Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

union alpha (unbiased pareto) vs deepseek v4.1 flash vs muse spark 1.3 – three paintings in three.js the setup: one four-line prompt plus the painting as an image, through OpenRouter. no agent loop, no renders, no feedback – the model writes one html file blind and we open it....

thehypedotnews's profile picture

thehype.

4,724 subscribers

23,145 görüntüleme • 8 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

8 Yorum

Union Alpha profil fotoğrafı
Union Alpha8 gün önce

@OpenRouter So cool! Keep building, we'd love to amplify with @TheUnbiasedCo

thehype. profil fotoğrafı
thehype.8 gün önce

@OpenRouter @TheUnbiasedCo 🙏🙏🙏

Adil profil fotoğrafı
Adil8 gün önce

@OpenRouter we are witnessing history in real time

nickster profil fotoğrafı
nickster8 gün önce

@OpenRouter True art

thehype. profil fotoğrafı
thehype.8 gün önce

@OpenRouter 💯

armorse profil fotoğrafı
armorse8 gün önce

@OpenRouter The one-shot setup makes the comparison really clear. I like that the outputs show both the visual style and how much code each model chose to write.

Jules Bilong profil fotoğrafı
Jules Bilong8 gün önce

@OpenRouter Visualy accurate: #1 DeepSeek v4.1. Flash #2 Muse Spark 1.3 #3 Union Alpha For me accuracy win: Only the Deepseek looks like a painting.

Sakib profil fotoğrafı
Sakib8 gün önce

@OpenRouter DeepSeek is mogging

Benzer Videolar

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 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

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 görüntüleme • 16 gün önce

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 görüntüleme • 28 gün önce

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

39,857 görüntüleme • 16 gün önce

meta muse spark 1.1 vs gpt 5.6 sol vs fable 5 vs grok 4.5 meta recently dropped muse spark 1.1 – a multimodal reasoning model from meta superintelligence labs built for agentic tasks. key facts: • 1m token context with active self-management – the model compacts its own history and keeps only the steps needed for later work • trained to orchestrate multi-agent systems: as main agent it plans and delegates to parallel subagents, as subagent it sticks to its job and knows when to escalate back • computer use trained to pick between scripting and clicking – writes automation when it's faster, clicks when it's simpler, batches actions per step • first public api from meta: the meta model api is now in preview • benchmarks: sweeps the agent column – mcp atlas 88.1 (opus 4.8: 82.2), jobbench 54.7 (opus: 48.4), humanity's last exam 62.1 (1st). loses coding – deepswe 1.1 53.3 vs gpt 5.5's 67.0, swe bench pro 61.5 vs opus's 69.2 our test – 3 prompts, single-file html, three.js, fully procedural, no assets: 1. norwegian house cantilevered over a fjord in a snowstorm – transmissive glass wall, fully modelled interior 2. beijing siheyuan courtyard house in dawn fog – instanced roof tiles, dougong brackets, glowing paper windows 3. new mexico adobe pueblo in an approaching dust storm – deep window reveals, windward grit accumulation we ran the test on AI/ML API platform results: - cost #1 muse spark 1.1 – $0.20 #2 grok 4.5 – $0.51 #3 gpt 5.6 sol – $1.93 #4 fable 5 – ~$5.20 - output tokens #1 muse spark 1.1 – 41,868 #2 gpt 5.6 sol – 49,139 #3 grok 4.5 – 64,954 #4 fable 5 – 81,849 - lines of code #1 muse spark 1.1 – 1,799 #2 gpt 5.6 sol – 2,377 #3 fable 5 – 3,088 #4 grok 4.5 – 4,216 observations: • muse spark is the cheapest of the four by a wide margin – 2.5x under grok, ~26x under fable per run. output quality tracks the price • only 7.4% of its output tokens are reasoning (3,104 of 41,868) – the model barely thinks before writing. economic, not pedantic: it commits to the first plan and ships it • the low loc is not compression, it's omission – all three prompts demanded instancing, muse spark delivered it in one muse spark's code quality – reviewed by fable 5: upsides: 1. all three files run 2. the adobe grit effect is legit – shader injection via onbeforecompile, windward faces detect storm direction through a normal-dot-wind term and darken procedurally 3. the fjord glass is real meshphysicalmaterial with transmission and ior, not a transparent quad 4. the siheyuan properly instances barrel tiles, dougong blocks and courtyard pavers downsides: 1. in the fjord file the strafe vector is negated – press a, you move right; press d, you move left. exactly the key mix-up we kept hitting with this model 2. all three files ship the model's self-doubt as comments: "// actually yaw orientation: need correct" sits above a direction vector that gets computed, abandoned and recomputed – dead vectors allocated every frame, 60 times a second 3. the siheyuan registers two separate keydown listeners, one containing an empty if-block 4. snow "accumulation" on the norway roof is a sine wobble on a scale value, not accumulation 5. "instanced snow" became 3,500 plain points. zero dispose calls anywhere pattern: minimal reasoning, minimal code, minimal price. it nails the flashy requirements – shaders, transmissive glass – and quietly drops the boring ones: instancing, controls, cleanup. you get a demo that mostly runs and a control scheme you can't trust follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns
1:01

meta muse spark 1.1 vs gpt 5.6 sol vs fable 5 vs grok 4.5 meta recently dropped muse spark 1.1 – a multimodal reasoning model from meta superintelligence labs built for agentic tasks. key facts: • 1m token context with active self-management – the model compacts its own history and keeps only the steps needed for later work • trained to orchestrate multi-agent systems: as main agent it plans and delegates to parallel subagents, as subagent it sticks to its job and knows when to escalate back • computer use trained to pick between scripting and clicking – writes automation when it's faster, clicks when it's simpler, batches actions per step • first public api from meta: the meta model api is now in preview • benchmarks: sweeps the agent column – mcp atlas 88.1 (opus 4.8: 82.2), jobbench 54.7 (opus: 48.4), humanity's last exam 62.1 (1st). loses coding – deepswe 1.1 53.3 vs gpt 5.5's 67.0, swe bench pro 61.5 vs opus's 69.2 our test – 3 prompts, single-file html, three.js, fully procedural, no assets: 1. norwegian house cantilevered over a fjord in a snowstorm – transmissive glass wall, fully modelled interior 2. beijing siheyuan courtyard house in dawn fog – instanced roof tiles, dougong brackets, glowing paper windows 3. new mexico adobe pueblo in an approaching dust storm – deep window reveals, windward grit accumulation we ran the test on AI/ML API platform results: - cost #1 muse spark 1.1 – $0.20 #2 grok 4.5 – $0.51 #3 gpt 5.6 sol – $1.93 #4 fable 5 – ~$5.20 - output tokens #1 muse spark 1.1 – 41,868 #2 gpt 5.6 sol – 49,139 #3 grok 4.5 – 64,954 #4 fable 5 – 81,849 - lines of code #1 muse spark 1.1 – 1,799 #2 gpt 5.6 sol – 2,377 #3 fable 5 – 3,088 #4 grok 4.5 – 4,216 observations: • muse spark is the cheapest of the four by a wide margin – 2.5x under grok, ~26x under fable per run. output quality tracks the price • only 7.4% of its output tokens are reasoning (3,104 of 41,868) – the model barely thinks before writing. economic, not pedantic: it commits to the first plan and ships it • the low loc is not compression, it's omission – all three prompts demanded instancing, muse spark delivered it in one muse spark's code quality – reviewed by fable 5: upsides: 1. all three files run 2. the adobe grit effect is legit – shader injection via onbeforecompile, windward faces detect storm direction through a normal-dot-wind term and darken procedurally 3. the fjord glass is real meshphysicalmaterial with transmission and ior, not a transparent quad 4. the siheyuan properly instances barrel tiles, dougong blocks and courtyard pavers downsides: 1. in the fjord file the strafe vector is negated – press a, you move right; press d, you move left. exactly the key mix-up we kept hitting with this model 2. all three files ship the model's self-doubt as comments: "// actually yaw orientation: need correct" sits above a direction vector that gets computed, abandoned and recomputed – dead vectors allocated every frame, 60 times a second 3. the siheyuan registers two separate keydown listeners, one containing an empty if-block 4. snow "accumulation" on the norway roof is a sine wobble on a scale value, not accumulation 5. "instanced snow" became 3,500 plain points. zero dispose calls anywhere pattern: minimal reasoning, minimal code, minimal price. it nails the flashy requirements – shaders, transmissive glass – and quietly drops the boring ones: instancing, controls, cleanup. you get a demo that mostly runs and a control scheme you can't trust follow thehype. for 24/7 ai news, analysis and breakdowns

thehype.

135,556 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

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 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

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

402,410 görüntüleme • 13 gün önce

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 görüntüleme • 23 gün önce

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 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

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 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

🚨 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 görüntüleme • 29 gün önce

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A FILE THEY SPENT 2 YEARS BUILDING WHERE 4 DEPARTMENTS CLOSE 90% OF YOUR WORK FOR $4 A DAY you do only 10% - the deciding, and the other 90% runs on different versions of Claude at a fraction of the price. research → marketing → sales → finance → back into the file research pulls in hundreds of sources and a handful survive - the cheap model filters, the expensive one reads only what got through. paying the top rate for a page you'll discard anyway is the commonest overspend there is. marketing is high volume with a low stake per item - so you generate 3 variants at once instead of one. one variant is a guess, three variants are a choice, and they cost the same. in sales the cheap model scores 400 leads and the expensive one writes only to the few worth it. a personal letter to a lead that was never going to convert is a paid guess. 6 of every 8 tasks in this file never need the priciest model - it answers at 5x the rate of the cheap one. and there's exactly one department where saving on the model makes no sense - unit economics, funnel, forecast. one wrong number here costs more than a full year of token savings. finance is the only department that writes back into the file - next month's marketing runs on rules analytics wrote, not you. overpaying is annoying, underpaying is expensive - route by the cost of being wrong, not the price per token. save this and paste it into Claude Code - 4 departments execute, you choose ↓
1:02

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A FILE THEY SPENT 2 YEARS BUILDING WHERE 4 DEPARTMENTS CLOSE 90% OF YOUR WORK FOR $4 A DAY you do only 10% - the deciding, and the other 90% runs on different versions of Claude at a fraction of the price. research → marketing → sales → finance → back into the file research pulls in hundreds of sources and a handful survive - the cheap model filters, the expensive one reads only what got through. paying the top rate for a page you'll discard anyway is the commonest overspend there is. marketing is high volume with a low stake per item - so you generate 3 variants at once instead of one. one variant is a guess, three variants are a choice, and they cost the same. in sales the cheap model scores 400 leads and the expensive one writes only to the few worth it. a personal letter to a lead that was never going to convert is a paid guess. 6 of every 8 tasks in this file never need the priciest model - it answers at 5x the rate of the cheap one. and there's exactly one department where saving on the model makes no sense - unit economics, funnel, forecast. one wrong number here costs more than a full year of token savings. finance is the only department that writes back into the file - next month's marketing runs on rules analytics wrote, not you. overpaying is annoying, underpaying is expensive - route by the cost of being wrong, not the price per token. save this and paste it into Claude Code - 4 departments execute, you choose ↓

Sprytix

27,027 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

I have been testing DeepSeek-V4-Pro with the Pi coding agent. I am mindblown by how well it works out of the box. A few notes: I spent a few hours building an LLM wiki with an agent powered entirely by DeepSeek-V4-Pro on Fireworks inference. This is the first time I feel like there is an open-weight model that can reason at the level of Claude and Codex. And it does this in a cost-effective way with support for 1M context length. To be clear, I am using DeepSeek-V4-Pro inside of Pi without any special configuration. It works out of the box. It's exciting that there is a model that can just be plugged into a basic harness like Pi, and it just works. I've never seen that before. Most models require lots of configuration and setup. DeepSeek's DeepSeek-V4-Pro is clearly good at agentic coding (probably the best from the open-weight models), but the model is also great on knowledge-intensive tasks where reasoning matters. The agent pulled agentic engineering best practices from different company docs (Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Stripe, Meta, Modal, DeepSeek, Mistral, Cohere), searched and digested Reddit and HN threads, summarized arxiv papers, and surfaced trending GitHub repos. Then it distilled everything into actionable tips across categories. I love the Wiki it built. The quality is really good. Here is a snapshot of what the wiki looks like: DeepSeek-V4-Pro handled the task without breaking stride. Multi-step research queries, code generation for scaffolding, context-heavy reasoning across disparate sources. For coding specifically, this is the first open-weight model that genuinely feels like a Codex or Claude Code experience. It compares in capability and actual multi-turn agentic work. What made the loop feel so responsive was Fireworks' inference speed (the fastest in the market) and the fact that they actually validate models at the systems level before shipping. No corrupted reasoning traces. Just fast, reliable iteration. The hybrid CSA and HCA attention design cuts KV cache to just 10% and inference FLOPs by nearly 4x at 1M-token context. This is what makes the agent loop actually fast and cheap enough to run in practice. For devs who've been watching open-weight models close the gap but haven't found one that actually delivers in practice, this is the closest I've seen. Try it here:
0:31

