMI Cloud 's Router is cache-aware. When the same model can handle the next request, sticking with it can help preserve cache reuse and reduce cost. There's another reason: These tasks weren't especially difficult. So even in Quality Mode, Router didn't need to move to a heavier model. The result: 1 codebase. 3 tasks. 3 routing modes. 1 lightweight model. ~$0.11 estimated savings. This is why request-level routing is more interesting than simply assigning a different model to every task.

Anthara Fairooz

28,520 views • 24 days ago

HERMES AGENT SUPPORTS 300+ MODELS. PICKING THE RIGHT ONE PER TASK IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN $5/MONTH AND $50. STARTING OUT: Claude Sonnet 4.6. official recommendation from Nous Research. "the model this project was built and tested with." strong reasoning. reliable tool calling. mid-range pricing. PREMIUM TIER: Claude Opus 4.8. best coding benchmarks available. self-correcting reasoning. catches its own mistakes. 1M context. use for demanding tasks where quality matters. GPT-5.5. #1 Chatbot Arena. #1 GPQA Diamond reasoning (94.1%). #1 creative writing. 2M context. handles entire codebases in one pass. Grok 4.30. the only frontier model with live X firehose access. real-time social data, breaking news, market sentiment. connects via Grok OAuth. no separate API key. Grok-Composer-2.5-Fast (v0.17.0). Cursor's coding model. 200K context. available through your Grok subscription via OAuth. no extra cost if you already pay for Grok. MID-RANGE TIER: Claude Sonnet 4.6. best balance of quality and cost for daily use. strongest prose and tool calling in this tier. Gemini 2.5 Pro. Google Search grounding built in. cites sources. verifies claims. pulls current data. 2M context. best for research-heavy workflows. GPT-4.1. reliable tool calling. solid general reasoning. good middle ground when you need OpenAI compatibility. BUDGET TIER: Claude Haiku 4.5. fastest Anthropic model. cheapest paid Claude option. strong at classification, routing, simple queries. use for auxiliary tasks: compression, vision, web extraction, approval scoring. DeepSeek V4. best cost-to-quality ratio in the market. 90% cache discount on repeated context. use for sub-agents and bulk parallel work. DeepSeek V4 Flash. cheapest paid model worth using. 1M context. MIT license. self-hostable. use for cron jobs, monitoring, routine searches. MiniMax M3. Nous Research and MiniMax collaborating on optimization. 1M context via lightning attention. 59% SWE-Bench Pro. beats several premium models on coding. one of the most-used models inside Hermes. FREE / LOCAL: Qwen 3.5 27B via Ollama. 16GB VRAM. reliable tool calling. best free local model for Hermes as of mid-2026. Qwen 3 8B. 8GB VRAM. fits a $7 VPS. handles routine tasks at zero API cost. Llama 4 Maverick. best open-weight tool calling. 1M context. needs more VRAM but strongest local option. HOW TO ASSIGN MODELS: main model: Desktop app / Dashboard → Models → switch sub-agent model: set in Desktop app, Dashboard, or config.yaml: delegation: model: "deepseek/deepseek-v4" auxiliary models (compression, vision, web extract): Desktop app / Dashboard → Models → Auxiliary Haiku 4.5 or Gemini Flash work well here. saves significantly when your main model is premium. per-profile: each Hermes profile gets its own model. Scout on DeepSeek. Analyst on Sonnet. Briefer on budget model. Coder on Opus. per-cron-job: pin a specific model to any cron job. morning brief on Haiku. deep research on Sonnet. monitoring on DeepSeek Flash. each job uses only the model it needs. per-session: /model deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash hot-swap mid-conversation. no restart needed. FALLBACK CHAINS: if your primary model is unavailable, Hermes automatically switches to the next provider. rate limit or server error = next model in the chain. no failed runs. no manual intervention. set in Desktop app, Dashboard, or config.yaml: fallback_providers: - openrouter - nous - codex PROVIDER PATHS: OPENROUTER: 300+ models under one API key. pay per token. most flexible. NOUS PORTAL: 300+ models + Tool Gateway (web search, image gen, TTS, browser). one OAuth. one subscription. 10% off token-billed providers. CHATGPT SUB: GPT-5.5 + Grok via OAuth. included tokens with $20 subscription. OLLAMA: free. local. private. zero API cost. your hardware only. mix providers across profiles and tasks. Scout on OpenRouter. Analyst on Nous Portal. Coder on ChatGPT sub. Monitor on Ollama. THE RULE: premium for work that needs deep reasoning. mid-range for daily driver tasks. budget for volume and background work. free for monitoring and routine jobs. pricing changes fast. check openrouter ai for current rates before committing. Which is your favourite model and for what task? full 15 levels breakdown in the article 👇
0:51

HERMES AGENT SUPPORTS 300+ MODELS. PICKING THE RIGHT ONE PER TASK IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN $5/MONTH AND $50. STARTING OUT: Claude Sonnet 4.6. official recommendation from Nous Research. "the model this project was built and tested with." strong reasoning. reliable tool calling. mid-range pricing. PREMIUM TIER: Claude Opus 4.8. best coding benchmarks available. self-correcting reasoning. catches its own mistakes. 1M context. use for demanding tasks where quality matters. GPT-5.5. #1 Chatbot Arena. #1 GPQA Diamond reasoning (94.1%). #1 creative writing. 2M context. handles entire codebases in one pass. Grok 4.30. the only frontier model with live X firehose access. real-time social data, breaking news, market sentiment. connects via Grok OAuth. no separate API key. Grok-Composer-2.5-Fast (v0.17.0). Cursor's coding model. 200K context. available through your Grok subscription via OAuth. no extra cost if you already pay for Grok. MID-RANGE TIER: Claude Sonnet 4.6. best balance of quality and cost for daily use. strongest prose and tool calling in this tier. Gemini 2.5 Pro. Google Search grounding built in. cites sources. verifies claims. pulls current data. 2M context. best for research-heavy workflows. GPT-4.1. reliable tool calling. solid general reasoning. good middle ground when you need OpenAI compatibility. BUDGET TIER: Claude Haiku 4.5. fastest Anthropic model. cheapest paid Claude option. strong at classification, routing, simple queries. use for auxiliary tasks: compression, vision, web extraction, approval scoring. DeepSeek V4. best cost-to-quality ratio in the market. 90% cache discount on repeated context. use for sub-agents and bulk parallel work. DeepSeek V4 Flash. cheapest paid model worth using. 1M context. MIT license. self-hostable. use for cron jobs, monitoring, routine searches. MiniMax M3. Nous Research and MiniMax collaborating on optimization. 1M context via lightning attention. 59% SWE-Bench Pro. beats several premium models on coding. one of the most-used models inside Hermes. FREE / LOCAL: Qwen 3.5 27B via Ollama. 16GB VRAM. reliable tool calling. best free local model for Hermes as of mid-2026. Qwen 3 8B. 8GB VRAM. fits a $7 VPS. handles routine tasks at zero API cost. Llama 4 Maverick. best open-weight tool calling. 1M context. needs more VRAM but strongest local option. HOW TO ASSIGN MODELS: main model: Desktop app / Dashboard → Models → switch sub-agent model: set in Desktop app, Dashboard, or config.yaml: delegation: model: "deepseek/deepseek-v4" auxiliary models (compression, vision, web extract): Desktop app / Dashboard → Models → Auxiliary Haiku 4.5 or Gemini Flash work well here. saves significantly when your main model is premium. per-profile: each Hermes profile gets its own model. Scout on DeepSeek. Analyst on Sonnet. Briefer on budget model. Coder on Opus. per-cron-job: pin a specific model to any cron job. morning brief on Haiku. deep research on Sonnet. monitoring on DeepSeek Flash. each job uses only the model it needs. per-session: /model deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash hot-swap mid-conversation. no restart needed. FALLBACK CHAINS: if your primary model is unavailable, Hermes automatically switches to the next provider. rate limit or server error = next model in the chain. no failed runs. no manual intervention. set in Desktop app, Dashboard, or config.yaml: fallback_providers: - openrouter - nous - codex PROVIDER PATHS: OPENROUTER: 300+ models under one API key. pay per token. most flexible. NOUS PORTAL: 300+ models + Tool Gateway (web search, image gen, TTS, browser). one OAuth. one subscription. 10% off token-billed providers. CHATGPT SUB: GPT-5.5 + Grok via OAuth. included tokens with $20 subscription. OLLAMA: free. local. private. zero API cost. your hardware only. mix providers across profiles and tasks. Scout on OpenRouter. Analyst on Nous Portal. Coder on ChatGPT sub. Monitor on Ollama. THE RULE: premium for work that needs deep reasoning. mid-range for daily driver tasks. budget for volume and background work. free for monitoring and routine jobs. pricing changes fast. check openrouter ai for current rates before committing. Which is your favourite model and for what task? full 15 levels breakdown in the article 👇

