Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Side by side example Same model (claude-opus-4-6). Same task. Two different agent harnesses LangChain Deep Agents CLI: 9s Claude Code: 16s The harness IS the performance. 1.7× difference, zero model changes

Git Maxd

1,878 subscribers

114,022 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Bildung Wissenschaft & Technologie

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

Trying to choose the right AI model? Here’s what happens when Claude, ChatGPT, and Grok try to build the same thing. Watch the side-by-side 👇

Trying to choose the right AI model? Here’s what happens when Claude, ChatGPT, and Grok try to build the same thing. Watch the side-by-side 👇

Verse 8 | Why Code, Just Verse 8

11,232 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten

let me save you 3 hours of head scratching. if you're running local models like Qwen3.5-35B-A3B through Claude Code via llama.cpp's Anthropic endpoint, the chain will break every 3 to 5 minutes. tool call fails. flow stops. you reprompt. it recovers. 2 minutes later it stops again. the model is fine. the harness chokes on local inference latency. switch to OpenCode. same localhost endpoint. same model. same GPU. the chain doesn't break. the tradeoff: OpenCode sometimes loops. the model forgets what it already read and repeats the same tool call. but a loop you can interrupt. a broken chain kills your momentum and you start over. watch both side by side. proprietary agent vs open source agent. same 3B model. different failure modes. pick your poison.

let me save you 3 hours of head scratching. if you're running local models like Qwen3.5-35B-A3B through Claude Code via llama.cpp's Anthropic endpoint, the chain will break every 3 to 5 minutes. tool call fails. flow stops. you reprompt. it recovers. 2 minutes later it stops again. the model is fine. the harness chokes on local inference latency. switch to OpenCode. same localhost endpoint. same model. same GPU. the chain doesn't break. the tradeoff: OpenCode sometimes loops. the model forgets what it already read and repeats the same tool call. but a loop you can interrupt. a broken chain kills your momentum and you start over. watch both side by side. proprietary agent vs open source agent. same 3B model. different failure modes. pick your poison.

Sudo su

72,554 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten

Fusion is the most efficient frontier harness for GPT 6 Astra and Claude Fable 5.1. You can also configure everything about it: • Base model: Fable, Astra, Sol, or Opus • Sidekick model: SWE (Free), Luna, Sol, GLM (Free) • Speed: Normal or Fast ⚡ • Reasoning level It retains Claude Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 Astra performance while reducing costs and is the first time a multi-model coding agent has been included on the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index! Importantly: it's also fun to use :)

Fusion is the most efficient frontier harness for GPT 6 Astra and Claude Fable 5.1. You can also configure everything about it: • Base model: Fable, Astra, Sol, or Opus • Sidekick model: SWE (Free), Luna, Sol, GLM (Free) • Speed: Normal or Fast ⚡ • Reasoning level It retains Claude Fable 5.1 and GPT-6 Astra performance while reducing costs and is the first time a multi-model coding agent has been included on the Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index! Importantly: it's also fun to use :)

nader dabit

805,827 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

We decided to take Paul Jankura’s Claude Opus 4.5 out for a test drive vs. the current #1 ranking model in Code Arena: Gemini 3 Pro. Same prompt, different outputs. Let’s take a look. Remember, your votes drive the leaderboards. We’ll see how Claude Opus 4.5 stacks up in the coming days! Check out some of the comparisons, like how Claude Opus 4.5 handled the “Pyramids of Giza” prompt, in thread. 🧵

We decided to take Paul Jankura’s Claude Opus 4.5 out for a test drive vs. the current #1 ranking model in Code Arena: Gemini 3 Pro. Same prompt, different outputs. Let’s take a look. Remember, your votes drive the leaderboards. We’ll see how Claude Opus 4.5 stacks up in the coming days! Check out some of the comparisons, like how Claude Opus 4.5 handled the “Pyramids of Giza” prompt, in thread. 🧵

Arena.ai

89,080 Aufrufe • vor 11 Monaten

Users can explore how different AI agents analyze the same market task and compare their outputs through the platform. It is a product experience built around agent performance, task execution, and real usage. AI agents are becoming measurable digital workers.

Users can explore how different AI agents analyze the same market task and compare their outputs through the platform. It is a product experience built around agent performance, task execution, and real usage. AI agents are becoming measurable digital workers.

OKAI Official

10,805 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

Claude Opus 5.5 designed the PCB for Kookabus-01. Then I asked it for a 3D printable enclosure. First print. Board drops straight in and every connector lines up with its cutout! Same model did the board and the box. Claude is really impressing me.

Claude Opus 5.5 designed the PCB for Kookabus-01. Then I asked it for a 3D printable enclosure. First print. Board drops straight in and every connector lines up with its cutout! Same model did the board and the box. Claude is really impressing me.

Nigel Hungerford-Symes

13,862 Aufrufe • vor 14 Tagen

50% cheaper Claude inference with just one line of code change! - Remove → model="claude-opus-4-8" - Add → model="ship-like/claude-opus-4-8" I verified the cost saving in my own terminal by invoking the same Anthropic model with the same prompt. The underlying engineering by Ship is actually interesting, and the patterns can be used in any production LLM stack. Essentially, a trained model is a frozen artifact. Every request performs the same forward-pass, whether it extracts a date or refactors a module, because the compute decision was made at training time, before the request existed. Ship makes that decision at inference time instead. After seeing a request, it searches over executions, involving single models, cascades, ensembles, or harnesses with tools, and serves the cheapest one that will match the reference model's quality. This is not a basic router, because picking a cheaper model per query doesn't ensure the cheaper model preserves the original's behavior, like output shape, tool-call patterns, and refusals. Ship measures this equivalence directly. Outputs stay distributionally indistinguishable from the reference model, not token-identical, since two calls to the same model already differ, but they are indistinguishable in capability and behavior. Of course, some requests execute cheaply and some cost Ship more than the customer pays, but the price per request is still a flat 50% off either way, so the execution-cost variance moves off the application's bill entirely. The video below depicts the cost savings and output in my real invocation, and I partnered with the team to put this together.

50% cheaper Claude inference with just one line of code change! - Remove → model="claude-opus-4-8" - Add → model="ship-like/claude-opus-4-8" I verified the cost saving in my own terminal by invoking the same Anthropic model with the same prompt. The underlying engineering by Ship is actually interesting, and the patterns can be used in any production LLM stack. Essentially, a trained model is a frozen artifact. Every request performs the same forward-pass, whether it extracts a date or refactors a module, because the compute decision was made at training time, before the request existed. Ship makes that decision at inference time instead. After seeing a request, it searches over executions, involving single models, cascades, ensembles, or harnesses with tools, and serves the cheapest one that will match the reference model's quality. This is not a basic router, because picking a cheaper model per query doesn't ensure the cheaper model preserves the original's behavior, like output shape, tool-call patterns, and refusals. Ship measures this equivalence directly. Outputs stay distributionally indistinguishable from the reference model, not token-identical, since two calls to the same model already differ, but they are indistinguishable in capability and behavior. Of course, some requests execute cheaply and some cost Ship more than the customer pays, but the price per request is still a flat 50% off either way, so the execution-cost variance moves off the application's bill entirely. The video below depicts the cost savings and output in my real invocation, and I partnered with the team to put this together.

Akshay 🚀

64,482 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

New open-source agent harness just landed! I got early access to TrueForge by TrueFoundry and have been running it locally for the past few days. The harness layer deserves as much attention as the model, and open source matters here because you can inspect the loop, run it on your own infrastructure, and swap to the latest or cheaper models. TrueForge handles the runtime work that makes an agent reliable. It drives the tool-calling loop, manages context, coordinates subagents, and executes code in a sandbox, with any model you choose. Every tool call re-sends the growing context to the model, so in practice the harness controls most of what an agent costs to run. A few things stood out from my testing and their published benchmarks. Vendor-Neutral by design. It runs OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google models alongside open-weight models like Kimi, GLM, and DeepSeek. Model routing is a setting, and you can send each task to the model that fits it. On a 14-task enterprise agent benchmark, it matched the accuracy of Claude Managed Agents running the same Opus 4.8 model at roughly 30% lower cost per run (3.8M tokens vs 10M for the same answers). Routing the same tasks to GLM-5.2 held accuracy and brought cost down by about 75%, around $3 per run instead of $12. Fully self-hosted and Open Source (MIT License). I had it running locally with one command, with sandboxed code execution working out of the box. It's time to own your agent harness. Thanks to TrueFoundry for partnering on this post.

New open-source agent harness just landed! I got early access to TrueForge by TrueFoundry and have been running it locally for the past few days. The harness layer deserves as much attention as the model, and open source matters here because you can inspect the loop, run it on your own infrastructure, and swap to the latest or cheaper models. TrueForge handles the runtime work that makes an agent reliable. It drives the tool-calling loop, manages context, coordinates subagents, and executes code in a sandbox, with any model you choose. Every tool call re-sends the growing context to the model, so in practice the harness controls most of what an agent costs to run. A few things stood out from my testing and their published benchmarks. Vendor-Neutral by design. It runs OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google models alongside open-weight models like Kimi, GLM, and DeepSeek. Model routing is a setting, and you can send each task to the model that fits it. On a 14-task enterprise agent benchmark, it matched the accuracy of Claude Managed Agents running the same Opus 4.8 model at roughly 30% lower cost per run (3.8M tokens vs 10M for the same answers). Routing the same tasks to GLM-5.2 held accuracy and brought cost down by about 75%, around $3 per run instead of $12. Fully self-hosted and Open Source (MIT License). I had it running locally with one command, with sandboxed code execution working out of the box. It's time to own your agent harness. Thanks to TrueFoundry for partnering on this post.

elvis

11,303 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

ANTHROPIC JUST TURNED AI AGENTS INTO GIT REPOS Anthropic shipped "ant" - a CLI that runs every Claude API endpoint straight from your terminal. The headline isn't the terminal access. It's that you can now version-control an AI agent as YAML in Git and have CI sync it to the Claude Platform, the same way you ship code. - Every API resource is a subcommand: messages, models, files, agents, sessions - Define an agent in a YAML file, check it into your repo, and keep it in sync with one update command - Spin up a session, send it an event, then pull every event and tool call back from the same CLI - Claude Code knows how to drive ant out of the box - it shells out and reads the results with no glue code Agents just stopped being prompts you babysit and became infrastructure you deploy.

ANTHROPIC JUST TURNED AI AGENTS INTO GIT REPOS Anthropic shipped "ant" - a CLI that runs every Claude API endpoint straight from your terminal. The headline isn't the terminal access. It's that you can now version-control an AI agent as YAML in Git and have CI sync it to the Claude Platform, the same way you ship code. - Every API resource is a subcommand: messages, models, files, agents, sessions - Define an agent in a YAML file, check it into your repo, and keep it in sync with one update command - Spin up a session, send it an event, then pull every event and tool call back from the same CLI - Claude Code knows how to drive ant out of the box - it shells out and reads the results with no glue code Agents just stopped being prompts you babysit and became infrastructure you deploy.

BuBBliK

200,690 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

Those building AI coding agents will eventually hit the same wall: No matter how smart the model is, the moment you ask it to write production-ready code with the latest libraries, it starts hallucinating. Everyone is building coding agents these days, but most of them run into the same issue: They're coding with outdated documentation. The root cause isn't the model. It's the retrieval layer. If you are building an AI agent that needs information from specific domains such as code, law, academia, and finance Sign up, connect it to your agent, and you'll see the difference immediately.

Those building AI coding agents will eventually hit the same wall: No matter how smart the model is, the moment you ask it to write production-ready code with the latest libraries, it starts hallucinating. Everyone is building coding agents these days, but most of them run into the same issue: They're coding with outdated documentation. The root cause isn't the model. It's the retrieval layer. If you are building an AI agent that needs information from specific domains such as code, law, academia, and finance Sign up, connect it to your agent, and you'll see the difference immediately.

Jafar Najafov

19,873 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

OPUS 5.5 SHOULDN'T BE DOING THE WORK. It should be writing the PLAN. Claude Code workflows let Opus write a script that runs a whole swarm of agents in the background. Opus plans. Haiku 5.5 scans every file in parallel. Sonnet 5.5 makes the fixes. A verifier checks every finding. Opus only sees what survives. Your expensive model never reads 100 agent transcripts again. Setup prompt below 👇

OPUS 5.5 SHOULDN'T BE DOING THE WORK. It should be writing the PLAN. Claude Code workflows let Opus write a script that runs a whole swarm of agents in the background. Opus plans. Haiku 5.5 scans every file in parallel. Sonnet 5.5 makes the fixes. A verifier checks every finding. Opus only sees what survives. Your expensive model never reads 100 agent transcripts again. Setup prompt below 👇

CyrilXBT

20,450 Aufrufe • vor 5 Tagen

Vercel's AI SDK 7 ships HarnessAgent, an API for running established agent harnesses like Claude Code, Codex, and Pi. Write the agent once, then use whatever harness is best for your use case. Try building a creative production agent with Pi using the Vercel AI SDK: one image model makes the hero shot, then an E2B sandbox runs Python to cut the backdrop, render every specified size, overlay copy, audit WCAG contrast and palette share, and serve the finished ad set on a live URL. Full example in the cookbook:

Vercel's AI SDK 7 ships HarnessAgent, an API for running established agent harnesses like Claude Code, Codex, and Pi. Write the agent once, then use whatever harness is best for your use case. Try building a creative production agent with Pi using the Vercel AI SDK: one image model makes the hero shot, then an E2B sandbox runs Python to cut the backdrop, render every specified size, overlay copy, audit WCAG contrast and palette share, and serve the finished ad set on a live URL. Full example in the cookbook:

Vasek Mlejnsky

12,884 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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

YanXbt

16,744 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

We gave Grok 4.5 and GPT-5.6 Sol the exact same prompt and compared the outputs side by side. The task: generate a fully interactive HTML5 glass bridge simulation with realistic physics, structural failure, cinematic visuals, polished UI, and smooth animations. The difference is actually visible.

We gave Grok 4.5 and GPT-5.6 Sol the exact same prompt and compared the outputs side by side. The task: generate a fully interactive HTML5 glass bridge simulation with realistic physics, structural failure, cinematic visuals, polished UI, and smooth animations. The difference is actually visible.

Entelligence AI

71,177 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Astra, what the hell is this shark? 😭🦈 Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Astra - same prompt, two very different sharks Astra made a hilarious little nightmare. Opus wins for me - it actually looks like a shark Opus: $10.35 Astra: $8.38 Saved $1.97 and got a shark that needs an exorcism 💀 Which one wins for you?

Astra, what the hell is this shark? 😭🦈 Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Astra - same prompt, two very different sharks Astra made a hilarious little nightmare. Opus wins for me - it actually looks like a shark Opus: $10.35 Astra: $8.38 Saved $1.97 and got a shark that needs an exorcism 💀 Which one wins for you?

Vib3Coded

116,380 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen

This is f*cking insane. This tip saved me thousands of dollars. run Opus 5.5, Sonnet 5.5, and Fable 5.1 together, and stop burning Opus on work it was never needed for. the whole idea in one line: the strong model plans, the mid-tier model executes, Fable stays quiet until it's actually needed. roles, broken down: Opus 5.5, high effort, owns the plan and ships the final code Sonnet 5.5, medium effort, splits into explorer (reads the codebase), worker (edits files, runs tests), researcher (pulls docs) Fable 5.1, called through /advisor fable, reads everything happening in the session but stays silent unless something's actually wrong three moments where Fable speaks: → a plan goes out: is this actually the right call? → the same failure shows up again: is the search going nowhere? → the task gets marked finished: did something get skipped? Jev engineering does the same thing one level down. the forks that don't need real thought, which file, which tool, keep going or stop, go straight to Jev and come back in under half a second. the big models only ever see the forks that genuinely need a decision. anyone still running one model for everything is paying Opus prices to decide whether a file exists. drop this into Claude Code: "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this structure: Look through ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents for subagents already covering explorer, worker, and researcher. Only create new ones for roles that are missing. Set model: sonnet, effort: medium on each. If an existing subagent is locked to a different model, leave it as is and just list it. In ~/.claude/settings.json, set effortLevel to high and advisorModel to fable. Check for anything disabling the advisor, CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY, or anything blocking feature-flag fetches, plus CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which can override subagent effort settings. Report what you find. Don't change any of it yet. Add one line to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: check in with the advisor before a big plan, when the same error shows up twice, and before marking a long task done. Show every change as a diff first. Wait for my go-ahead before touching anything."

This is f*cking insane. This tip saved me thousands of dollars. run Opus 5.5, Sonnet 5.5, and Fable 5.1 together, and stop burning Opus on work it was never needed for. the whole idea in one line: the strong model plans, the mid-tier model executes, Fable stays quiet until it's actually needed. roles, broken down: Opus 5.5, high effort, owns the plan and ships the final code Sonnet 5.5, medium effort, splits into explorer (reads the codebase), worker (edits files, runs tests), researcher (pulls docs) Fable 5.1, called through /advisor fable, reads everything happening in the session but stays silent unless something's actually wrong three moments where Fable speaks: → a plan goes out: is this actually the right call? → the same failure shows up again: is the search going nowhere? → the task gets marked finished: did something get skipped? Jev engineering does the same thing one level down. the forks that don't need real thought, which file, which tool, keep going or stop, go straight to Jev and come back in under half a second. the big models only ever see the forks that genuinely need a decision. anyone still running one model for everything is paying Opus prices to decide whether a file exists. drop this into Claude Code: "Rebuild my Claude Code setup around this structure: Look through ~/.claude/agents and .claude/agents for subagents already covering explorer, worker, and researcher. Only create new ones for roles that are missing. Set model: sonnet, effort: medium on each. If an existing subagent is locked to a different model, leave it as is and just list it. In ~/.claude/settings.json, set effortLevel to high and advisorModel to fable. Check for anything disabling the advisor, CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADVISOR_TOOL, DISABLE_TELEMETRY, or anything blocking feature-flag fetches, plus CLAUDE_CODE_EFFORT_LEVEL, which can override subagent effort settings. Report what you find. Don't change any of it yet. Add one line to ~/.claude/CLAUDE.md: check in with the advisor before a big plan, when the same error shows up twice, and before marking a long task done. Show every change as a diff first. Wait for my go-ahead before touching anything."

rvaniaaa

254,273 Aufrufe • vor 20 Tagen

Opus 5.5 + GrokBot + Jev... I can't believe that I build it I packed the best of AI into ONE agent - now 99% of people’s AI agents look dumb, slow, and expensive Try here (free): prompt → GrokBot → Jev chooses LLM → Claude / GPT working on GrokBot's computer 24/7 → result → Jev sends only the tasks Grok is weak at to Opus or GPT → Jev picks the best model for each task - for example, Claude for motion design and Codex for web design → runs on the ChatGPT and Claude subscriptions you already pay for (API also work) → works on GrokBot computer while you keep chatting → checks every result against the goal before you see it → GrokBot gets smarter and cheaper at the same time → And plenty more features in a bot everyone will call "obvious" by 2030 Try Jevopus, thank me later - then read the article on the full Jev architecture ↓

Opus 5.5 + GrokBot + Jev... I can't believe that I build it I packed the best of AI into ONE agent - now 99% of people’s AI agents look dumb, slow, and expensive Try here (free): prompt → GrokBot → Jev chooses LLM → Claude / GPT working on GrokBot's computer 24/7 → result → Jev sends only the tasks Grok is weak at to Opus or GPT → Jev picks the best model for each task - for example, Claude for motion design and Codex for web design → runs on the ChatGPT and Claude subscriptions you already pay for (API also work) → works on GrokBot computer while you keep chatting → checks every result against the goal before you see it → GrokBot gets smarter and cheaper at the same time → And plenty more features in a bot everyone will call "obvious" by 2030 Try Jevopus, thank me later - then read the article on the full Jev architecture ↓

codila

274,517 Aufrufe • vor 24 Tagen

$35 OF FREE CLAUDE OPUS 5 CREDITS FOR A WEEK, NO CARD ANYWHERE • the credit > Sign up with Google and the trial activates on its own, nothing to claim manually: > Opus 5 sits alongside Opus 4.8, Sonnet 4.6 and Haiku on the same key. > The window runs a week from activation. • wiring it up > base url: > model id: claude-opus-5 > In OpenCode Desktop hit Ctrl+, and add a custom provider with the id aerolink. > The same key drops into Codex, Cursor and Claude Code with nothing else changed. One key, not locked to one client -> every tool that takes a custom OpenAI-compatible endpoint reads it the same way. It routes through a third-party proxy rather than an official Anthropic channel, so keep client work off it ↓

$35 OF FREE CLAUDE OPUS 5 CREDITS FOR A WEEK, NO CARD ANYWHERE • the credit > Sign up with Google and the trial activates on its own, nothing to claim manually: > Opus 5 sits alongside Opus 4.8, Sonnet 4.6 and Haiku on the same key. > The window runs a week from activation. • wiring it up > base url: > model id: claude-opus-5 > In OpenCode Desktop hit Ctrl+, and add a custom provider with the id aerolink. > The same key drops into Codex, Cursor and Claude Code with nothing else changed. One key, not locked to one client -> every tool that takes a custom OpenAI-compatible endpoint reads it the same way. It routes through a third-party proxy rather than an official Anthropic channel, so keep client work off it ↓

slash1s

21,111 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Same prompt. Same product. Two Seedance models. Which style would you choose? I tested Seedance 2.0 and 2.5 side by side in 1080p to see how each model would interpret the same creative direction. Seedance 2.5 gets the headlines. Seedance 2.0 gets my work done. Both 2.0 & 2.0 Fast, only on Dreamina: a 30-second clip costs $0.78 — vs $3.21 elsewhere. 76% less. Prompt is in the comments.

Same prompt. Same product. Two Seedance models. Which style would you choose? I tested Seedance 2.0 and 2.5 side by side in 1080p to see how each model would interpret the same creative direction. Seedance 2.5 gets the headlines. Seedance 2.0 gets my work done. Both 2.0 & 2.0 Fast, only on Dreamina: a 30-second clip costs $0.78 — vs $3.21 elsewhere. 76% less. Prompt is in the comments.

haytam

67,870 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat