Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Repeating the same experiment but one year later. GPT 5.6 Pro cannot be used vanilla for this prompt because it immediately fires the right CAS command to compute the Galois group. So instead I used a very restrictive prompt. One year has passed since GPT 5 Pro premiere, GPT...

nasqret's profile picture

Bartosz Naskręcki

13,204 subscribers

70,809 views • 2 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & TechnologyEducation
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

Had early access to GPT-5.4 and Pro. They are very good. One fun illustration of progress, this is the same prompt I used in GPT-4 below (making a 3D space inspired by Piranesi) now in GPT-5.4 Pro. There were no errors, made in a single prompt plus one to "make it better."
0:28

Had early access to GPT-5.4 and Pro. They are very good. One fun illustration of progress, this is the same prompt I used in GPT-4 below (making a 3D space inspired by Piranesi) now in GPT-5.4 Pro. There were no errors, made in a single prompt plus one to "make it better."

Ethan Mollick

188,387 views • 5 months ago

this is f**king insane Fable 5 goes away in 24 hours from Claude Code and someone just figured out how to get fable 5 reasoning in GPT 5.6 Sol with one prompt you have less than 24 hours to set this up as this takes away 20% of your usage limit here is how: 1) Paste the prompt and ask it to "make an operating manual" 2) Go the Codex App > Settings > Personalisation > Custom Instructions 3) Use GPT 5.5 / GPT 5.6 and now you have Fable 5 reasoning at 1/3 th the price save and bookmark it no matter what
0:32

this is f**king insane Fable 5 goes away in 24 hours from Claude Code and someone just figured out how to get fable 5 reasoning in GPT 5.6 Sol with one prompt you have less than 24 hours to set this up as this takes away 20% of your usage limit here is how: 1) Paste the prompt and ask it to "make an operating manual" 2) Go the Codex App > Settings > Personalisation > Custom Instructions 3) Use GPT 5.5 / GPT 5.6 and now you have Fable 5 reasoning at 1/3 th the price save and bookmark it no matter what

Avid

57,544 views • 29 days ago

GPT-5 Pro is genuinely a top tier model, it is the best. I know some GPT-5 reactions have been mixed (including from me), but OpenAI has made great strides with Pro. I have made 12 simulations that no other model would match, not from OpenAI, Google, xAI or Anthropic. All of them were 1-3 shots (mostly to fix small issues) and the output is really outstanding. OpenAI Developers
1:35

GPT-5 Pro is genuinely a top tier model, it is the best. I know some GPT-5 reactions have been mixed (including from me), but OpenAI has made great strides with Pro. I have made 12 simulations that no other model would match, not from OpenAI, Google, xAI or Anthropic. All of them were 1-3 shots (mostly to fix small issues) and the output is really outstanding. OpenAI Developers

Peter Gostev

58,631 views • 1 year ago

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

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

Chris

250,405 views • 1 month ago

OUR NEW KIT IS HERE! 🔥 Sponsored by the Levi Samuels Colwill Project - More information on this will be released soon! We have a small amount of stock available for purchase at our home against Totton on Tuesday. Prices are £45 for Adults and £38 for Juniors Our current stock for the Home Kit is: Kids XS (Up to 4-5 Years) x 4 XXS (5-7 Years) x 4 XS (7-9 Years) x 8 S x 4 M x 3 L x 4 XXL x 1 XXXL x 3 XXXXL x 3 Away: M x 1 L x 2 XXL x 2 #uptheboatmen
1:00

OUR NEW KIT IS HERE! 🔥 Sponsored by the Levi Samuels Colwill Project - More information on this will be released soon! We have a small amount of stock available for purchase at our home against Totton on Tuesday. Prices are £45 for Adults and £38 for Juniors Our current stock for the Home Kit is: Kids XS (Up to 4-5 Years) x 4 XXS (5-7 Years) x 4 XS (7-9 Years) x 8 S x 4 M x 3 L x 4 XXL x 1 XXXL x 3 XXXXL x 3 Away: M x 1 L x 2 XXL x 2 #uptheboatmen