YanXbt

17,138 views • 3 months ago

$50 IN FREE CREDITS FOR GLM 5.2, KIMI K3 AND DEEPSEEK V4 PRO, ON A CODE THE COMPANY PUBLISHED ITSELF • ai&, the inference layer > Frontier models at up to 80% lower cost: > GLM 5.2, Kimi K3, Kimi K2.7 Code, DeepSeek V4 Pro and V4 Flash, plus Qwen3.6 27B, Gemma 4 31B and gpt-oss-120b. > OpenAI-compatible endpoint, so it drops into any agent or IDE you already run. • where the discount comes from > They route across AMD, NVIDIA and Tenstorrent, sending each workload to the silicon that suits it. > Everyone else tunes on one kind of chip, so the saving is architectural rather than promotional. Claiming it -> Credits in the top right, pick $50, apply "UNITABETAI" at checkout. The code has been live since their June launch, so run it on your own account before you plan around it ↓
0:22

$50 IN FREE CREDITS FOR GLM 5.2, KIMI K3 AND DEEPSEEK V4 PRO, ON A CODE THE COMPANY PUBLISHED ITSELF • ai&, the inference layer > Frontier models at up to 80% lower cost: > GLM 5.2, Kimi K3, Kimi K2.7 Code, DeepSeek V4 Pro and V4 Flash, plus Qwen3.6 27B, Gemma 4 31B and gpt-oss-120b. > OpenAI-compatible endpoint, so it drops into any agent or IDE you already run. • where the discount comes from > They route across AMD, NVIDIA and Tenstorrent, sending each workload to the silicon that suits it. > Everyone else tunes on one kind of chip, so the saving is architectural rather than promotional. Claiming it -> Credits in the top right, pick $50, apply "UNITABETAI" at checkout. The code has been live since their June launch, so run it on your own account before you plan around it ↓

slash1s

27,312 views • 1 month ago

SITUATION EXPLAINED: A stealth model on OpenRouter is beating Fable and Sol on coding, and nobody knows who made it. • Ox Alpha has a 1M token context window, text, image, and video input, free for a week, with capacity for 100 trillion tokens a day • On a DeepSWE subset it hit 80%, against Fable's 65%, GLM-5.3's 62%, and Sol's 52% • The tokenizer is one-for-one identical to GLM's, and a live test asking whether Taiwan is part of China returned a nearly identical answer • This is the 5th anonymous drop in six months, and the previous four were all claimed by Chinese labs: Zhipu, Xiaomi, Ant, and Meituan Theo Jaffee: " There's no way it's a Flash model. If that's a Flash model, then holy shit, the entire United States is cooked. If that's a Flash model, we need to short the stock market now. Not financial advice."
15:43

SITUATION EXPLAINED: A stealth model on OpenRouter is beating Fable and Sol on coding, and nobody knows who made it. • Ox Alpha has a 1M token context window, text, image, and video input, free for a week, with capacity for 100 trillion tokens a day • On a DeepSWE subset it hit 80%, against Fable's 65%, GLM-5.3's 62%, and Sol's 52% • The tokenizer is one-for-one identical to GLM's, and a live test asking whether Taiwan is part of China returned a nearly identical answer • This is the 5th anonymous drop in six months, and the previous four were all claimed by Chinese labs: Zhipu, Xiaomi, Ant, and Meituan Theo Jaffee: " There's no way it's a Flash model. If that's a Flash model, then holy shit, the entire United States is cooked. If that's a Flash model, we need to short the stock market now. Not financial advice."

MTS

382,204 views • 1 month ago

HERMES DESKTOP APP JUST GOT A NEW ULTRA MODE FOR DEEPSEEK V4 PRO – AND IT COSTS ABOUT $1 A DAY TO RUN If you're using Hermes desktop app, you're probably already running DeepSeek – it's one of the top models available. The update: → DeepSeek V4 Pro now has thinking mode, fast mode, and a brand new ultra mode → There's also an extra high mode, but the real upgrade is ultra The actual cost: roughly $1/day for a normal workflow. That's about $20-25/month – basically the same as before, just with a significantly faster mode unlocked. The verdict after a full day of testing: it flies through tool calling. Noticeably faster, same price range. If you're already paying for DeepSeek through Hermes, this is a free upgrade sitting in your settings right now. Update Hermes, grab the DeepSeek API if you don't have it yet, and try V4 Pro on ultra. Bookmark this, you'll want to come back to it later.
1:00

HERMES DESKTOP APP JUST GOT A NEW ULTRA MODE FOR DEEPSEEK V4 PRO – AND IT COSTS ABOUT $1 A DAY TO RUN If you're using Hermes desktop app, you're probably already running DeepSeek – it's one of the top models available. The update: → DeepSeek V4 Pro now has thinking mode, fast mode, and a brand new ultra mode → There's also an extra high mode, but the real upgrade is ultra The actual cost: roughly $1/day for a normal workflow. That's about $20-25/month – basically the same as before, just with a significantly faster mode unlocked. The verdict after a full day of testing: it flies through tool calling. Noticeably faster, same price range. If you're already paying for DeepSeek through Hermes, this is a free upgrade sitting in your settings right now. Update Hermes, grab the DeepSeek API if you don't have it yet, and try V4 Pro on ultra. Bookmark this, you'll want to come back to it later.

SCOTTY BEAM

24,032 views • 2 months ago

Kling 3.0 vs Gemini Omni Flash vs Grok Imagine 1.5 vs Seedance 2.0. Another battle for the best AI video tool. This time I tested an extremely difficult stunt scene: a bridge jump, landing on a moving truck, then jumping onto a car and taking it over. No model handled it perfectly. Not even Seedance 2.0. The scene itself was very hard, but I kept the prompt relatively simple, without stuffing it with too many complex stunt terms. After Veo 3.1’s terrible results in previous rounds, I didn’t even include it this time. Seedance needed 4 attempts to give me a decent result. Gemini Omni Flash needed even more: 7 generations, and I picked the best one. Kling and Grok got 4 attempts each. None of them looked promising enough to justify more retries. My take: Grok Imagine 1.5, the new “revolutionary” release, once again showed that it still can’t handle complex action scenes properly. Two tests in a row now, and the result is objectively weak. Kling 3.0 feels outdated, but in this test it actually looked slightly better than Grok Imagine 1.5, which says a lot. Gemini Omni Flash gives decent movement, but the physics and action logic are clearly off. It’s better than Grok and Kling here, but still very far from the super-generator Google markets it as. Seedance 2.0 was the best again, as expected. Still not perfect. It also has a clear physics issue, because pulling a driver out of a moving car while standing on the road makes no physical sense. But overall, Seedance still produced a much more intense and cinematic scene than all the others. My ranking for this test: 1. Seedance 2.0 — clear winner, even with flaws 2. Gemini Omni Flash 3. Kling 3.0 4. Grok Imagine 1.5 — unfortunately, the weakest right now in my opinion Do you agree? #AIVideo
0:43

Kling 3.0 vs Gemini Omni Flash vs Grok Imagine 1.5 vs Seedance 2.0. Another battle for the best AI video tool. This time I tested an extremely difficult stunt scene: a bridge jump, landing on a moving truck, then jumping onto a car and taking it over. No model handled it perfectly. Not even Seedance 2.0. The scene itself was very hard, but I kept the prompt relatively simple, without stuffing it with too many complex stunt terms. After Veo 3.1’s terrible results in previous rounds, I didn’t even include it this time. Seedance needed 4 attempts to give me a decent result. Gemini Omni Flash needed even more: 7 generations, and I picked the best one. Kling and Grok got 4 attempts each. None of them looked promising enough to justify more retries. My take: Grok Imagine 1.5, the new “revolutionary” release, once again showed that it still can’t handle complex action scenes properly. Two tests in a row now, and the result is objectively weak. Kling 3.0 feels outdated, but in this test it actually looked slightly better than Grok Imagine 1.5, which says a lot. Gemini Omni Flash gives decent movement, but the physics and action logic are clearly off. It’s better than Grok and Kling here, but still very far from the super-generator Google markets it as. Seedance 2.0 was the best again, as expected. Still not perfect. It also has a clear physics issue, because pulling a driver out of a moving car while standing on the road makes no physical sense. But overall, Seedance still produced a much more intense and cinematic scene than all the others. My ranking for this test: 1. Seedance 2.0 — clear winner, even with flaws 2. Gemini Omni Flash 3. Kling 3.0 4. Grok Imagine 1.5 — unfortunately, the weakest right now in my opinion Do you agree? #AIVideo

Alpha Mom

67,241 views • 3 months ago

fable 5.1 vs fable 5 vs opus 5 – three lord of the rings landmarks, built in 3d from one image the setup: one reference image per scene, one html file per build, everything procedural – no meshes, no textures, no image files, nothing past Three.js from a cdn. each model reads the picture, writes its own prompt from it, then builds to that prompt in the same turn. three named camera shots per scene on keys 1/2/3, so it can be screen-recorded. run through OpenRouter tasks: 1. bag end – hobbiton from two frames, outside and in. the round green door has to open onto the room you are standing in 2. barad-dûr – the tower and orodruin from one film still. the eye has to move and track the camera, the volcano erupts on a cycle, the clouds never stop 3. rivendell – jerry vanderstelt's painting. sun shafts that shimmer, water that falls without a break, trees that sway on a gust models: Anthropic fable 5.1, fable 5, opus 5 total cost, three builds #1 fable 5 – $14.97 #2 opus 5 – $18.53 #3 fable 5.1 – $22.38 wall clock, three builds #1 fable 5 – 38m #2 fable 5.1 – 92m #3 opus 5 – 122m output tokens #1 fable 5 – 298,592 #2 fable 5.1 – 439,435 #3 opus 5 – 724,418 lines of code shipped #1 fable 5 – 2,885 #2 fable 5.1 – 4,021 #3 opus 5 – 5,161 biggest single build, lines #1 opus 5, bag end – 2,410 #2 fable 5.1, barad-dûr – 1,375 #3 fable 5, bag end – 1,319 observations: • fable 5.1 is the only model that furnished the bag end interior – a live fire, panelling, books on the floor, leaded diamond windows, against fable 5's flat color and opus's dark tunnel. the round door outside opens onto that room, the hard part of the brief • what it costs is thinking room. the 128k output ceiling is a thinking budget in disguise: fable 5.1 burned 102,116 of it on reasoning and hit the wall mid-file. opus spent 109,241 and hit the same wall. fable 5 spent 61,240 and finished bag end in one call – the only one that did • fable 5.1's first pass is not the finished thing. its barad-dûr came back with three defects you only catch by looking at it – nothing a read of the code would have flagged • it is the best of the three at being corrected. handed a plain list of what was wrong, it returned 32 targeted patches over two rounds, every one applied first try, and it worked out one of the causes itself instead of guessing at constants conclusion: nine scenes, 12,067 lines and 1.46m output tokens for $55.88 all in – and the cheapest model was also the fastest, by 3.2x! follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
0:30

fable 5.1 vs fable 5 vs opus 5 – three lord of the rings landmarks, built in 3d from one image the setup: one reference image per scene, one html file per build, everything procedural – no meshes, no textures, no image files, nothing past Three.js from a cdn. each model reads the picture, writes its own prompt from it, then builds to that prompt in the same turn. three named camera shots per scene on keys 1/2/3, so it can be screen-recorded. run through OpenRouter tasks: 1. bag end – hobbiton from two frames, outside and in. the round green door has to open onto the room you are standing in 2. barad-dûr – the tower and orodruin from one film still. the eye has to move and track the camera, the volcano erupts on a cycle, the clouds never stop 3. rivendell – jerry vanderstelt's painting. sun shafts that shimmer, water that falls without a break, trees that sway on a gust models: Anthropic fable 5.1, fable 5, opus 5 total cost, three builds #1 fable 5 – $14.97 #2 opus 5 – $18.53 #3 fable 5.1 – $22.38 wall clock, three builds #1 fable 5 – 38m #2 fable 5.1 – 92m #3 opus 5 – 122m output tokens #1 fable 5 – 298,592 #2 fable 5.1 – 439,435 #3 opus 5 – 724,418 lines of code shipped #1 fable 5 – 2,885 #2 fable 5.1 – 4,021 #3 opus 5 – 5,161 biggest single build, lines #1 opus 5, bag end – 2,410 #2 fable 5.1, barad-dûr – 1,375 #3 fable 5, bag end – 1,319 observations: • fable 5.1 is the only model that furnished the bag end interior – a live fire, panelling, books on the floor, leaded diamond windows, against fable 5's flat color and opus's dark tunnel. the round door outside opens onto that room, the hard part of the brief • what it costs is thinking room. the 128k output ceiling is a thinking budget in disguise: fable 5.1 burned 102,116 of it on reasoning and hit the wall mid-file. opus spent 109,241 and hit the same wall. fable 5 spent 61,240 and finished bag end in one call – the only one that did • fable 5.1's first pass is not the finished thing. its barad-dûr came back with three defects you only catch by looking at it – nothing a read of the code would have flagged • it is the best of the three at being corrected. handed a plain list of what was wrong, it returned 32 targeted patches over two rounds, every one applied first try, and it worked out one of the causes itself instead of guessing at constants conclusion: nine scenes, 12,067 lines and 1.46m output tokens for $55.88 all in – and the cheapest model was also the fastest, by 3.2x! follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

18,509 views • 18 days ago

i burned through my entire GPT-6 Astra weekly quota in 3 days so i'm replacing my $200/mo Codex subscription with this... a free 32,960-star GitHub repo that runs GLM-5.3 Flash, Kimi K3, and DeepSeek V4 Flash locally [here's the exact setup i used:] 1. get colibri download the release archive for Linux, macOS, or Windows. no compiler needed. python3 coli info 2. or build it from source git clone cd colibri/c ./setup.sh cd .. 3. pick a model GLM-5.3 Flash: 321B, ~195 GB converted, 25 GB RAM DeepSeek V4 Flash: 284B, ~167 GB, or ~85 GB for the REAP 150B version Kimi K3: 2.8T, ~1.6 TB snapshot, 32 GB+ RAM none of them needs a GPU. a GPU only makes some runs faster. 4. get the weights GLM-5.3 Flash uses the dedicated converter: python3 tools/convert_glm53.py --outdir /nvme/glm53_i4 --min-free-gb 30 DeepSeek V4 Flash and Kimi K3 load from their original Hugging Face snapshots. pre-converted containers work too. 5. run it COLI_MODEL=/nvme/glm53_i4 ./coli chat ./coli web --model /nvme/glm53_i4 # dashboard ./coli serve --model /nvme/glm53_i4 # headless API 6. tune it ./coli doctor # readiness check ./coli plan # RAM/VRAM/disk placement ./coli tune # fastest safe profile `coli` reads `config.json` and picks the right engine for each model. the tradeoff is honest: no token bill, no hosted quota... but you need the storage. the frontier moved from your subscription to your SSD.
1:03

i burned through my entire GPT-6 Astra weekly quota in 3 days so i'm replacing my $200/mo Codex subscription with this... a free 32,960-star GitHub repo that runs GLM-5.3 Flash, Kimi K3, and DeepSeek V4 Flash locally [here's the exact setup i used:] 1. get colibri download the release archive for Linux, macOS, or Windows. no compiler needed. python3 coli info 2. or build it from source git clone cd colibri/c ./setup.sh cd .. 3. pick a model GLM-5.3 Flash: 321B, ~195 GB converted, 25 GB RAM DeepSeek V4 Flash: 284B, ~167 GB, or ~85 GB for the REAP 150B version Kimi K3: 2.8T, ~1.6 TB snapshot, 32 GB+ RAM none of them needs a GPU. a GPU only makes some runs faster. 4. get the weights GLM-5.3 Flash uses the dedicated converter: python3 tools/convert_glm53.py --outdir /nvme/glm53_i4 --min-free-gb 30 DeepSeek V4 Flash and Kimi K3 load from their original Hugging Face snapshots. pre-converted containers work too. 5. run it COLI_MODEL=/nvme/glm53_i4 ./coli chat ./coli web --model /nvme/glm53_i4 # dashboard ./coli serve --model /nvme/glm53_i4 # headless API 6. tune it ./coli doctor # readiness check ./coli plan # RAM/VRAM/disk placement ./coli tune # fastest safe profile `coli` reads `config.json` and picks the right engine for each model. the tradeoff is honest: no token bill, no hosted quota... but you need the storage. the frontier moved from your subscription to your SSD.

Avid

417,356 views • 5 days ago

China is making Dario Amodei's AI slowdown proposal worthless. The thing doing it is a 510 GB file that anyone can download for free. Two days before that essay went out, DeepSeek shipped a model called V4.1 Flash. The weights went straight onto Hugging Face under an MIT license, which allows commercial use, modification and redistribution with no royalties owed to anybody. On its own model card, V4.1 Flash beats OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Sol and Anthropic's Claude Opus 5 on four of the five hardest agentic benchmarks: - DeepSWE v1.1: 74.2 against Sol's 73.0 - AutomationBench: 54.8 against 45.8 - Agent's Last Exam: 31.8 against 26.7 - CyberGym: 88.1 against 84.5 CyberGym is the cybersecurity one. So the exact capability Amodei is asking the industry to pace is now a PUBLIC DOWNLOAD LINK. Now look at the price... OpenAI listed GPT-6 Astra on September 3 at $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output. DeepSeek listed V4.1 Flash seven days later at 15 cents and 60 cents off-peak. Cached input runs at a third of a cent. And the reasoning benchmarks tell the same story over a longer window. Scoring 87.5% on ARC-AGI-1 cost roughly $4,560 per task in December 2024. 20 months later the same score cost about 30 cents. DeepSeek's earlier Flash build scores higher than that, 89.0%, for 2 cents. On OpenDesign's arena on September 9, DeepSeek landed 1.5 points behind OpenAI's newest model at $0.023 per task against $1.61. 1.5 points. At 70 times the price. That's the American "lead“, measured this month. And that number is what breaks the entire proposal. The essay caps the permitted slowdown at the size of the lead, because slowing by more than that lets Chinese projects pull ahead. So the slowdown Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and xAI are allowed to take is 1.5 points wide. V4.1 Flash carries 552 billion parameters but switches on only 8 billion of them for each word it reads, which is why it runs for almost nothing. It trained on 45 trillion tokens. It's sitting on Hugging Face right now. A file on a hard drive signs nothing. Nobody can UNDOWNLOAD it. And the distillation crackdown in Dario‘s plan also does nothing here either, because nothing was distilled. DeepSeek published the weights outright. There's no theft to prosecute and no copy to trace. They gave it away on purpose. DeepSeek's Pro model already hit 80.6% on SWE-bench Verified back in April, at roughly a thirty-fourth of the price of the American flagships. This has been happening all year. The frontier still wins the hardest work. On Terminal-Bench 4.0, OpenAI reports 57.9 for its newest model against the 31.2 DeepSeek reports for this one. Those four benchmark wins come from DeepSeek's own card, and nobody has replicated all of them under one shared protocol. If you look at it that way, the American labs still hold the dangerous end of the curve, and pacing that end is worth doing. But a speed limit only binds companies that can be sued in an American court. Everyone else just downloads. What exactly is Dario Amodei's slowdown protecting you from?
1:33

China is making Dario Amodei's AI slowdown proposal worthless. The thing doing it is a 510 GB file that anyone can download for free. Two days before that essay went out, DeepSeek shipped a model called V4.1 Flash. The weights went straight onto Hugging Face under an MIT license, which allows commercial use, modification and redistribution with no royalties owed to anybody. On its own model card, V4.1 Flash beats OpenAI's GPT-5.6 Sol and Anthropic's Claude Opus 5 on four of the five hardest agentic benchmarks: - DeepSWE v1.1: 74.2 against Sol's 73.0 - AutomationBench: 54.8 against 45.8 - Agent's Last Exam: 31.8 against 26.7 - CyberGym: 88.1 against 84.5 CyberGym is the cybersecurity one. So the exact capability Amodei is asking the industry to pace is now a PUBLIC DOWNLOAD LINK. Now look at the price... OpenAI listed GPT-6 Astra on September 3 at $10 per million input tokens and $50 per million output. DeepSeek listed V4.1 Flash seven days later at 15 cents and 60 cents off-peak. Cached input runs at a third of a cent. And the reasoning benchmarks tell the same story over a longer window. Scoring 87.5% on ARC-AGI-1 cost roughly $4,560 per task in December 2024. 20 months later the same score cost about 30 cents. DeepSeek's earlier Flash build scores higher than that, 89.0%, for 2 cents. On OpenDesign's arena on September 9, DeepSeek landed 1.5 points behind OpenAI's newest model at $0.023 per task against $1.61. 1.5 points. At 70 times the price. That's the American "lead“, measured this month. And that number is what breaks the entire proposal. The essay caps the permitted slowdown at the size of the lead, because slowing by more than that lets Chinese projects pull ahead. So the slowdown Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and xAI are allowed to take is 1.5 points wide. V4.1 Flash carries 552 billion parameters but switches on only 8 billion of them for each word it reads, which is why it runs for almost nothing. It trained on 45 trillion tokens. It's sitting on Hugging Face right now. A file on a hard drive signs nothing. Nobody can UNDOWNLOAD it. And the distillation crackdown in Dario‘s plan also does nothing here either, because nothing was distilled. DeepSeek published the weights outright. There's no theft to prosecute and no copy to trace. They gave it away on purpose. DeepSeek's Pro model already hit 80.6% on SWE-bench Verified back in April, at roughly a thirty-fourth of the price of the American flagships. This has been happening all year. The frontier still wins the hardest work. On Terminal-Bench 4.0, OpenAI reports 57.9 for its newest model against the 31.2 DeepSeek reports for this one. Those four benchmark wins come from DeepSeek's own card, and nobody has replicated all of them under one shared protocol. If you look at it that way, the American labs still hold the dangerous end of the curve, and pacing that end is worth doing. But a speed limit only binds companies that can be sued in an American court. Everyone else just downloads. What exactly is Dario Amodei's slowdown protecting you from?

Ricardo

401,788 views • 7 days ago

SGLang now supports DSpark, enabling confidence-driven, variable-length verification for speculative decoding 🎉 DSpark addresses a key bottleneck under load: instead of verifying every draft token, it verifies only where the draft model is confident, so the gains hold even as batch size scales. We heavily optimized variable-length verification in SGLang. Across batch sizes 1 to 256, DSpark gives the best throughput/latency tradeoff on DeepSeek-V4-Flash, ahead of both MTP and non-spec. At high concurrency, dynamic scheduling provides up to ~20% higher throughput compared to a fixed budget, while maintaining high verification quality across workloads. With fused kernels and zero-overhead scheduling, DeepSeek-V4-Pro reaches 383.7 tok/s at B=1 on B300. DSpark is now available in SGLang with support for Qwen3 and DeepSeek-V4. Thanks DeepSeek for open-sourcing! Blog with full technical details and commands to run below 👇
0:33

SGLang now supports DSpark, enabling confidence-driven, variable-length verification for speculative decoding 🎉 DSpark addresses a key bottleneck under load: instead of verifying every draft token, it verifies only where the draft model is confident, so the gains hold even as batch size scales. We heavily optimized variable-length verification in SGLang. Across batch sizes 1 to 256, DSpark gives the best throughput/latency tradeoff on DeepSeek-V4-Flash, ahead of both MTP and non-spec. At high concurrency, dynamic scheduling provides up to ~20% higher throughput compared to a fixed budget, while maintaining high verification quality across workloads. With fused kernels and zero-overhead scheduling, DeepSeek-V4-Pro reaches 383.7 tok/s at B=1 on B300. DSpark is now available in SGLang with support for Qwen3 and DeepSeek-V4. Thanks DeepSeek for open-sourcing! Blog with full technical details and commands to run below 👇

LMSYS Org

170,466 views • 2 months ago