I have been testing DeepSeek-V4-Pro with the Pi coding agent. I am mindblown by how well it works out of the box. A few notes: I spent a few hours building an LLM wiki with an agent powered entirely by DeepSeek-V4-Pro on Fireworks inference. This is the first time I feel like there is an open-weight model that can reason at the level of Claude and Codex. And it does this in a cost-effective way with support for 1M context length. To be clear, I am using DeepSeek-V4-Pro inside of Pi without any special configuration. It works out of the box. It's exciting that there is a model that can just be plugged into a basic harness like Pi, and it just works. I've never seen that before. Most models require lots of configuration and setup. DeepSeek's DeepSeek-V4-Pro is clearly good at agentic coding (probably the best from the open-weight models), but the model is also great on knowledge-intensive tasks where reasoning matters. The agent pulled agentic engineering best practices from different company docs (Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Stripe, Meta, Modal, DeepSeek, Mistral, Cohere), searched and digested Reddit and HN threads, summarized arxiv papers, and surfaced trending GitHub repos. Then it distilled everything into actionable tips across categories. I love the Wiki it built. The quality is really good. Here is a snapshot of what the wiki looks like: DeepSeek-V4-Pro handled the task without breaking stride. Multi-step research queries, code generation for scaffolding, context-heavy reasoning across disparate sources. For coding specifically, this is the first open-weight model that genuinely feels like a Codex or Claude Code experience. It compares in capability and actual multi-turn agentic work. What made the loop feel so responsive was Fireworks' inference speed (the fastest in the market) and the fact that they actually validate models at the systems level before shipping. No corrupted reasoning traces. Just fast, reliable iteration. The hybrid CSA and HCA attention design cuts KV cache to just 10% and inference FLOPs by nearly 4x at 1M-token context. This is what makes the agent loop actually fast and cheap enough to run in practice. For devs who've been watching open-weight models close the gap but haven't found one that actually delivers in practice, this is the closest I've seen. Try it here:

elvis

60,281 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A FILE WHERE 4 DEPARTMENTS ASSEMBLE IN 60 MINUTES AND BUILD A BUSINESS THAT MAKES $100K A MONTH the same work done by people is $30,000 a month - here it's 4 departments and $2.65 a day. the first 12 minutes you write 3 lines all 4 departments will read all week: who buys, what we sell, at what price. development is the largest line on the bill - $1.30, three cheap lanes in parallel and one expensive verdict at the end. marketing is high volume with a low stake per item - so it generates 3 variants and you pick one. one variant is a guess, three variants are a choice, and they cost the same. research runs the other way: the cheap model filters hundreds of sources, the expensive one reads only what survived. paying the top rate for a page you'll discard anyway is the commonest overspend there is. and there's exactly one department where saving on the model makes no sense - unit economics: one wrong number costs you a year. route by the cost of being wrong, not the price per token - Opus on the content queue is 5x overpaid, Haiku on the economics is a year of rework. finance is the only department that writes back into the root - next week marketing runs on rules the economics wrote. at minute 60 you have a page, a payment link, a week of content and an economics model - revenue isn't on that list. save this and paste it into Claude Code - the hour builds the company, the market decides the number ↓
1:33

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A FILE WHERE 4 DEPARTMENTS ASSEMBLE IN 60 MINUTES AND BUILD A BUSINESS THAT MAKES $100K A MONTH the same work done by people is $30,000 a month - here it's 4 departments and $2.65 a day. the first 12 minutes you write 3 lines all 4 departments will read all week: who buys, what we sell, at what price. development is the largest line on the bill - $1.30, three cheap lanes in parallel and one expensive verdict at the end. marketing is high volume with a low stake per item - so it generates 3 variants and you pick one. one variant is a guess, three variants are a choice, and they cost the same. research runs the other way: the cheap model filters hundreds of sources, the expensive one reads only what survived. paying the top rate for a page you'll discard anyway is the commonest overspend there is. and there's exactly one department where saving on the model makes no sense - unit economics: one wrong number costs you a year. route by the cost of being wrong, not the price per token - Opus on the content queue is 5x overpaid, Haiku on the economics is a year of rework. finance is the only department that writes back into the root - next week marketing runs on rules the economics wrote. at minute 60 you have a page, a payment link, a week of content and an economics model - revenue isn't on that list. save this and paste it into Claude Code - the hour builds the company, the market decides the number ↓

