Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

ughtea tobluttt

49,191 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

This guy build a copy of Call of Duty with one prompt & went stupid viral (20 million views). Now while building video games is cool, what's even cooler is that his process, called The Gauntlet Loop, can be applied to any type of professional work. Here's how Matt Shumer's process works: Problem this solves: Agents stop at “good enough.” They do the ask once and declare done, especially in visual/creative work. Even if you force more iterations, models judge their own work. Like a student grading their own exam, they give themselves 100. That self-grading is the ceiling. Step 1: Set a real, inspectable bar - “most recent Call of Duty” level, not “a great FPS”). If yours isn’t better, you’re not done. Step 2: Split the job across specialist sub-agents instead of one overloaded agent. Step 3: Loop each piece until it looks like a real game/ real work, not “pretty good for AI.” - Version 1 will be garbage. Step 4: Blind critics compare your output to a reference and keep going until they pick yours (or you stop). Why the critic must be blind - In Claude Code / Codex-style harnesses, sub-agents often fork the main agent’s context, so a “critic” still remembers the builder’s rationale and rubber-stamps it. - Fix: spawn critics with totally fresh context. They only see the artifacts (e.g. two images), pick which looks better, and don’t know which is yours. - Until the critic picks yours, keep looping. That’s the whole loop. How Claude of Duty actually ran - Lead agent decomposes → each piece gets builder + critic → before/after per subsystem → fold back into the game → repeat waves. - He did not hand-feed a big pile of Call of Duty reference images. He set the prompt and the agent went out and found comparison material itself. References when the thing doesn’t exist yet For something novel (e.g. a futuristic weapon), you can: - Use a different game/object as a quality-level comp (critic judges “which looks better overall,” not identity match), or - Generate target stills with an image model until you like them, then feed those as the bar. Same loop outside games - Writing (he called this the harder example): after each iteration, A/B paragraphs (or page/chapter) against strong recent comps. Avoid famous dead authors the model already “knows” as themselves (IP + identity). Use contemporary comparable writing. - Websites: feed sites you think are world-class; don’t stop until blind critics consistently prefer yours. - How prescriptive on “what good means”: optional. Experimental runs he lets loose. Real work he gets more prescriptive and steers mid-loop (“like this direction, but pare back”). - Growth: Something Big newsletter is already using the loop for growth strategies and conversion copy; he said subscriber CAC results are far above industry standard. Cost and when to stop The loop can run forever. - Demos / toys: don’t max it. Too expensive for the value. - Real work that matters: willing to spend a couple hundred dollars / hit subscription limits. If the artifact is valuable, $200 is cheap relative to what that demo would have cost a few years ago. - He stopped Claude of Duty while it was still improving, because of cost and “already wow,” not because the bar was fully beaten. He bets a couple more days would get much closer to real CoD level. Full episode:

Alex Lieberman

23,940 просмотров • 2 дней назад

Bollywood songs (🔞)
2:46

Sensitive content

Bollywood songs (🔞)

movies and video clips

197,560 просмотров • 2 дней назад

Indain song (🔞)
3:02

Sensitive content

Indain song (🔞)

movies and video clips

41,281 просмотров • 2 дней назад