正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

We released physics-intern: a simple harness for science problems! It gets models like Gemini 3.1 Pro to go from 17.7 -> 31.4, thus beating GPT 5.5 Pro. The physics-intern harness can wrap any model and via dedicated subagent boost the performance of the vanilla reasoning models. While I think...

lvwerra's profile picture

Leandro von Werra

12,163 subscribers

97,181 次观看 • 2 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

健康养生科学技术
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

GPT-5.5 by Reasoning Effort: I've asked it in Codex to create a physics-based visualisation of RL cycles for different sized models (70b, 1t, 10t), to demonstrate how the amount of RL you can do differs by model size. My assessment of each: - Low: weird slop - Medium: kinda cooked - High: sort of tried but ultimately incoherent - Extra High: elite - really nice idea and well executed Obviously this is just one shot, but worth trying different reasoning levels for the new models, medium seems to be pretty good for GPT-5.5 and it was really bad for many previous GPT models.
0:15

GPT-5.5 by Reasoning Effort: I've asked it in Codex to create a physics-based visualisation of RL cycles for different sized models (70b, 1t, 10t), to demonstrate how the amount of RL you can do differs by model size. My assessment of each: - Low: weird slop - Medium: kinda cooked - High: sort of tried but ultimately incoherent - Extra High: elite - really nice idea and well executed Obviously this is just one shot, but worth trying different reasoning levels for the new models, medium seems to be pretty good for GPT-5.5 and it was really bad for many previous GPT models.

Peter Gostev (SF: 22-26 June)

209,258 次观看 • 2 个月前

BREAKING: Anthropic just dropped Opus 4.8—and it is a MONSTER We've been testing for about a week Every 📧 and our verdict is they could've just called it Opus 5, it's that good. Here's our vibe check: - Beats GPT-5.5 on Senior Engineer bench. On our toughest benchmark Opus 4.8 scores a 63—a hair higher than GPT-5.5's score of 62, and a full 30 points higher than Opus 4.7. It tackled a ground-up rewrite of a production codebase, and actually built something that works. HOWEVER: Coding performance varied a lot at different reasoning levels. We recommend using it on xhigh for best results. - Incredibly good writer. Opus 4.8 scored a 79.6 on our writing benchmark—measuring models on real-world writing tasks we do all of the time like essay writing, promo email writing, and more. It beats GPT-5.5 by 6 points. It produces well-written prose with fewer "AI-isms". It's also very good at writing in your voice given the right context. HOWEVER: Writing performance also varied with reasoning levels. Medium reasoning had higher incidence of AI-isms—we found best results with high. - Beast at knowledge work. Opus 4.8 is very good at general knowledge work tasks like report creation, research and more. It produced the best PowerPoint one-shot we've ever seen on our deck generation benchmark. - Emotionally intelligent, willing to question the frame. I've also found it to be quite good at talking through psychological or interpersonal issues. It has a high EQ, and it's also good at not glazing and helping to expand your perspective. Its thought process feels extremely rich and dynamic. THE BAD: These days a model is only as good as its harness, and Codex is still a far superior harness to the Claude Desktop app. This has kept me using Codex + GPT-5.5 as my daily driver, but I am flipping back and forth a lot more between Codex and Claude. Anthropic is back baby! Read the rest on Every 📧:
0:11

BREAKING: Anthropic just dropped Opus 4.8—and it is a MONSTER We've been testing for about a week Every 📧 and our verdict is they could've just called it Opus 5, it's that good. Here's our vibe check: - Beats GPT-5.5 on Senior Engineer bench. On our toughest benchmark Opus 4.8 scores a 63—a hair higher than GPT-5.5's score of 62, and a full 30 points higher than Opus 4.7. It tackled a ground-up rewrite of a production codebase, and actually built something that works. HOWEVER: Coding performance varied a lot at different reasoning levels. We recommend using it on xhigh for best results. - Incredibly good writer. Opus 4.8 scored a 79.6 on our writing benchmark—measuring models on real-world writing tasks we do all of the time like essay writing, promo email writing, and more. It beats GPT-5.5 by 6 points. It produces well-written prose with fewer "AI-isms". It's also very good at writing in your voice given the right context. HOWEVER: Writing performance also varied with reasoning levels. Medium reasoning had higher incidence of AI-isms—we found best results with high. - Beast at knowledge work. Opus 4.8 is very good at general knowledge work tasks like report creation, research and more. It produced the best PowerPoint one-shot we've ever seen on our deck generation benchmark. - Emotionally intelligent, willing to question the frame. I've also found it to be quite good at talking through psychological or interpersonal issues. It has a high EQ, and it's also good at not glazing and helping to expand your perspective. Its thought process feels extremely rich and dynamic. THE BAD: These days a model is only as good as its harness, and Codex is still a far superior harness to the Claude Desktop app. This has kept me using Codex + GPT-5.5 as my daily driver, but I am flipping back and forth a lot more between Codex and Claude. Anthropic is back baby! Read the rest on Every 📧:

Dan Shipper 📧

353,763 次观看 • 1 个月前

Don't train the model, evolve the harness. I read a brilliant blog post from Hugging Face where they took a frozen open model scoring 0% on a hard legal agent benchmark, left its weights alone, and let an automated loop rewrite only the code around it. That code layer is the harness, the runtime wrapper that feeds the model context, runs its tool calls, and decides when a run ends. By the time the loop finished, the system had essentially matched Sonnet 4.6 on the benchmark's headline metric, at roughly 7x lower cost per task. Zero weights changed. The gain existed because of where the model was failing. The judge only grades files saved in the right place under the exact requested filename, and the model kept doing the legal analysis correctly, then saving it under the wrong name, dropping it in a scratch folder, or never writing it at all. So the 0% was never measuring legal reasoning. It was measuring the harness. Hand-tuning that layer is slow and model-specific, so they automated it. A Claude proposer adds exactly one mechanism per iteration, and an outer loop keeps it only if it clearly beats the current best, so accepted mechanisms compound. What the loop discovered says a lot about where agents actually fail. → The biggest single gain was file handling, not intelligence. An automatic step that lands the deliverable exactly where the judge expects it beat every prompt change, with zero extra model tokens. → Code fixes transferred across models, prompt playbooks did not. The same harness lifted a smaller model from the same family by 14 points, but the tuned prompts hurt a different model family on tasks it could already finish. → The harness mattered more than anything else. Same model, same judge, same tasks, and five different harnesses scored anywhere between 3.5% and 80.1%. The gains do eventually flatten, and the remaining misses look like real capability gaps. At some point the wrapper runs out of tricks and the model has to carry the work. But the lesson holds. A benchmark score measures the model and its harness together, and until the harness is fixed, it's impossible to know which one failed. I highly recommend reading this: I also wrote a deep dive on agent harness engineering a while back, covering the orchestration loop, tools, memory, context management, and everything that turns a stateless LLM into a capable agent. The article is quoted below.
0:18

Don't train the model, evolve the harness. I read a brilliant blog post from Hugging Face where they took a frozen open model scoring 0% on a hard legal agent benchmark, left its weights alone, and let an automated loop rewrite only the code around it. That code layer is the harness, the runtime wrapper that feeds the model context, runs its tool calls, and decides when a run ends. By the time the loop finished, the system had essentially matched Sonnet 4.6 on the benchmark's headline metric, at roughly 7x lower cost per task. Zero weights changed. The gain existed because of where the model was failing. The judge only grades files saved in the right place under the exact requested filename, and the model kept doing the legal analysis correctly, then saving it under the wrong name, dropping it in a scratch folder, or never writing it at all. So the 0% was never measuring legal reasoning. It was measuring the harness. Hand-tuning that layer is slow and model-specific, so they automated it. A Claude proposer adds exactly one mechanism per iteration, and an outer loop keeps it only if it clearly beats the current best, so accepted mechanisms compound. What the loop discovered says a lot about where agents actually fail. → The biggest single gain was file handling, not intelligence. An automatic step that lands the deliverable exactly where the judge expects it beat every prompt change, with zero extra model tokens. → Code fixes transferred across models, prompt playbooks did not. The same harness lifted a smaller model from the same family by 14 points, but the tuned prompts hurt a different model family on tasks it could already finish. → The harness mattered more than anything else. Same model, same judge, same tasks, and five different harnesses scored anywhere between 3.5% and 80.1%. The gains do eventually flatten, and the remaining misses look like real capability gaps. At some point the wrapper runs out of tricks and the model has to carry the work. But the lesson holds. A benchmark score measures the model and its harness together, and until the harness is fixed, it's impossible to know which one failed. I highly recommend reading this: I also wrote a deep dive on agent harness engineering a while back, covering the orchestration loop, tools, memory, context management, and everything that turns a stateless LLM into a capable agent. The article is quoted below.

Akshay 🚀

243,774 次观看 • 21 天前

1/ Gemini 2.5 is here, and it’s our most intelligent AI model ever. Our first 2.5 model, Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental is a state-of-the-art thinking model, leading in a wide range of benchmarks – with impressive improvements in enhanced reasoning and coding and now #1 on Arena by a significant margin. With a model this intelligent, we wanted to get it to people as quickly as possible. Find it on Google AI Studio and in the Google Gemini for Gemini Advanced users now – and in Vertex in the coming weeks. This is the start of a new era of thinking models – and we can’t wait to see where things go from here.
0:14

1/ Gemini 2.5 is here, and it’s our most intelligent AI model ever. Our first 2.5 model, Gemini 2.5 Pro Experimental is a state-of-the-art thinking model, leading in a wide range of benchmarks – with impressive improvements in enhanced reasoning and coding and now #1 on Arena by a significant margin. With a model this intelligent, we wanted to get it to people as quickly as possible. Find it on Google AI Studio and in the Google Gemini for Gemini Advanced users now – and in Vertex in the coming weeks. This is the start of a new era of thinking models – and we can’t wait to see where things go from here.

Sundar Pichai

864,374 次观看 • 1 年前

GOOGLE 🔥: An upcoming Gemini Omni video model from Google is expected to be much more advanced in video editing, capable of completing tasks like removing watermarks, replacing objects in the video, and more. It is also likely that Google will release 2 versions of this model, including a Pro variant. And I assume what we see isn't Pro? Anime sample 👀
0:10

GOOGLE 🔥: An upcoming Gemini Omni video model from Google is expected to be much more advanced in video editing, capable of completing tasks like removing watermarks, replacing objects in the video, and more. It is also likely that Google will release 2 versions of this model, including a Pro variant. And I assume what we see isn't Pro? Anime sample 👀

🚨 AI News | TestingCatalog

179,313 次观看 • 2 个月前

Fable 5 totally crushed our new contest, but it cost 6x more than Opus 4.8! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: — A train derailing off a broken bridge into the water — Two cars jumping off ramps and colliding mid-air over a canyon — A monster truck crushing a row of parked cars Outputs: Fable 5: 62,158 tokens, $3.12 GPT 5.5: 37,753 tokens, $1.14 Opus 4.8: 22,280 tokens, $0.56 GLM 5.2: 36,246 tokens, $0.08 Fable 5 did all three scenes at A+. The crashes looked real, things fell and broke the right way, and nothing went through the ground or floated. GPT 5.5 was the closest to Fable. In the Bigfoot show, we think GPT was even a little better. GLM 5.2 did not win any scene, but it was the cheapest by far. Fable is the best pick for quality, but you pay more for it.
0:16

Fable 5 totally crushed our new contest, but it cost 6x more than Opus 4.8! We gave 4 models the same prompt: build three self-contained HTML5 canvas scenes with real physics demos Prompts: — A train derailing off a broken bridge into the water — Two cars jumping off ramps and colliding mid-air over a canyon — A monster truck crushing a row of parked cars Outputs: Fable 5: 62,158 tokens, $3.12 GPT 5.5: 37,753 tokens, $1.14 Opus 4.8: 22,280 tokens, $0.56 GLM 5.2: 36,246 tokens, $0.08 Fable 5 did all three scenes at A+. The crashes looked real, things fell and broke the right way, and nothing went through the ground or floated. GPT 5.5 was the closest to Fable. In the Bigfoot show, we think GPT was even a little better. GLM 5.2 did not win any scene, but it was the cheapest by far. Fable is the best pick for quality, but you pay more for it.

atomic.chat

2,834,552 次观看 • 23 天前

World Models are the path for some AI Models in the future. But how can we efficiently train these models to not only see the world the way humans do but to see the world in a new and unique way. By visualizing, what is normally sequenced audio patterns, we can derive much more insights. Here we see Paganini in a visual form that can than be described and transcribed into a World Model. We can observe connections in a manner that may not have been clear prior to the digitalization of music and sound in this way. The company with the most valuable potential in building a World Model is Tesla. Not that this type of visualization is being used, but that the mechanisms are in place, and the technology is in place for the company to thrive in this new form of AI.
0:19

World Models are the path for some AI Models in the future. But how can we efficiently train these models to not only see the world the way humans do but to see the world in a new and unique way. By visualizing, what is normally sequenced audio patterns, we can derive much more insights. Here we see Paganini in a visual form that can than be described and transcribed into a World Model. We can observe connections in a manner that may not have been clear prior to the digitalization of music and sound in this way. The company with the most valuable potential in building a World Model is Tesla. Not that this type of visualization is being used, but that the mechanisms are in place, and the technology is in place for the company to thrive in this new form of AI.

Brian Roemmele

57,454 次观看 • 8 个月前

subagents are just recursive agents where you can apply different prompts + models depending on the task. since they’re just a primitive, Cursor cli can actually spawn subagents by calling cursor-agent in headless mode via shell commands. that’s what makes the cli so nice. you can extend it, experiment, and have a lot of fun exploring orchestration patterns. here’s one way to do it w. dynamic model selection: 1. create a subagents.mdc rule 2. drop in: ``` --- alwaysApply: true --- ALWAYS spawn subagents by running `cursor-agent -p [task] --output-format=text --force --model [model]` in the terminal. Each subagent should return a summary of the changes it made. Subagents should be used for ALL tasks You can adopt a fan-out pattern where you spawn subagents to perform parallel isolated tasks, and then fan-in the results. Use the following models: - `--model gpt-5` for reasoning, researching, and planning - `--model sonnet-4` for implementation ``` 3. start cursor cli and try it out you can also adjust the rule to be more explicit when it should use subagents, when not to, which models when etc.
0:15

subagents are just recursive agents where you can apply different prompts + models depending on the task. since they’re just a primitive, Cursor cli can actually spawn subagents by calling cursor-agent in headless mode via shell commands. that’s what makes the cli so nice. you can extend it, experiment, and have a lot of fun exploring orchestration patterns. here’s one way to do it w. dynamic model selection: 1. create a subagents.mdc rule 2. drop in: ``` --- alwaysApply: true --- ALWAYS spawn subagents by running `cursor-agent -p [task] --output-format=text --force --model [model]` in the terminal. Each subagent should return a summary of the changes it made. Subagents should be used for ALL tasks You can adopt a fan-out pattern where you spawn subagents to perform parallel isolated tasks, and then fan-in the results. Use the following models: - `--model gpt-5` for reasoning, researching, and planning - `--model sonnet-4` for implementation ``` 3. start cursor cli and try it out you can also adjust the rule to be more explicit when it should use subagents, when not to, which models when etc.

eric zakariasson

57,554 次观看 • 11 个月前

Just tried Baidu’s new ERNIE X1.1 and wow… this is actually impressive 🤯 I’ve been testing it on complex coding problems and math reasoning tasks, and the jump from earlier models is night and day. What stood out to me: ▪️ Much stronger at factual accuracy and instruction following ▪️ Handles agent-like tasks, tool use, and multi-step reasoning smoothly ▪️ Far fewer hallucinations compared to other reasoning-heavy models ▪️ Solid performance across creative writing, Q&A, coding, and math Benchmarks put ERNIE X1.1 ahead of DeepSeek R1-0528 and on par with GPT-5 & Gemini 2.5 Pro. If you’re into AI or reasoning models, it's definitely worth checking out: This doesn’t feel like just another release — it feels like a new standard for reasoning AI.
0:11

Just tried Baidu’s new ERNIE X1.1 and wow… this is actually impressive 🤯 I’ve been testing it on complex coding problems and math reasoning tasks, and the jump from earlier models is night and day. What stood out to me: ▪️ Much stronger at factual accuracy and instruction following ▪️ Handles agent-like tasks, tool use, and multi-step reasoning smoothly ▪️ Far fewer hallucinations compared to other reasoning-heavy models ▪️ Solid performance across creative writing, Q&A, coding, and math Benchmarks put ERNIE X1.1 ahead of DeepSeek R1-0528 and on par with GPT-5 & Gemini 2.5 Pro. If you’re into AI or reasoning models, it's definitely worth checking out: This doesn’t feel like just another release — it feels like a new standard for reasoning AI.

Parul Gautam

68,406 次观看 • 10 个月前

AI Is Moving Beyond “Generating Videos” — Toward “Generating Worlds” Over the past two years, AI video models have advanced at an astonishing pace. From Runway and Pika to Sora and Veo, AI-generated videos have become increasingly realistic and more consistent with the physical laws of the real world. Many people believe the next objective is simply to generate videos that are longer, sharper, and more lifelike. But if we take a step back, we can see that the real transformation is not happening in video itself. It is happening in world models. What Is a World Model? In 1943, psychologist Kenneth Craik proposed an idea that would influence artificial intelligence research for decades. He argued that the human brain does not merely react to the outside world. Instead, it maintains an internal model of how the world works. Because we have this internal model, we can predict the outcome of an action before we actually take it. Before crossing a road, we estimate whether a car will pass by. Before catching a ball, we predict its trajectory. These abilities come from continuously simulating the world in our minds, rather than relying entirely on trial and error. This idea later became known by a more formal term: World Model. A world model does not describe a single image or a fixed video clip. It is an internal representation capable of continuously simulating the rules and dynamics of the real world. Why Is AI Research Turning Toward World Models? Because predicting “what comes next” is becoming increasingly central to how AI systems work. Language models predict the next token. Image models predict the next step in the denoising process. Video models predict the next frame. A world model, however, attempts to predict something broader: What should the world look like in the next moment? In 2018, David Ha and Jürgen Schmidhuber proposed in their paper World Models that an intelligent agent could first learn a model of the world, and then use that internal model to plan its actions. The Dreamer series later demonstrated that many complex tasks could be learned by training agents inside an “imagined world.” At the same time, the development of video models such as Sora and Veo led researchers to another realization: A model capable of continuously generating video has already learned, at least implicitly, many of the rules governing the real world. As a result, these two research directions have gradually begun to converge. But Video Is Not Yet a World This is where the distinction is often misunderstood. For a world model to support meaningful real-time interaction, it must solve several critical problems. Most video models today are essentially answering one question: What should the next frame look like? A true world model needs to answer much more: What happens if I take one step forward? If I walk behind a building and then return, will the building still be there? If I suddenly change the camera angle, will the entire space remain consistent? If I enter a command such as: “Summon a dragon.” Will the world respond immediately? In other words, a world model must do more than generate content. It must understand space. It must understand time. It must understand causality. And it must understand interaction. Moving from watching to participating is where the real difficulty of world models begins. World Models Are Entering the Interactive Era One of the latest attempts in this direction is Alaya World, recently open-sourced by Alaya World, or Alaya Lab. Instead of generating a fixed video clip, it generates a world that users can explore in real time. Users can begin with text, an image, or a video, enter the generated scene, move freely through it, and introduce new prompts at any moment during generation. The world responds immediately. According to the publicly released information, Alaya World provides: Real-time streaming generation at 720p and 24 FPS Stable continuous exploration for more than one minute The ability to switch prompts and trigger skills or events during generation Model weights and inference code released under the Apache 2.0 License Training code and datasets planned for future release What makes these capabilities important is not simply the technical specifications. It is that the generated “world” can now support continuous interaction. The official demo shows that users can genuinely control, transform, and explore the generated environment. AI Is Evolving From a Tool Into an Environment Over the past few years, most discussions around AI have focused on content generation. Generating text. Generating images. Generating videos. But world models raise a fundamentally different question: Can AI generate an environment that people can inhabit, explore, and continuously evolve? If the answer is yes, the impact will extend far beyond video generation. Game development, robotics training, embodied intelligence, digital twins, virtual production, and many other fields could be transformed by the development of world models. World models are still at a very early stage. Yet from Craik’s proposal of an internal mental model more than eighty years ago to the emergence of today’s interactive world-generation systems, a clear evolutionary path is beginning to take shape. Perhaps what AI is ultimately learning has never been limited to images, videos, or language. Perhaps it is learning the world itself. References GitHub: Technical Report:
0:10

AI Is Moving Beyond “Generating Videos” — Toward “Generating Worlds” Over the past two years, AI video models have advanced at an astonishing pace. From Runway and Pika to Sora and Veo, AI-generated videos have become increasingly realistic and more consistent with the physical laws of the real world. Many people believe the next objective is simply to generate videos that are longer, sharper, and more lifelike. But if we take a step back, we can see that the real transformation is not happening in video itself. It is happening in world models. What Is a World Model? In 1943, psychologist Kenneth Craik proposed an idea that would influence artificial intelligence research for decades. He argued that the human brain does not merely react to the outside world. Instead, it maintains an internal model of how the world works. Because we have this internal model, we can predict the outcome of an action before we actually take it. Before crossing a road, we estimate whether a car will pass by. Before catching a ball, we predict its trajectory. These abilities come from continuously simulating the world in our minds, rather than relying entirely on trial and error. This idea later became known by a more formal term: World Model. A world model does not describe a single image or a fixed video clip. It is an internal representation capable of continuously simulating the rules and dynamics of the real world. Why Is AI Research Turning Toward World Models? Because predicting “what comes next” is becoming increasingly central to how AI systems work. Language models predict the next token. Image models predict the next step in the denoising process. Video models predict the next frame. A world model, however, attempts to predict something broader: What should the world look like in the next moment? In 2018, David Ha and Jürgen Schmidhuber proposed in their paper World Models that an intelligent agent could first learn a model of the world, and then use that internal model to plan its actions. The Dreamer series later demonstrated that many complex tasks could be learned by training agents inside an “imagined world.” At the same time, the development of video models such as Sora and Veo led researchers to another realization: A model capable of continuously generating video has already learned, at least implicitly, many of the rules governing the real world. As a result, these two research directions have gradually begun to converge. But Video Is Not Yet a World This is where the distinction is often misunderstood. For a world model to support meaningful real-time interaction, it must solve several critical problems. Most video models today are essentially answering one question: What should the next frame look like? A true world model needs to answer much more: What happens if I take one step forward? If I walk behind a building and then return, will the building still be there? If I suddenly change the camera angle, will the entire space remain consistent? If I enter a command such as: “Summon a dragon.” Will the world respond immediately? In other words, a world model must do more than generate content. It must understand space. It must understand time. It must understand causality. And it must understand interaction. Moving from watching to participating is where the real difficulty of world models begins. World Models Are Entering the Interactive Era One of the latest attempts in this direction is Alaya World, recently open-sourced by Alaya World, or Alaya Lab. Instead of generating a fixed video clip, it generates a world that users can explore in real time. Users can begin with text, an image, or a video, enter the generated scene, move freely through it, and introduce new prompts at any moment during generation. The world responds immediately. According to the publicly released information, Alaya World provides: Real-time streaming generation at 720p and 24 FPS Stable continuous exploration for more than one minute The ability to switch prompts and trigger skills or events during generation Model weights and inference code released under the Apache 2.0 License Training code and datasets planned for future release What makes these capabilities important is not simply the technical specifications. It is that the generated “world” can now support continuous interaction. The official demo shows that users can genuinely control, transform, and explore the generated environment. AI Is Evolving From a Tool Into an Environment Over the past few years, most discussions around AI have focused on content generation. Generating text. Generating images. Generating videos. But world models raise a fundamentally different question: Can AI generate an environment that people can inhabit, explore, and continuously evolve? If the answer is yes, the impact will extend far beyond video generation. Game development, robotics training, embodied intelligence, digital twins, virtual production, and many other fields could be transformed by the development of world models. World models are still at a very early stage. Yet from Craik’s proposal of an internal mental model more than eighty years ago to the emergence of today’s interactive world-generation systems, a clear evolutionary path is beginning to take shape. Perhaps what AI is ultimately learning has never been limited to images, videos, or language. Perhaps it is learning the world itself. References GitHub: Technical Report:

雪踏乌云

112,114 次观看 • 8 天前

GPT-5.5 is MUCH more reliable on longer running tasks - for the first time with any model. As we speak I have a migration running for over 7+ hours - this literally never happened before, the models would maybe run for 30 mins or of you really shout at them for 2-3 hours. Last night I went to sleep, set a long running task, then queued up 10 prompts to 'keep it going'. It did not stop after the first prompt and kept going for 8+ hours and I woke up to all the same prompts still queued up. The ability to run for a long time, in combination with ability to validate with computer use & other tools, makes it much more useful for building real applications.
0:15

GPT-5.5 is MUCH more reliable on longer running tasks - for the first time with any model. As we speak I have a migration running for over 7+ hours - this literally never happened before, the models would maybe run for 30 mins or of you really shout at them for 2-3 hours. Last night I went to sleep, set a long running task, then queued up 10 prompts to 'keep it going'. It did not stop after the first prompt and kept going for 8+ hours and I woke up to all the same prompts still queued up. The ability to run for a long time, in combination with ability to validate with computer use & other tools, makes it much more useful for building real applications.

Peter Gostev

105,642 次观看 • 3 个月前

We are entering an extremely exciting era for open-weight models. Kimi K2.6 now feels like a top agentic model. I took it for a spin via Fireworks AI fast inference APIs. Kimi K2.6 has impressive agentic capabilities, design skills, and the ability to synthesize large amounts of information. I built a little Skill that produces survey papers on any AI research topic you want. (see example in the clip) You can use the skill to tell your agent to generate a survey on whatever topic and watch it go to work. The artifact was fully generated by Kimi.ai's Kimi K2.6. It's cheap and fast. Next step for me is to explore ways to continue integrating the capabilities of these models on use cases like automating my LLM knowledge bases and augmenting my agent memory capabilities. Stay tuned for more.
0:19

We are entering an extremely exciting era for open-weight models. Kimi K2.6 now feels like a top agentic model. I took it for a spin via Fireworks AI fast inference APIs. Kimi K2.6 has impressive agentic capabilities, design skills, and the ability to synthesize large amounts of information. I built a little Skill that produces survey papers on any AI research topic you want. (see example in the clip) You can use the skill to tell your agent to generate a survey on whatever topic and watch it go to work. The artifact was fully generated by Kimi.ai's Kimi K2.6. It's cheap and fast. Next step for me is to explore ways to continue integrating the capabilities of these models on use cases like automating my LLM knowledge bases and augmenting my agent memory capabilities. Stay tuned for more.

elvis

47,678 次观看 • 3 个月前

How much better are the internal, unreleased models at frontier labs like Google, OpenAI, and Anthropic? We got a glimpse exactly one year ago today, when Google accidentally leaked the “Kingfall” model "Kingfall" was likely an unreleased Gemini 2.5 Ultra-sized model. It was available in AI Studio for only a few minutes but remained accessible through the API for several days At the time, "Kingfall" appeared to be significantly better than Gemini 2.5 Pro at both code generation and creative writing In a recent interview, Sundar Pichai mentioned that Google could have made a better, Ultra-sized Gemini Omni model, but would have had trouble serving it The infrastructure required to serve Ultra-sized models at scale is likely why Google never publicly released models like “Kingfall”
0:11

How much better are the internal, unreleased models at frontier labs like Google, OpenAI, and Anthropic? We got a glimpse exactly one year ago today, when Google accidentally leaked the “Kingfall” model "Kingfall" was likely an unreleased Gemini 2.5 Ultra-sized model. It was available in AI Studio for only a few minutes but remained accessible through the API for several days At the time, "Kingfall" appeared to be significantly better than Gemini 2.5 Pro at both code generation and creative writing In a recent interview, Sundar Pichai mentioned that Google could have made a better, Ultra-sized Gemini Omni model, but would have had trouble serving it The infrastructure required to serve Ultra-sized models at scale is likely why Google never publicly released models like “Kingfall”

AiBattle

12,010 次观看 • 1 个月前

I topped up $5 on an API aggregator ToAPIs Then I found out GPT Image 2 costs only around $0.015 per image. If you do a lot of testing or batch-generate commercial AI images, that difference adds up fast. I think I just found the secret to generating more, testing more, and spending less. And it’s not just one model. With the same key, you can access 50+ models for image, video, and text, including GPT Image 2, Gemini Omni, Seedance 2.0, Kling AI 3.0, grok-video-1.5-preview, and more. Some models are priced up to 80% lower than official platforms. Just top up and test what you need: Made on ToAPIs with GPT Image 2 + Seedance 2.0
0:15

I topped up $5 on an API aggregator ToAPIs Then I found out GPT Image 2 costs only around $0.015 per image. If you do a lot of testing or batch-generate commercial AI images, that difference adds up fast. I think I just found the secret to generating more, testing more, and spending less. And it’s not just one model. With the same key, you can access 50+ models for image, video, and text, including GPT Image 2, Gemini Omni, Seedance 2.0, Kling AI 3.0, grok-video-1.5-preview, and more. Some models are priced up to 80% lower than official platforms. Just top up and test what you need: Made on ToAPIs with GPT Image 2 + Seedance 2.0

Shami

22,991 次观看 • 1 个月前

✨ I can now generate 3d assets for my drone sim at directly from Cursor (sponsor of #vibejam) I need buildings that you'd see in a war torn city, like warehouses in ruins, broken down abandoned houses, bombed out bridges etc. Nano Banana Pro or 2 can generate them really well and then you can put them in an image-to-3d model and you get a GLB or FBX That one you can then import into your Three.js game, the models might be big though, in my case like 16MB, so I ask it to compress it and make it more low poly so it loads fast ThreeJS then loads the individual GLBs on page load and puts them in my drone sim somewhere randomly, I think I should remove some of the grass and match the sandy color of the ruins though to make it fit in more
0:20

✨ I can now generate 3d assets for my drone sim at directly from Cursor (sponsor of #vibejam) I need buildings that you'd see in a war torn city, like warehouses in ruins, broken down abandoned houses, bombed out bridges etc. Nano Banana Pro or 2 can generate them really well and then you can put them in an image-to-3d model and you get a GLB or FBX That one you can then import into your Three.js game, the models might be big though, in my case like 16MB, so I ask it to compress it and make it more low poly so it loads fast ThreeJS then loads the individual GLBs on page load and puts them in my drone sim somewhere randomly, I think I should remove some of the grass and match the sandy color of the ruins though to make it fit in more

@levelsio

134,777 次观看 • 3 个月前

🚨Gemini 3.6 Flash is trash I tested it on a 3D Golden Gate Bridge, and the results were awful. • I had to re-prompt it three times because it repeatedly ignored the instructions. • First attempt, instead of creating the requested .html file, it first tried to build the experience inside the Gemini app using simulations. • Then second attempt it started placing images from the web into the chat rather than actually producing the file. • Even after getting it to complete the task, the final output was dramatically worse than Gemini 3.1 Pro, which is 5 months old and now not even a top 10 model on leaderboards. This feels like a regression from Gemini 3.5 Flash and honestly, it is one of the weakest models I have tested in the past few months. Has anyone else tested Gemini 3.6 Flash yet, and are you seeing the same thing?
0:15

🚨Gemini 3.6 Flash is trash I tested it on a 3D Golden Gate Bridge, and the results were awful. • I had to re-prompt it three times because it repeatedly ignored the instructions. • First attempt, instead of creating the requested .html file, it first tried to build the experience inside the Gemini app using simulations. • Then second attempt it started placing images from the web into the chat rather than actually producing the file. • Even after getting it to complete the task, the final output was dramatically worse than Gemini 3.1 Pro, which is 5 months old and now not even a top 10 model on leaderboards. This feels like a regression from Gemini 3.5 Flash and honestly, it is one of the weakest models I have tested in the past few months. Has anyone else tested Gemini 3.6 Flash yet, and are you seeing the same thing?

Lumina

70,810 次观看 • 3 天前

A viral paper "Language Model Represents Space and Time" recently claims that LLMs learn "world models". As much as I like Max Tegmark's works, I disagree with their definition of world model. World model is a core concept in AI agent and decision making. It is our mental simulation of how the world works given interventions (or lack thereof). A world model captures causality and intuitive physics, telling the agent what is likely and what is impossible. It can and should be used for counterfactual reasoning, i.e. "what ifs": what would happen if I knock over a cup of water? Where would I have been if I had not taken that bus? Yann LeCun Yann LeCun says it well in his position paper ( I quote: "Using such world models, animals can learn new skills with very few trials. They can predict the consequences of their actions, they can reason, plan, explore, and imagine new solutions to problems. Importantly, they can also avoid making dangerous mistakes when facing an unknown situation." The first use of the term World Model in deep policy learning is attributed to hardmaru & Jürgen Schmidhuber: In their seminal paper, an agent masters shooting skills in the popular game Doom (demo below) by learning in imagination, using an internal world model as a "physics simulator". To put in a simple Python math formula, world model learns a function F(s[0:t-1], a) -> s[t:], which takes as input the observed past and current action, and outputs plausible future states. Now the definition of World Model in Tegmark's paper seems to be about predicting GPS coordinates and time eras. I see this as just a classification task with no causal learning and simulation going on. You cannot make meaningful interventions against that model, nor can you optimize any decision making in a closed feedback loop. As for the "space & time neurons", I think they are most similar to the "sentiment neuron" that OpenAI published in 2017: Predicting GPS is conceptually no different from predicting sentiment in my opinion. I don't think their experimental results are wrong - just that their conclusion is on shaky grounds. I welcome any debate! Paper link:
0:15

A viral paper "Language Model Represents Space and Time" recently claims that LLMs learn "world models". As much as I like Max Tegmark's works, I disagree with their definition of world model. World model is a core concept in AI agent and decision making. It is our mental simulation of how the world works given interventions (or lack thereof). A world model captures causality and intuitive physics, telling the agent what is likely and what is impossible. It can and should be used for counterfactual reasoning, i.e. "what ifs": what would happen if I knock over a cup of water? Where would I have been if I had not taken that bus? Yann LeCun Yann LeCun says it well in his position paper ( I quote: "Using such world models, animals can learn new skills with very few trials. They can predict the consequences of their actions, they can reason, plan, explore, and imagine new solutions to problems. Importantly, they can also avoid making dangerous mistakes when facing an unknown situation." The first use of the term World Model in deep policy learning is attributed to hardmaru & Jürgen Schmidhuber: In their seminal paper, an agent masters shooting skills in the popular game Doom (demo below) by learning in imagination, using an internal world model as a "physics simulator". To put in a simple Python math formula, world model learns a function F(s[0:t-1], a) -> s[t:], which takes as input the observed past and current action, and outputs plausible future states. Now the definition of World Model in Tegmark's paper seems to be about predicting GPS coordinates and time eras. I see this as just a classification task with no causal learning and simulation going on. You cannot make meaningful interventions against that model, nor can you optimize any decision making in a closed feedback loop. As for the "space & time neurons", I think they are most similar to the "sentiment neuron" that OpenAI published in 2017: Predicting GPS is conceptually no different from predicting sentiment in my opinion. I don't think their experimental results are wrong - just that their conclusion is on shaky grounds. I welcome any debate! Paper link:

Jim Fan

594,014 次观看 • 2 年前

The concept of creating an exact digital replica of the physical world has always fascinated me: environments that look and behave exactly like our everyday reality, precisely captured in the digital domain. This is the essence of 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐬, simulated realities indistinguishable from our own. Generating these models is the core mission behind what we are building at SpAItial AI. True World Models must capture both photorealistic appearance and underlying physics, spatially-consistent across the environment. For static scenes, current models already deliver impressive results, unlocking downstream applications from gaming to 3D design. However, the true frontier lies in modeling dynamics, which will enable the training of AI agents whose learned behaviors can bridge the sim-to-real gap, thus unlocking countless real-world applications.
0:18

The concept of creating an exact digital replica of the physical world has always fascinated me: environments that look and behave exactly like our everyday reality, precisely captured in the digital domain. This is the essence of 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐬, simulated realities indistinguishable from our own. Generating these models is the core mission behind what we are building at SpAItial AI. True World Models must capture both photorealistic appearance and underlying physics, spatially-consistent across the environment. For static scenes, current models already deliver impressive results, unlocking downstream applications from gaming to 3D design. However, the true frontier lies in modeling dynamics, which will enable the training of AI agents whose learned behaviors can bridge the sim-to-real gap, thus unlocking countless real-world applications.

Matthias Niessner

21,586 次观看 • 4 个月前

Predicting the next word "only" is sufficient for language models to learn a large body of knowledge that enables then to code, answer questions, understand many topics, chat, and so on. This is clear to many researchers now, and there are nice tutorials on why this works by Ilya Sutskever resorting to compression ( ) and by Geoffrey Hinton ( ). However, the emergence of types of understanding is not unique to language models. In by Misha Denil and Brandon Amos the authors trained models to predict the next few time stems of over a hundred robot hand sensors (Touch, Gyro, Accelerometer, Joint Info, Actuator Info, etc.). They ten found out that they could regress the shape of the thing the hand was touching from the activations of the neural networks using probes. That is, the model developed an internal representation of shapes even though it was simply used to predict "only" the next few senses. Awareness follows from simple predictions and interaction with the world.
0:14

Predicting the next word "only" is sufficient for language models to learn a large body of knowledge that enables then to code, answer questions, understand many topics, chat, and so on. This is clear to many researchers now, and there are nice tutorials on why this works by Ilya Sutskever resorting to compression ( ) and by Geoffrey Hinton ( ). However, the emergence of types of understanding is not unique to language models. In by Misha Denil and Brandon Amos the authors trained models to predict the next few time stems of over a hundred robot hand sensors (Touch, Gyro, Accelerometer, Joint Info, Actuator Info, etc.). They ten found out that they could regress the shape of the thing the hand was touching from the activations of the neural networks using probes. That is, the model developed an internal representation of shapes even though it was simply used to predict "only" the next few senses. Awareness follows from simple predictions and interaction with the world.

Nando de Freitas

134,252 次观看 • 2 年前

2023 was the year of AI avatars 2024 was the year of AI photos 2025 was the year of AI videos And I think it's becoming clear now that 2026 will be the year of AI world models Fully interactive explorable 3d worlds generated from one or multiple 2d images or a prompt In turn these 2d images can then be generated by AI too So soon you can generate fully explorable virtual 3d worlds based on your own imagination Next will be figuring out how to make those worlds interactive This is World Labs (unaffiliated, but I like it) As always a lot of big AI model companies are now working on the same thing: 3d world models, only World Labs has a real properly working demo (for now) Very exciting time again!
0:18

2023 was the year of AI avatars 2024 was the year of AI photos 2025 was the year of AI videos And I think it's becoming clear now that 2026 will be the year of AI world models Fully interactive explorable 3d worlds generated from one or multiple 2d images or a prompt In turn these 2d images can then be generated by AI too So soon you can generate fully explorable virtual 3d worlds based on your own imagination Next will be figuring out how to make those worlds interactive This is World Labs (unaffiliated, but I like it) As always a lot of big AI model companies are now working on the same thing: 3d world models, only World Labs has a real properly working demo (for now) Very exciting time again!

@levelsio

584,228 次观看 • 10 个月前