Sprytix

19,325 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

U.S. Navy Bans DeepSeek Over 'Security Concerns' As 'Substantial' Evidence Emerges Chinese AI Ripped Off ChatGPT | ZeroHedge The U.S. Navy has instructed service members to avoid using the Chinese AI platform DeepSeek, citing "potential security and ethical concerns," according to CNBC. An email sent to "shipmates" in recent days, confirmed by CNBC on Tuesday, referenced the Navy's AI policy and emphasized the importance of refraining from using DeepSeek. The memo warned service members against using the platform "for any work-related tasks or personal use" and instructed them to "avoid downloading, installing, or using the DeepSeek model in any capacity." The warning follows the recent rise of DeepSeek’s R1 model, which has garnered significant attention worldwide, particularly within the U.S. business and technology sectors. The R1 model has demonstrated capabilities comparable to OpenAI’s models. In December, DeepSeek claimed it had successfully trained a large language model in just two months at a cost of $6 million—a figure disputed by technologists—despite U.S. restrictions on semiconductor chip exports to China. The R1, an open-source model, surged to the top of Apple’s app store rankings this week, triggering a market sell-off. Shares of AI chipmakers Nvidia and Broadcom plummeted by 17% on Monday, wiping out a combined $800 billion in market value. Nvidia has since recovered some of its losses. On Monday, DeepSeek announced a temporary restriction on user registrations, citing "large-scale malicious attacks" on its services, before later restoring normal operations. DeepSeek’s advancements have challenged the long-held belief that the U.S. was significantly ahead of China in AI development. Asked how R1 caught up to ChatGPT, AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks suggested that DeepSeek may have leveraged a technique known as "distillation" to train its model using OpenAI’s technology. “There’s a technique in AI called distillation, which you’re going to hear a lot about. It’s when one model learns from another model,” Sacks explained to Fox News. “Effectively, the student model asks the parent model millions of questions, mimicking the reasoning process and absorbing knowledge.” “They can essentially extract the knowledge out of the model,” he continued. “There’s substantial evidence that what DeepSeek did here was distill knowledge from OpenAI’s models.” “I don’t think OpenAI is too happy about this,” Sacks added. President Donald Trump has said that DeepSeek “should be a wake-up call” for U.S. tech companies. “The release of DeepSeek AI from a Chinese company should be a wake-up call for our industries that we need to be laser focused on competing,” the president told reporters ahead of a planned speech before Republican lawmakers in Florida. Read more:
1:09

U.S. Navy Bans DeepSeek Over 'Security Concerns' As 'Substantial' Evidence Emerges Chinese AI Ripped Off ChatGPT | ZeroHedge The U.S. Navy has instructed service members to avoid using the Chinese AI platform DeepSeek, citing "potential security and ethical concerns," according to CNBC. An email sent to "shipmates" in recent days, confirmed by CNBC on Tuesday, referenced the Navy's AI policy and emphasized the importance of refraining from using DeepSeek. The memo warned service members against using the platform "for any work-related tasks or personal use" and instructed them to "avoid downloading, installing, or using the DeepSeek model in any capacity." The warning follows the recent rise of DeepSeek’s R1 model, which has garnered significant attention worldwide, particularly within the U.S. business and technology sectors. The R1 model has demonstrated capabilities comparable to OpenAI’s models. In December, DeepSeek claimed it had successfully trained a large language model in just two months at a cost of $6 million—a figure disputed by technologists—despite U.S. restrictions on semiconductor chip exports to China. The R1, an open-source model, surged to the top of Apple’s app store rankings this week, triggering a market sell-off. Shares of AI chipmakers Nvidia and Broadcom plummeted by 17% on Monday, wiping out a combined $800 billion in market value. Nvidia has since recovered some of its losses. On Monday, DeepSeek announced a temporary restriction on user registrations, citing "large-scale malicious attacks" on its services, before later restoring normal operations. DeepSeek’s advancements have challenged the long-held belief that the U.S. was significantly ahead of China in AI development. Asked how R1 caught up to ChatGPT, AI and Crypto Czar David Sacks suggested that DeepSeek may have leveraged a technique known as "distillation" to train its model using OpenAI’s technology. “There’s a technique in AI called distillation, which you’re going to hear a lot about. It’s when one model learns from another model,” Sacks explained to Fox News. “Effectively, the student model asks the parent model millions of questions, mimicking the reasoning process and absorbing knowledge.” “They can essentially extract the knowledge out of the model,” he continued. “There’s substantial evidence that what DeepSeek did here was distill knowledge from OpenAI’s models.” “I don’t think OpenAI is too happy about this,” Sacks added. President Donald Trump has said that DeepSeek “should be a wake-up call” for U.S. tech companies. “The release of DeepSeek AI from a Chinese company should be a wake-up call for our industries that we need to be laser focused on competing,” the president told reporters ahead of a planned speech before Republican lawmakers in Florida. Read more:

Owen Gregorian

75,351 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

A+ NQ setup has exactly three parts. 1. Statistical bias: Probability Map shows 75%+ to one side. Not an opinion. Backtested across 10 years of NQ session data. That number narrows the playing field before price moves an inch. 2. The sweep: Liquidity is resting in the opposite direction. When price grabs it, that is not a fake-out. That is the fuel for the real move. You were expecting it. You were watching for it. 3. The entry model: After the sweep, the structure confirms. iFVG / CISD. A defined ICT concept with clear invalidation. Not a hope, not a gut feel. A model with a precise entry and a reason to be there. Probability tells you where. The sweep tells you when. The entry model tells you how. Remove any one of the three and you do not have an edge. You have a trade. How many of these boxes do you tick before you pull the trigger?
1:01

