正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Possibly GPT-5.6 being tested inside ChatGPT... I made this Three.js explorable space ship using ChatGPT with 5.5 Pro. The lighting is easily my favorite part, second the doors. And if you’ve ever played Star Citizen, you’ll probably notice the ship interior has a similar kind of layout and atmosphere....

24,889 次观看 • 22 天前 •via X (Twitter)

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

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

228,126 次观看 • 22 天前

DeepSeek allegedly beat ChatGPT. So should we all switch? Here's a comparison for academics: 👇 The prompt: 🎯 I asked a fairly complicated question on how to analyze my data collection to gain novel ecological insights and for references to similar papers for each suggestion. Here are the results: 1️⃣ Content: - DeepSeek provided deeper, shorter replies that I perceived as more creative. - ChatGPT played it safe and gave me slightly more obvious solutions 2️⃣ Hallucinations: - DeepSeek found 40+ search results and each cited paper had a link attached. No hallucinations. - ChatGPT hallucinated 2 out of 7 papers. 3️⃣ Speed: - DeepSeek (free version) was many times slower and often didn't reply due to server overload 4️⃣ Customizability: - ChatGPT's replies are much more customisable. By using "Custom Instructions" you can vary the length and include more or less formulae. 5️⃣ Length: - ChatGPT generally gave much longer and more detailed replies. 5️⃣ Guidance: - ChatGPT created a 4-step plan on using my data, which made sense but was quite vague on implementation topics. - DeepSeek gave me links to the coding packages I should be using, which was very helpful. 🤔 My 2 cents If you're a premium subscriber to ChatGPT, keep using it - the results are very similar and can be fine-tuned. Keep an eye out DeepSeek, as it is much more efficient (~10x cheaper under the hood), it might produce more impressive models later on.

Ilya Shabanov

38,452 次观看 • 1 年前