Sholing FC

60,464 views • 2 years ago

Models like GPT 5.6 or Fable 5 are accelerating the commodification of software. For instance, I gave Fable a screenshot of the Stripe, OpenAI, and Anthropic websites with a simple prompt: “Create a pixel-perfect reproduction of this website.” It took only seconds and a simple prompt to duplicate the design. This is exciting because there are so many poorly designed websites, but now they are just a prompt away from achieving world-class design!!
0:27

Models like GPT 5.6 or Fable 5 are accelerating the commodification of software. For instance, I gave Fable a screenshot of the Stripe, OpenAI, and Anthropic websites with a simple prompt: “Create a pixel-perfect reproduction of this website.” It took only seconds and a simple prompt to duplicate the design. This is exciting because there are so many poorly designed websites, but now they are just a prompt away from achieving world-class design!!

Nicolas Bustamante

37,754 views • 1 month ago

Claude Opus 5 just one-shotted this FPS. Less than 1 hour from prompt to playable demo. Every weapon, enemy, mechanic and environment was generated from scratch. Prompt below 👇 There is no prompt below, because the first section is exactly the kind of post I’m tired of seeing every time a new model drops. A flashy demo, “one-shot” in the caption, “built in under an hour”… anything to farm impressions while conveniently hiding the actual process. If it was really made from a single prompt, show the prompt. That’s what I do on this account. When I claim something is a one-prompt prototype built with GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra and Codex, I share the prompt publicly so anyone can verify it. AI is already making game prototyping incredible. We don’t need fake “one-shot” stories to prove it. Original footage:
0:36

Claude Opus 5 just one-shotted this FPS. Less than 1 hour from prompt to playable demo. Every weapon, enemy, mechanic and environment was generated from scratch. Prompt below 👇 There is no prompt below, because the first section is exactly the kind of post I’m tired of seeing every time a new model drops. A flashy demo, “one-shot” in the caption, “built in under an hour”… anything to farm impressions while conveniently hiding the actual process. If it was really made from a single prompt, show the prompt. That’s what I do on this account. When I claim something is a one-prompt prototype built with GPT-5.6 Sol Ultra and Codex, I share the prompt publicly so anyone can verify it. AI is already making game prototyping incredible. We don’t need fake “one-shot” stories to prove it. Original footage:

Givros

14,794 views • 16 days ago

Quantum mechanics has a reputation for being mystical mainly because people skip the rules and jump to interpretations. In this lecture series, we’re doing the opposite. We start from the rules, follow the algebra, and let the picture be the calculation. Classical Probability Theory combines alternatives by adding their probabilities. Quantum Theory combines them one step earlier…add complex amplitudes first, then square at the end. That swap in order is everything. Expand |a₁ + a₂|² and you don’t just get |a₁|² + |a₂|²…you get a cross-term, 2 Re(a₁ a₂*). Its sign is set by phase, so the same two contributions can reinforce or cancel. Interference is just the algebra of squaring a sum. In the 3D render, the surface height is proportional to |a(x)| (so peaks become bright bands after squaring), while the surface skin is colored by the local phase arg(a(x)). As the phase knob φ(t) is swept on path 2, the cross-term oscillates, and you literally watch the interference ridges slide across the screen. We model a detector screen with coordinates x in R² (think x = (x,y)). A quantum state assigns a complex amplitude a(x). The rule for outcomes is p(x) = |a(x)|² Now the key situation: two coherent alternatives contribute to the same outcome x. Let their amplitudes be a₁(x) and a₂(x). Quantum says a(x) = a₁(x) + a₂(x) So the probability density becomes p(x) = |a₁(x) + a₂(x)|² Expand it (this is the whole episode): p(x) = (a₁ + a₂)(a₁* + a₂*) = |a₁|² + |a₂|² + a₁ a₂* + a₁* a₂ = |a₁|² + |a₂|² + 2 Re(a₁ a₂*) That last term is the interference term. It can be positive or negative. To see phase explicitly, write each contribution in polar form: a₁(x) = r₁(x) exp(i θ₁(x)) a₂(x) = r₂(x) exp(i θ₂(x)) Then a₁ a₂* = r₁ r₂ exp(i(θ₁ − θ₂)) So the cross-term is 2 Re(a₁ a₂*) = 2 r₁ r₂ cos(θ₁(x) − θ₂(x)) That’s the fringe engine: p(x) = r₁² + r₂² + 2 r₁ r₂ cos(Δθ(x)) Now the phase knob we animate: Add a controllable phase shift φ to path 2: a₂(x) → a₂(x) exp(i φ) Then Δθ(x) → Δθ(x) − φ, so p(x; φ) = r₁² + r₂² + 2 r₁ r₂ cos(Δθ(x) − φ) As φ changes smoothly, the bright/dark pattern slides continuously. Same setup, same geometry, same magnitudes r₁,r₂, only phase changed. #QuantumMechanics #WaveInterference #ComplexAmplitudes #DoubleSlit #Physics #Mathematics
1:00

Quantum mechanics has a reputation for being mystical mainly because people skip the rules and jump to interpretations. In this lecture series, we’re doing the opposite. We start from the rules, follow the algebra, and let the picture be the calculation. Classical Probability Theory combines alternatives by adding their probabilities. Quantum Theory combines them one step earlier…add complex amplitudes first, then square at the end. That swap in order is everything. Expand |a₁ + a₂|² and you don’t just get |a₁|² + |a₂|²…you get a cross-term, 2 Re(a₁ a₂*). Its sign is set by phase, so the same two contributions can reinforce or cancel. Interference is just the algebra of squaring a sum. In the 3D render, the surface height is proportional to |a(x)| (so peaks become bright bands after squaring), while the surface skin is colored by the local phase arg(a(x)). As the phase knob φ(t) is swept on path 2, the cross-term oscillates, and you literally watch the interference ridges slide across the screen. We model a detector screen with coordinates x in R² (think x = (x,y)). A quantum state assigns a complex amplitude a(x). The rule for outcomes is p(x) = |a(x)|² Now the key situation: two coherent alternatives contribute to the same outcome x. Let their amplitudes be a₁(x) and a₂(x). Quantum says a(x) = a₁(x) + a₂(x) So the probability density becomes p(x) = |a₁(x) + a₂(x)|² Expand it (this is the whole episode): p(x) = (a₁ + a₂)(a₁* + a₂*) = |a₁|² + |a₂|² + a₁ a₂* + a₁* a₂ = |a₁|² + |a₂|² + 2 Re(a₁ a₂*) That last term is the interference term. It can be positive or negative. To see phase explicitly, write each contribution in polar form: a₁(x) = r₁(x) exp(i θ₁(x)) a₂(x) = r₂(x) exp(i θ₂(x)) Then a₁ a₂* = r₁ r₂ exp(i(θ₁ − θ₂)) So the cross-term is 2 Re(a₁ a₂*) = 2 r₁ r₂ cos(θ₁(x) − θ₂(x)) That’s the fringe engine: p(x) = r₁² + r₂² + 2 r₁ r₂ cos(Δθ(x)) Now the phase knob we animate: Add a controllable phase shift φ to path 2: a₂(x) → a₂(x) exp(i φ) Then Δθ(x) → Δθ(x) − φ, so p(x; φ) = r₁² + r₂² + 2 r₁ r₂ cos(Δθ(x) − φ) As φ changes smoothly, the bright/dark pattern slides continuously. Same setup, same geometry, same magnitudes r₁,r₂, only phase changed. #QuantumMechanics #WaveInterference #ComplexAmplitudes #DoubleSlit #Physics #Mathematics

Mathelirium

81,501 views • 7 months ago

this is f**king gold someone just figured out how to run Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in the same loop gpt-5.6 came out yesterday. fable 5 leaves in 48 hours. this window has never existed before and never will again. here is how to use it: 1. open claude code. install openai's codex plugin 2. type /model. choose fable 5. 3. drop one ROUTING.md in your repo root (full file in comments). 4.paste the prompt (in comments), write what feature you want. boom. save and bookmark this no matter what. it will be the most productive thing you do this weekend
0:20

this is f**king gold someone just figured out how to run Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in the same loop gpt-5.6 came out yesterday. fable 5 leaves in 48 hours. this window has never existed before and never will again. here is how to use it: 1. open claude code. install openai's codex plugin 2. type /model. choose fable 5. 3. drop one ROUTING.md in your repo root (full file in comments). 4.paste the prompt (in comments), write what feature you want. boom. save and bookmark this no matter what. it will be the most productive thing you do this weekend

Avid

139,979 views • 1 month ago

🧵 [Day 1] The 5-Step ANIME ENGINE Framework: How I Built a Full AI Anime Short for the Morphic x Framer Contest I just joined the Morphic x contest — and made a full anime short "Dreamsplice" using AI. Here’s the 5-Step ANIME ENGINE Framework I used to go from idea → full short film in 2 DAYS (A main thread to update later. Bookmark this)
0:51

🧵 [Day 1] The 5-Step ANIME ENGINE Framework: How I Built a Full AI Anime Short for the Morphic x Framer Contest I just joined the Morphic x contest — and made a full anime short "Dreamsplice" using AI. Here’s the 5-Step ANIME ENGINE Framework I used to go from idea → full short film in 2 DAYS (A main thread to update later. Bookmark this)

Tú Michael 🇻🇳

15,253 views • 9 months ago

🚨 More DeepSeek V4 Pro GA Leaks and it's looking seriously impressive. It also looks like DeepSeek may have heavily distilled from Fable 5 the coding style, iteration behavior, and overall output feel very similar. It was tested it on the same prompt used for Kimi K3 and GPT-5.6 Sol, and the result had strong scene composition, solid environmental detail, and surprisingly good design choices. Still early, but this could become one of the most disruptive coding models yet. 👀🔥 cc huangserva
0:54

🚨 More DeepSeek V4 Pro GA Leaks and it's looking seriously impressive. It also looks like DeepSeek may have heavily distilled from Fable 5 the coding style, iteration behavior, and overall output feel very similar. It was tested it on the same prompt used for Kimi K3 and GPT-5.6 Sol, and the result had strong scene composition, solid environmental detail, and surprisingly good design choices. Still early, but this could become one of the most disruptive coding models yet. 👀🔥 cc huangserva

WorldofAI

28,089 views • 23 days ago

We asked Doug O'Laughlin (Fabricated Knowledge), the president of SemiAnalysis about the reception of GPT-5: "GPT-5 is a little disappointing, I think, for the power users of X. There is no other way to put it." "I personally do not feel a massive difference." "Not all 500 tasks are measured on the SWE benchmark. 477 were measured." "On the other hand, there's 600 million free users who probably just woke up to a big upgrade. That's the actual strategy."
1:30

We asked Doug O'Laughlin (Fabricated Knowledge), the president of SemiAnalysis about the reception of GPT-5: "GPT-5 is a little disappointing, I think, for the power users of X. There is no other way to put it." "I personally do not feel a massive difference." "Not all 500 tasks are measured on the SWE benchmark. 477 were measured." "On the other hand, there's 600 million free users who probably just woke up to a big upgrade. That's the actual strategy."

TBPN

25,442 views • 1 year ago

Do you actually know what convex optimization is in the geometric, guarantee-theoretic sense or have you only met it through solvers and loss curves? Convexity is rare comfort in optimization...there are no spurious local minima, no surprise traps, and inequalities you can use like tools instead of prayers. So, what is this convexity? Let x = (x₁, x₂) and let f(x) be convex. Plot the surface z = f(x). Pick a contact point x₀. The local slope is the gradient p = ∇f(x₀). That p is exactly the data that defines the supporting plane: z = f(x₀) + p · (x − x₀). Thus, f is said to be convex because for every x, f(x) ≥ f(x₀) + p · (x − x₀). So the plane at x₀ can slide under the surface, but it never slices through it. Not near the point...everywhere. Now for here is the interesting part: The slope becomes a coordinate system! Rewrite the same plane as z = p · x − b, where b is the offset. Because the plane passes through (x₀, f(x₀)), the offset is forced to be b = p · x₀ − f(x₀). And that number isn’t just geometry trivia. It’s the convex conjugate: f*(p) = sup over x ( p · x − f(x) ). At a differentiable contact point, the supporting plane touches f tightly enough that the supremum is achieved at x₀, giving the identity f*(p) = p · x₀ − f(x₀) when p = ∇f(x₀). So one moving contact point gives two linked readouts: primal position x₀ dual position (slope) p = ∇f(x₀) dual offset f*(p) One surface. Two worlds. #ConvexOptimization #Optimization #MachineLearning #SignalProcessing #AppliedMath #Engineering
0:50

Do you actually know what convex optimization is in the geometric, guarantee-theoretic sense or have you only met it through solvers and loss curves? Convexity is rare comfort in optimization...there are no spurious local minima, no surprise traps, and inequalities you can use like tools instead of prayers. So, what is this convexity? Let x = (x₁, x₂) and let f(x) be convex. Plot the surface z = f(x). Pick a contact point x₀. The local slope is the gradient p = ∇f(x₀). That p is exactly the data that defines the supporting plane: z = f(x₀) + p · (x − x₀). Thus, f is said to be convex because for every x, f(x) ≥ f(x₀) + p · (x − x₀). So the plane at x₀ can slide under the surface, but it never slices through it. Not near the point...everywhere. Now for here is the interesting part: The slope becomes a coordinate system! Rewrite the same plane as z = p · x − b, where b is the offset. Because the plane passes through (x₀, f(x₀)), the offset is forced to be b = p · x₀ − f(x₀). And that number isn’t just geometry trivia. It’s the convex conjugate: f*(p) = sup over x ( p · x − f(x) ). At a differentiable contact point, the supporting plane touches f tightly enough that the supremum is achieved at x₀, giving the identity f*(p) = p · x₀ − f(x₀) when p = ∇f(x₀). So one moving contact point gives two linked readouts: primal position x₀ dual position (slope) p = ∇f(x₀) dual offset f*(p) One surface. Two worlds. #ConvexOptimization #Optimization #MachineLearning #SignalProcessing #AppliedMath #Engineering

Mathelirium

38,506 views • 7 months ago

GPT-5 is live in Cline. We've been working with OpenAI to get this model ready, and here's our take: it's disciplined, persistent, & highly competent. It's collaborative in planning & and a diligent operator while acting. It plans thoroughly, asks optioned follow-ups when needed, & then gets out of the way and ships code. On long tasks it keeps going before pausing to check in. It follows instructions to the letter. And most importantly -- it writes good code. GPT-5 is like "The Wolf" from Pulp Fiction. Comes in, assesses the situation, then executes. Here's what you can expect from GPT-5 in Cline: > verbose while planning; terse while executing > asks a lot of good clarification questions, & frequently provides options when appropriate > strong context retention and persistence over long horizons (256k context window) > good at diff-style edits and multi-file changes (we'll monitor as more usage data comes in) > quiet in Act mode -- writes code without yapping Metaprompting is another strength. We tested early with OpenAI and used GPT-5 to tune our own prompt for GPT-5. Here's a pattern we like: “Answer from your own perspective: what changes or additions would help you better follow this prompt? Here is the prompt (or snippet): [snippet]. Users have complained about X and Y. What minimal edits would you make while keeping the rest intact?” Do you need to change any of your existing patterns in Cline? No -- it's good out of the box. Give a clear goal and constraints, let it plan, then let it cook. Expect more clarifying questions than most models. Pricing: $1.25/M input tokens (+90% cache), $10/M output. Roughly half of Sonnet 4 ($3/$15). Want to try GPT-5? Use it in Cline today for pure, unfiltered inference via the OpenAI, Cline, or OpenRouter providers. (fyi -- GPT-5 one-shotted this browser DAW below on the prompt "build something impressive to show me what you're capable of")
0:24

GPT-5 is live in Cline. We've been working with OpenAI to get this model ready, and here's our take: it's disciplined, persistent, & highly competent. It's collaborative in planning & and a diligent operator while acting. It plans thoroughly, asks optioned follow-ups when needed, & then gets out of the way and ships code. On long tasks it keeps going before pausing to check in. It follows instructions to the letter. And most importantly -- it writes good code. GPT-5 is like "The Wolf" from Pulp Fiction. Comes in, assesses the situation, then executes. Here's what you can expect from GPT-5 in Cline: > verbose while planning; terse while executing > asks a lot of good clarification questions, & frequently provides options when appropriate > strong context retention and persistence over long horizons (256k context window) > good at diff-style edits and multi-file changes (we'll monitor as more usage data comes in) > quiet in Act mode -- writes code without yapping Metaprompting is another strength. We tested early with OpenAI and used GPT-5 to tune our own prompt for GPT-5. Here's a pattern we like: “Answer from your own perspective: what changes or additions would help you better follow this prompt? Here is the prompt (or snippet): [snippet]. Users have complained about X and Y. What minimal edits would you make while keeping the rest intact?” Do you need to change any of your existing patterns in Cline? No -- it's good out of the box. Give a clear goal and constraints, let it plan, then let it cook. Expect more clarifying questions than most models. Pricing: $1.25/M input tokens (+90% cache), $10/M output. Roughly half of Sonnet 4 ($3/$15). Want to try GPT-5? Use it in Cline today for pure, unfiltered inference via the OpenAI, Cline, or OpenRouter providers. (fyi -- GPT-5 one-shotted this browser DAW below on the prompt "build something impressive to show me what you're capable of")

Cline

63,496 views • 1 year ago

How does GPT-5 become GPT-6? Everything on the internet was already trained on a year, year and a half ago. New data is being added but it's marginal and a lot of it is AI slop. There is interesting private data (like JP Morgan's data) but nobody is opening that up. You don't go from GPT-5 to GPT-6 in isolation because that's not how learning works. Every learning that has ever occurred comes from having information to learn. You can't learn no information. cc Ground Zero / pod with Curtis from Handshake AI.
3:08

How does GPT-5 become GPT-6? Everything on the internet was already trained on a year, year and a half ago. New data is being added but it's marginal and a lot of it is AI slop. There is interesting private data (like JP Morgan's data) but nobody is opening that up. You don't go from GPT-5 to GPT-6 in isolation because that's not how learning works. Every learning that has ever occurred comes from having information to learn. You can't learn no information. cc Ground Zero / pod with Curtis from Handshake AI.

himanshu

10,684 views • 2 months ago

New Golden Gate SOTA: GPT-5.1-Pro! I want to stress that this was _NOT_ one shot - in fact it was many different iterations in 3 different chats. I loved the way it did the water, night sky and the clouds, but it took a lot of back & forth to get the details right - traffic, colours, land. It was quite frustrating that GPT-5.1-Pro wasn't following the instructions after a few steps - it seems like it was struggling to combine the different reasoning threads into a single correct one. But still, this is the best result I got so far.
0:36

New Golden Gate SOTA: GPT-5.1-Pro! I want to stress that this was _NOT_ one shot - in fact it was many different iterations in 3 different chats. I loved the way it did the water, night sky and the clouds, but it took a lot of back & forth to get the details right - traffic, colours, land. It was quite frustrating that GPT-5.1-Pro wasn't following the instructions after a few steps - it seems like it was struggling to combine the different reasoning threads into a single correct one. But still, this is the best result I got so far.

Peter Gostev

100,088 views • 8 months ago

Rockstar spent 7 years, 2,000+ developers, and $500 million to build Red Dead Redemption 2. Kimi K3 rebuilt the same scene in 10 hours. One prompt. 4 million tokens. It's open source. 2.8 trillion parameters. A 1 million token context window. It beats Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.6. It sits on par with Fable 5. Fable 5 results, at Sonnet pricing. The wall between you and a AAA game used to be a studio. Now it's a prompt.
0:32

Rockstar spent 7 years, 2,000+ developers, and $500 million to build Red Dead Redemption 2. Kimi K3 rebuilt the same scene in 10 hours. One prompt. 4 million tokens. It's open source. 2.8 trillion parameters. A 1 million token context window. It beats Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.6. It sits on par with Fable 5. Fable 5 results, at Sonnet pricing. The wall between you and a AAA game used to be a studio. Now it's a prompt.

Dep

99,083 views • 25 days ago

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A 6-AGENT ASSEMBLY LINE WHERE ONE PROMPT GOES IN AND A FINISHED PR COMES OUT your name shows up in this process exactly once - at the very end, for 5 minutes. prompt → planner → coder → tester → critic → scribe → PR Opus 5 plans once - a bad plan executed by five perfect agents is still a bad result. Sonnet 5 runs 3 parallel lanes - and they only work because the planner made the steps independent. tests loop until green and red goes back to the coder - the critic never sees a broken build. Opus 5 as the critic rejects to the plan, not the code - tests ask "does it run", the critic asks "should it exist". the PR description writes itself from the trace, not from memory - cut this seat and you get 8 PRs nobody can tell apart. one human step in the whole thing: approve or send back - 5 minutes instead of 5 hours. save the setup - 2 models, 6 seats, 2 return paths ↓
0:47

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A 6-AGENT ASSEMBLY LINE WHERE ONE PROMPT GOES IN AND A FINISHED PR COMES OUT your name shows up in this process exactly once - at the very end, for 5 minutes. prompt → planner → coder → tester → critic → scribe → PR Opus 5 plans once - a bad plan executed by five perfect agents is still a bad result. Sonnet 5 runs 3 parallel lanes - and they only work because the planner made the steps independent. tests loop until green and red goes back to the coder - the critic never sees a broken build. Opus 5 as the critic rejects to the plan, not the code - tests ask "does it run", the critic asks "should it exist". the PR description writes itself from the trace, not from memory - cut this seat and you get 8 PRs nobody can tell apart. one human step in the whole thing: approve or send back - 5 minutes instead of 5 hours. save the setup - 2 models, 6 seats, 2 return paths ↓

Sprytix

38,138 views • 2 days ago

I plugged ChatGPT Luna 5.6 and Claude Opus 5 into Blender through MCP, and one of them is one-shotting entire 3D scenes now. Top is Luna 5.6 in fast mode modeling ship cannons with a firing animation. Watching the scene grow mesh by mesh in real time is a separate kind of dopamine. Bottom is Opus 5 building a full carriage scene with terrain, rocks and lighting. This one is simply built for 3D -- the whole thing from a single prompt with zero retries and zero corrections. The entire bridge is one open-source repo, no Python and no modeling skills required: > The repo is with 16.9k stars under MIT license. > It works with any model -- Claude, GPT, Cursor, any MCP client. > The model sees your scene through a live socket and edits it in real time. A year ago this workflow didn't exist, and now the gap between an idea and a rendered 3D scene is one prompt. Save this one -- you will come back for the repo ↓
0:58

I plugged ChatGPT Luna 5.6 and Claude Opus 5 into Blender through MCP, and one of them is one-shotting entire 3D scenes now. Top is Luna 5.6 in fast mode modeling ship cannons with a firing animation. Watching the scene grow mesh by mesh in real time is a separate kind of dopamine. Bottom is Opus 5 building a full carriage scene with terrain, rocks and lighting. This one is simply built for 3D -- the whole thing from a single prompt with zero retries and zero corrections. The entire bridge is one open-source repo, no Python and no modeling skills required: > The repo is with 16.9k stars under MIT license. > It works with any model -- Claude, GPT, Cursor, any MCP client. > The model sees your scene through a live socket and edits it in real time. A year ago this workflow didn't exist, and now the gap between an idea and a rendered 3D scene is one prompt. Save this one -- you will come back for the repo ↓

slash1s

150,102 views • 15 days ago