A+ NQ setup has exactly three parts. 1. Statistical bias: Probability Map shows 75%+ to one side. Not an opinion. Backtested across 10 years of NQ session data. That number narrows the playing field before price moves an inch. 2. The sweep: Liquidity is resting in the opposite direction. When price grabs it, that is not a fake-out. That is the fuel for the real move. You were expecting it. You were watching for it. 3. The entry model: After the sweep, the structure confirms. iFVG / CISD. A defined ICT concept with clear invalidation. Not a hope, not a gut feel. A model with a precise entry and a reason to be there. Probability tells you where. The sweep tells you when. The entry model tells you how. Remove any one of the three and you do not have an edge. You have a trade. How many of these boxes do you tick before you pull the trigger?

Herman Trading

20,079 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

UC Berkeley just open-sourced FreeToken. (2–4x faster local LLM inference than Ollama) the results are wild: - Qwen3.6-35B on an 8GB GPU at 39.3 tokens/s - DeepSeek-V4-Flash 284B on a 32GB GPU at 22 tokens/s - GLM-5.2 753B on a 96GB GPU at 14.9 tokens/s a 35B model at 16-bit precision needs about 70GB just for its weights. even at 4 bits it is close to 18GB, and FreeToken serves it on an 8GB GPU. let me explain how: all three models mentioned above are Mixture-of-Experts, and that is what FreeToken takes advantage of. each layer holds hundreds of separate experts plus a small router that picks a few of them per token. Qwen3.6-35B activates roughly 3B of its 35B parameters per token. DeepSeek-V4-Flash picks 6 of 256 experts per layer, so 13B of its 284B run at a time. so compute was never the bottleneck. the weights a single step touches fit comfortably on a consumer GPU. every expert the router might pick still has to exist somewhere. they sit in system RAM, and the GPU keeps a cache of the ones the model has been using recently. so everything comes down to what happens when the router picks an expert that is not on the GPU. there are two ways to serve that miss: 1. copy it over PCIe and run it on the GPU 2. run it on the CPU, where it already lives both read from the same system memory, so they compete for one pool of bandwidth instead of adding to each other. existing engines pick one option and freeze it when the model loads. but routing changes on every token, so a fixed choice misses most of what the model asks for. FreeToken measures both bandwidths on your machine and splits each step's misses between the two paths in proportion. the GPU and CPU results then merge exactly, with no approximation. two machines with the same GPU can end up wanting opposite strategies, which I did not expect. a 5090 in a gaming desktop should push nearly everything over PCIe, while an 8GB laptop is better off computing most misses on the CPU. none of that is readable off a spec sheet, so the engine profiles it once per machine. the second half of the design is about agents. coding agents constantly rewrite their own history, and every edit normally forces thousands of tokens back through prefill. FreeToken saves its checkpoints at the exact boundaries agent frameworks cut on, so it only reprocesses the new part. its slowest first token stays under 44 seconds, while llama.cpp peaks at 232 and KTransformers at 946. it serves the OpenAI and Anthropic APIs under Apache 2.0, so Claude Code and Codex can point at it directly. releasing weights publicly decides who can download a model, not who can afford to run one. frontier open models keep shipping, and running them still assumes a rented cluster. meanwhile there are over a hundred million consumer machines with discrete GPUs sitting mostly idle. closing that gap was never a hardware problem, and work like this is what turns open weights into something you can actually use. paper: repo: almost every idea in this post, from why memory bandwidth decides the outcome to why moving weights costs more than computing on them, comes straight out of how a GPU is built. I wrote a detailed primer on that. the article is quoted below.
0:42

UC Berkeley just open-sourced FreeToken. (2–4x faster local LLM inference than Ollama) the results are wild: - Qwen3.6-35B on an 8GB GPU at 39.3 tokens/s - DeepSeek-V4-Flash 284B on a 32GB GPU at 22 tokens/s - GLM-5.2 753B on a 96GB GPU at 14.9 tokens/s a 35B model at 16-bit precision needs about 70GB just for its weights. even at 4 bits it is close to 18GB, and FreeToken serves it on an 8GB GPU. let me explain how: all three models mentioned above are Mixture-of-Experts, and that is what FreeToken takes advantage of. each layer holds hundreds of separate experts plus a small router that picks a few of them per token. Qwen3.6-35B activates roughly 3B of its 35B parameters per token. DeepSeek-V4-Flash picks 6 of 256 experts per layer, so 13B of its 284B run at a time. so compute was never the bottleneck. the weights a single step touches fit comfortably on a consumer GPU. every expert the router might pick still has to exist somewhere. they sit in system RAM, and the GPU keeps a cache of the ones the model has been using recently. so everything comes down to what happens when the router picks an expert that is not on the GPU. there are two ways to serve that miss: 1. copy it over PCIe and run it on the GPU 2. run it on the CPU, where it already lives both read from the same system memory, so they compete for one pool of bandwidth instead of adding to each other. existing engines pick one option and freeze it when the model loads. but routing changes on every token, so a fixed choice misses most of what the model asks for. FreeToken measures both bandwidths on your machine and splits each step's misses between the two paths in proportion. the GPU and CPU results then merge exactly, with no approximation. two machines with the same GPU can end up wanting opposite strategies, which I did not expect. a 5090 in a gaming desktop should push nearly everything over PCIe, while an 8GB laptop is better off computing most misses on the CPU. none of that is readable off a spec sheet, so the engine profiles it once per machine. the second half of the design is about agents. coding agents constantly rewrite their own history, and every edit normally forces thousands of tokens back through prefill. FreeToken saves its checkpoints at the exact boundaries agent frameworks cut on, so it only reprocesses the new part. its slowest first token stays under 44 seconds, while llama.cpp peaks at 232 and KTransformers at 946. it serves the OpenAI and Anthropic APIs under Apache 2.0, so Claude Code and Codex can point at it directly. releasing weights publicly decides who can download a model, not who can afford to run one. frontier open models keep shipping, and running them still assumes a rented cluster. meanwhile there are over a hundred million consumer machines with discrete GPUs sitting mostly idle. closing that gap was never a hardware problem, and work like this is what turns open weights into something you can actually use. paper: repo: almost every idea in this post, from why memory bandwidth decides the outcome to why moving weights costs more than computing on them, comes straight out of how a GPU is built. I wrote a detailed primer on that. the article is quoted below.

Akshay 🚀

343,270 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Mark Zuckerberg is explaining one of the most misunderstood dynamics in AI and it has direct investment implications (Save this). The concept he's describing is model distillation, and it's one of the most important techniques to emerge in AI over the past year. Here's how it works. You train a massive, enormously expensive model, in Meta's case, Llama 4 Behemoth, a 2 trillion parameter teacher model and then you use that model to teach a much smaller, cheaper model. The smaller model inherits roughly 90 to 95% of the intelligence of the giant while running at 10% of the cost and on a fraction of the compute. Meta already did this with the Llama 4 family and Behemoth serves as the teacher. Llama 4 Scout and Maverick, the publicly released open-source models were distilled from it. Scout runs on a single H100 GPU with a 10 million token context window and outperforms models that cost far more to operate. Maverick, at 17 billion active parameters, rivals DeepSeek V3 in coding at half the parameter count and beats GPT-4o on multimodal benchmarks. Both are completely free for commercial use. What Zuckerberg is pointing at is a structural shift in how AI gets deployed in the real world. Companies aren't taking a frontier model off the shelf and running it as-is but rather taking open-source models, fine-tuning them on their own proprietary data, distilling them into even smaller custom models tailored to their specific use case, and running them on infrastructure they control at a fraction of the cost of a closed frontier API. The investment implication of this is significant and runs in two directions. For Meta specifically, this is a strategic masterstroke. Every company that builds on Llama, fine-tunes it, distills it, or deploys it through their infrastructure is pulling into Meta's orbit while Meta builds the most powerful open teacher model. The ecosystem of companies using it grows and that ecosystem generates commercial activity across Meta's platforms and data services. Meta's AI research benefits from billions of real world deployment signals and it's a flywheel that closed model providers cannot replicate because their strategy requires charging per token, which is now a 65x cost disadvantage against the open-source alternative. For the broader market, distillation changes the economics of inference in a way that has barely been priced in. As intelligence becomes extractable into smaller and cheaper models, the absolute demand for compute doesn't decline but rather it explodes, because now the number of applications that are economically viable expands by orders of magnitude. Every task that was previously too expensive to automate at $3.25 per call becomes viable at $0.05 that means more total token usage, more total GPU utilization, and more demand for the infrastructure companies, the Nebiuses, the GE Vernovas, the Constellation Energies that supply the underlying compute and power.
1:05

Mark Zuckerberg is explaining one of the most misunderstood dynamics in AI and it has direct investment implications (Save this). The concept he's describing is model distillation, and it's one of the most important techniques to emerge in AI over the past year. Here's how it works. You train a massive, enormously expensive model, in Meta's case, Llama 4 Behemoth, a 2 trillion parameter teacher model and then you use that model to teach a much smaller, cheaper model. The smaller model inherits roughly 90 to 95% of the intelligence of the giant while running at 10% of the cost and on a fraction of the compute. Meta already did this with the Llama 4 family and Behemoth serves as the teacher. Llama 4 Scout and Maverick, the publicly released open-source models were distilled from it. Scout runs on a single H100 GPU with a 10 million token context window and outperforms models that cost far more to operate. Maverick, at 17 billion active parameters, rivals DeepSeek V3 in coding at half the parameter count and beats GPT-4o on multimodal benchmarks. Both are completely free for commercial use. What Zuckerberg is pointing at is a structural shift in how AI gets deployed in the real world. Companies aren't taking a frontier model off the shelf and running it as-is but rather taking open-source models, fine-tuning them on their own proprietary data, distilling them into even smaller custom models tailored to their specific use case, and running them on infrastructure they control at a fraction of the cost of a closed frontier API. The investment implication of this is significant and runs in two directions. For Meta specifically, this is a strategic masterstroke. Every company that builds on Llama, fine-tunes it, distills it, or deploys it through their infrastructure is pulling into Meta's orbit while Meta builds the most powerful open teacher model. The ecosystem of companies using it grows and that ecosystem generates commercial activity across Meta's platforms and data services. Meta's AI research benefits from billions of real world deployment signals and it's a flywheel that closed model providers cannot replicate because their strategy requires charging per token, which is now a 65x cost disadvantage against the open-source alternative. For the broader market, distillation changes the economics of inference in a way that has barely been priced in. As intelligence becomes extractable into smaller and cheaper models, the absolute demand for compute doesn't decline but rather it explodes, because now the number of applications that are economically viable expands by orders of magnitude. Every task that was previously too expensive to automate at $3.25 per call becomes viable at $0.05 that means more total token usage, more total GPU utilization, and more demand for the infrastructure companies, the Nebiuses, the GE Vernovas, the Constellation Energies that supply the underlying compute and power.

Milk Road AI

27,908 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

America is about to lose the AI race, and it will not happen at the frontier. It will happen at the floor. Everyone is watching who ships the smartest model. The actual war is over the 80% of tokens nobody posts about: the routine inference that quietly runs the world. On current trajectory, that fight is already lost. Watch what people do, not what they say. Coinbase just defaulted its own engineers off frontier models onto open weights and cut AI spend nearly in half while usage kept climbing. Even NVIDIA runs a closed frontier model as an orchestrator and pushes the volume to its own open weights. The frontier is becoming a router. The volume goes open. That part is settled. Here is the part that should terrify Washington: the only credible open tier today is Chinese. GLM. Kimi. And the US answer is to tighten export controls and freeze its own labs in place, as if you can embargo a file that is already downloaded, or price-match free. So China hands the Global South Huawei hardware and free open models, and a generation in Africa and Southeast Asia learns to reason through a model that will not tell them what happened at Tiananmen Square. That is not a cost story. That is influence through inference. You do not have to win hearts and minds when you supply the mind. Open source is not a nice-to-have for America. It is the whole ballgame for the 80%, and right now the US is barely on the field. We need American open weights. Not eventually. Now.
0:47

America is about to lose the AI race, and it will not happen at the frontier. It will happen at the floor. Everyone is watching who ships the smartest model. The actual war is over the 80% of tokens nobody posts about: the routine inference that quietly runs the world. On current trajectory, that fight is already lost. Watch what people do, not what they say. Coinbase just defaulted its own engineers off frontier models onto open weights and cut AI spend nearly in half while usage kept climbing. Even NVIDIA runs a closed frontier model as an orchestrator and pushes the volume to its own open weights. The frontier is becoming a router. The volume goes open. That part is settled. Here is the part that should terrify Washington: the only credible open tier today is Chinese. GLM. Kimi. And the US answer is to tighten export controls and freeze its own labs in place, as if you can embargo a file that is already downloaded, or price-match free. So China hands the Global South Huawei hardware and free open models, and a generation in Africa and Southeast Asia learns to reason through a model that will not tell them what happened at Tiananmen Square. That is not a cost story. That is influence through inference. You do not have to win hearts and minds when you supply the mind. Open source is not a nice-to-have for America. It is the whole ballgame for the 80%, and right now the US is barely on the field. We need American open weights. Not eventually. Now.

Ben Pouladian

71,722 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce