正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

When using GPT-5.5, it is instantly noticeable how much more powerful it is. In Codex, I gave it a very complex prompt to create London Toy Railway with landmarks and seasons - it did an excellent job in one shot. In the second half of the video you see...

petergostev's profile picture

Peter Gostev

24,154 subscribers

263,046 次观看 • 5 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

艺术教育科学技术
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

Hello GPT-5.5! Our best model yet is here. It’s smarter, faster, and gets more done. I had the chance to capture first reactions from developers building with it: it writes better code, understands more complex tasks, and keeps going. Can’t wait to see what you build with it!
1:27

Hello GPT-5.5! Our best model yet is here. It’s smarter, faster, and gets more done. I had the chance to capture first reactions from developers building with it: it writes better code, understands more complex tasks, and keeps going. Can’t wait to see what you build with it!

Romain Huet

16,275 次观看 • 5 个月前

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

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

Chris

250,919 次观看 • 3 个月前

This is actually cool - I tried the same prompt for the new Interactive Playwright skill in Codex & GPT-5.4 xHigh - the one above is with the skill and the one below is without. What the skill does is uses the computer use capability of GPT-5.4 to look and navigate the UI. This never worked for me before, but with GPT-5.4 this is the first time I can actually see a massive difference. You can see how the first scene is much more coherent, higher fidelity and complete. The one below is missing a lot of elements and isn't as rich in detail. I'll keep using it for any UI work now.
0:32

This is actually cool - I tried the same prompt for the new Interactive Playwright skill in Codex & GPT-5.4 xHigh - the one above is with the skill and the one below is without. What the skill does is uses the computer use capability of GPT-5.4 to look and navigate the UI. This never worked for me before, but with GPT-5.4 this is the first time I can actually see a massive difference. You can see how the first scene is much more coherent, higher fidelity and complete. The one below is missing a lot of elements and isn't as rich in detail. I'll keep using it for any UI work now.

Peter Gostev (SF 24-28 August)

257,389 次观看 • 6 个月前

Introducing GPT-5.5 A new class of intelligence for real work and powering agents, built to understand complex goals, use tools, check its work, and carry more tasks through to completion. It marks a new way of getting computer work done. Now available in ChatGPT and Codex.
0:55

Introducing GPT-5.5 A new class of intelligence for real work and powering agents, built to understand complex goals, use tools, check its work, and carry more tasks through to completion. It marks a new way of getting computer work done. Now available in ChatGPT and Codex.

OpenAI

13,225,686 次观看 • 5 个月前

this is now a much more accurate representation of the space and it still holds that GPT-5.4 is a bit more explorative it's now based on kamada–kawai layout instead of the default spring layout, and there are much more nodes and edges than before (still need to optimize it tho) but it's not close to all nodes or edges in the neighborhood, still only a tiny fraction the fuzzball is very dense
0:41

this is now a much more accurate representation of the space and it still holds that GPT-5.4 is a bit more explorative it's now based on kamada–kawai layout instead of the default spring layout, and there are much more nodes and edges than before (still need to optimize it tho) but it's not close to all nodes or edges in the neighborhood, still only a tiny fraction the fuzzball is very dense

Lisan al Gaib

19,040 次观看 • 6 个月前

Databricks is excited to partner with OpenAI on GPT-5.5, their latest frontier model. GPT-5.5 will be available in Unity AI Gateway on launch. You can use it with coding tools such as Codex, or to power your enterprise agents. GPT-5.5 is state-of-the-art on many benchmarks including OfficeQA Pro, our benchmark for evaluating grounded reasoning on enterprise tasks. We are partnering with OpenAI to co-launch on Databricks. Hear more from our co-founder Patrick Wendell and OpenAI CRO Denise Holland Dresser on GPT-5.5 in Databricks.
1:53

Databricks is excited to partner with OpenAI on GPT-5.5, their latest frontier model. GPT-5.5 will be available in Unity AI Gateway on launch. You can use it with coding tools such as Codex, or to power your enterprise agents. GPT-5.5 is state-of-the-art on many benchmarks including OfficeQA Pro, our benchmark for evaluating grounded reasoning on enterprise tasks. We are partnering with OpenAI to co-launch on Databricks. Hear more from our co-founder Patrick Wendell and OpenAI CRO Denise Holland Dresser on GPT-5.5 in Databricks.

Databricks

12,917 次观看 • 5 个月前

GPT-5.6 Pro is insane. It didn’t just beat Claude 5, Fable and Mythos. It crushed them. One prompt, just 5 minutes. And voila: A full low-poly Three.js island game with water, beach bar, boat, shark, fish, whales, sports area, NPCs and Ibiza vibes This is getting ridiculous. That is what I would write if I was not honest with you. That is what I would post if I only wanted a viral clickbait tweet. And this is exactly why you should always be careful with what you read on social media, especially on X. There is no GPT-5.6 yet. This prototype was made with GPT-5.5, in 6 iterations, after more than 40 minutes of back-and-forth with Codex. Yes, it started with one prompt, and I will share that prompt below. But the final result came from many corrections, adjustments, fixes, visual tweaks, Three.js issues, camera changes, object placement improvements, and a lot of manual direction. That is the real workflow. I share build in public content here to show what you can actually do with AI, but also to show that there is no magic dust. AI is powerful. Very powerful. But the difference between a cool demo and a real usable prototype is still iteration, feedback, taste, debugging, and direction. Yes, I am also waiting for GPT-5.6. It will probably arrive next week, and when it does, we will test it here properly, in public, with real prompts, real iterations, and real results.
0:22

GPT-5.6 Pro is insane. It didn’t just beat Claude 5, Fable and Mythos. It crushed them. One prompt, just 5 minutes. And voila: A full low-poly Three.js island game with water, beach bar, boat, shark, fish, whales, sports area, NPCs and Ibiza vibes This is getting ridiculous. That is what I would write if I was not honest with you. That is what I would post if I only wanted a viral clickbait tweet. And this is exactly why you should always be careful with what you read on social media, especially on X. There is no GPT-5.6 yet. This prototype was made with GPT-5.5, in 6 iterations, after more than 40 minutes of back-and-forth with Codex. Yes, it started with one prompt, and I will share that prompt below. But the final result came from many corrections, adjustments, fixes, visual tweaks, Three.js issues, camera changes, object placement improvements, and a lot of manual direction. That is the real workflow. I share build in public content here to show what you can actually do with AI, but also to show that there is no magic dust. AI is powerful. Very powerful. But the difference between a cool demo and a real usable prototype is still iteration, feedback, taste, debugging, and direction. Yes, I am also waiting for GPT-5.6. It will probably arrive next week, and when it does, we will test it here properly, in public, with real prompts, real iterations, and real results.

Givros

62,031 次观看 • 3 个月前

I just compared Claude Code vs Codex vs Cursor CLI The task was to build a Next.js app with Tailwind 4 and shadcn components to collect customer feedback and showcase it with a widget. I gave all three the same prompt and let them go for 30 minutes to see what they came up with. Claude Code with Opus 4.1 Even though I told it to set up the app in the existing project folder, it tried to create a directory for it. After I interrupted and told it not to do that, it built a demo form and landing page with no errors. I had to ask it to make the demo interactive so users could submit a testimonial and preview it. The landing page looked like AI and was pretty basic, but it worked and it was done in a fraction of the time of the others. Total tokens used: 33k Codex with GPT-5 At the end of the 30 minutes I just could not get Codex to produce a working app. It got stuck in a loop of not being able to set up Tailwind 4 and despite many, MANY, attempts, I ended up with a "failed to compile" error. Total tokens used: 102k Cursor Agent with GPT-5 This was the slowest agent by far and a couple of times I actually thought it got stuck in a loop and was close to Ctrl+C'ing to cancel it. The TUI is really nice though, especially how it shows diffs and it did eventually build a working app (after one or two slight errors that needed fixing) The demo was interactive and it had a very minimal design that looked bare but also a lot less like an "AI generated" app than the Opus 4.1 design. It also wasn't too chatty and just did what it needed to do! Code quality was on a par with Opus 4.1, but it did use 5.5x as many tokens to get there. Still cheaper than Opus on a direct comparison but not when you factor in a Claude Code Max subscription. Total tokens: 188k I'll be able to do a proper comparison and record some videos when I'm back from holiday but for now, Opus is still the more capable model out of the box and Claude Code is the more complete CLI product. It will be interesting to see how Cursor evolve their CLI though with commands and subagents because I think with GPT-5 they have a real shot at providing competition for Claude Code if they can optimise output to get similar quality with less tokens. Jump to 0:40 in the video to see the two apps. Which do you think is which? ;)
1:18

I just compared Claude Code vs Codex vs Cursor CLI The task was to build a Next.js app with Tailwind 4 and shadcn components to collect customer feedback and showcase it with a widget. I gave all three the same prompt and let them go for 30 minutes to see what they came up with. Claude Code with Opus 4.1 Even though I told it to set up the app in the existing project folder, it tried to create a directory for it. After I interrupted and told it not to do that, it built a demo form and landing page with no errors. I had to ask it to make the demo interactive so users could submit a testimonial and preview it. The landing page looked like AI and was pretty basic, but it worked and it was done in a fraction of the time of the others. Total tokens used: 33k Codex with GPT-5 At the end of the 30 minutes I just could not get Codex to produce a working app. It got stuck in a loop of not being able to set up Tailwind 4 and despite many, MANY, attempts, I ended up with a "failed to compile" error. Total tokens used: 102k Cursor Agent with GPT-5 This was the slowest agent by far and a couple of times I actually thought it got stuck in a loop and was close to Ctrl+C'ing to cancel it. The TUI is really nice though, especially how it shows diffs and it did eventually build a working app (after one or two slight errors that needed fixing) The demo was interactive and it had a very minimal design that looked bare but also a lot less like an "AI generated" app than the Opus 4.1 design. It also wasn't too chatty and just did what it needed to do! Code quality was on a par with Opus 4.1, but it did use 5.5x as many tokens to get there. Still cheaper than Opus on a direct comparison but not when you factor in a Claude Code Max subscription. Total tokens: 188k I'll be able to do a proper comparison and record some videos when I'm back from holiday but for now, Opus is still the more capable model out of the box and Claude Code is the more complete CLI product. It will be interesting to see how Cursor evolve their CLI though with commands and subagents because I think with GPT-5 they have a real shot at providing competition for Claude Code if they can optimise output to get similar quality with less tokens. Jump to 0:40 in the video to see the two apps. Which do you think is which? ;)

Ian Nuttall

195,173 次观看 • 1 年前

Codex is unusable. I generated one image with GPT Image 2.0, gave it to Codex, and used one simple prompt: “Create me a web game from this image.” You give it a simple image like this, and suddenly you realize you can build: • a voxel map • an editor • tile animations • a playable browser prototype This is getting ridiculous.
0:28

Codex is unusable. I generated one image with GPT Image 2.0, gave it to Codex, and used one simple prompt: “Create me a web game from this image.” You give it a simple image like this, and suddenly you realize you can build: • a voxel map • an editor • tile animations • a playable browser prototype This is getting ridiculous.

Givros

83,376 次观看 • 4 个月前

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

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

Ethan Mollick

188,387 次观看 • 6 个月前

BREAKING: GPT-5.6 Sol is out—AND Codex has been merged into ChatGPT Desktop as ChatGPT Codex. This combo model and desktop app harness are the gold-standard for knowledge work in AI. 5.6 is powerful, fast, half the price of Fable, and my default for almost everything. We’ve been testing it internally Every 📧 for about a month across coding, writing, design, and knowledge work. Here’s our day-zero vibe check: - An A-tier coder—but it’s not Fable. Sol scored 56/100 on our Senior Engineer benchmark compared to a 91 for Fable. I think the 56/100 undersells it, it's an excellent implementor, and very smart. But Fable just writes conceptually cleaner code and works better at the top end of task complexity. PRO-TIP: Use GPT-5.6 as Fable's subagent for the most goated combo in AI coding. - The best writer of the frontier models. It’s clearer and more concise than Fable or Opus 4.8, without the overexplaining or weird private language. It can one-shot marketing emails, help you workshop taglines, and explain complex concepts clearly. It's also super fast, which makes it easy to collaborate with. - Design is better, but not top-tier. It has noticeably more taste than 5.5, but Fable and Opus 4.8 are still playing at a different level. See examples in the video and vibe check below. - The real leap is knowledge work. Sol is the first model I’ve trusted to run whole loops of knowledge work—not just help with individual tasks. I use it to process email, surface decisions from meetings and Slack, find job candidates, scan Facebook Marketplace for furniture, and log my meals. It has shifted my job from doing the work to tending the system that does it. - The merged app is fine. I was extremely worried about this because I love the Codex app. OpenAI was caught in an interesting position: How to make an agent orchestration app for regular ChatGPT consumers, coders, and businesses all in one app. They now split the interface between ChatGPT Work and ChatGPT Codex. They're basically the same except Work hides code. And "Chat" has been demoted to 2nd tier status for quick questions in either one. It's not a big leap, but it's not a huge setback either. And it remains my favorite of the desktop agent orchestration apps. Verdict: If I really had to put my finger on it, I'd say Fable has way more big model smell. But that means it's a skill in itself to get value out of it—99% of people are still not there yet. GPT-5.6 is almost as powerful, but is easy to use, fast, and relatively cheap. It should give you an early sense of where model work is going. Full Every 📧 Vibe Check:
13:34

BREAKING: GPT-5.6 Sol is out—AND Codex has been merged into ChatGPT Desktop as ChatGPT Codex. This combo model and desktop app harness are the gold-standard for knowledge work in AI. 5.6 is powerful, fast, half the price of Fable, and my default for almost everything. We’ve been testing it internally Every 📧 for about a month across coding, writing, design, and knowledge work. Here’s our day-zero vibe check: - An A-tier coder—but it’s not Fable. Sol scored 56/100 on our Senior Engineer benchmark compared to a 91 for Fable. I think the 56/100 undersells it, it's an excellent implementor, and very smart. But Fable just writes conceptually cleaner code and works better at the top end of task complexity. PRO-TIP: Use GPT-5.6 as Fable's subagent for the most goated combo in AI coding. - The best writer of the frontier models. It’s clearer and more concise than Fable or Opus 4.8, without the overexplaining or weird private language. It can one-shot marketing emails, help you workshop taglines, and explain complex concepts clearly. It's also super fast, which makes it easy to collaborate with. - Design is better, but not top-tier. It has noticeably more taste than 5.5, but Fable and Opus 4.8 are still playing at a different level. See examples in the video and vibe check below. - The real leap is knowledge work. Sol is the first model I’ve trusted to run whole loops of knowledge work—not just help with individual tasks. I use it to process email, surface decisions from meetings and Slack, find job candidates, scan Facebook Marketplace for furniture, and log my meals. It has shifted my job from doing the work to tending the system that does it. - The merged app is fine. I was extremely worried about this because I love the Codex app. OpenAI was caught in an interesting position: How to make an agent orchestration app for regular ChatGPT consumers, coders, and businesses all in one app. They now split the interface between ChatGPT Work and ChatGPT Codex. They're basically the same except Work hides code. And "Chat" has been demoted to 2nd tier status for quick questions in either one. It's not a big leap, but it's not a huge setback either. And it remains my favorite of the desktop agent orchestration apps. Verdict: If I really had to put my finger on it, I'd say Fable has way more big model smell. But that means it's a skill in itself to get value out of it—99% of people are still not there yet. GPT-5.6 is almost as powerful, but is easy to use, fast, and relatively cheap. It should give you an early sense of where model work is going. Full Every 📧 Vibe Check:

Dan Shipper

146,163 次观看 • 2 个月前

Possibly GPT-5.6 being tested inside ChatGPT... I made this Three.js explorable space ship using ChatGPT with 5.5 Pro. The lighting is easily my favorite part, second the doors. And if you’ve ever played Star Citizen, you’ll probably notice the ship interior has a similar kind of layout and atmosphere. ( in very basic sense) It makes me wonder: If I gave the model a much more detailed prompt, with proper references, layout notes, materials, lighting direction, and gameplay goals… How much better could it get? Should I push the prompt further?
0:43

Possibly GPT-5.6 being tested inside ChatGPT... I made this Three.js explorable space ship using ChatGPT with 5.5 Pro. The lighting is easily my favorite part, second the doors. And if you’ve ever played Star Citizen, you’ll probably notice the ship interior has a similar kind of layout and atmosphere. ( in very basic sense) It makes me wonder: If I gave the model a much more detailed prompt, with proper references, layout notes, materials, lighting direction, and gameplay goals… How much better could it get? Should I push the prompt further?

Conor Dart

24,970 次观看 • 3 个月前

I tried this so you don't have to. I know this is going to absolutely shock you but no this does not match the performance of Mythos. A few early thoughts: 1. The limits are pretty bad. I used 100% of my 5-hour usage in less than 1 prompt. 2. I specifically gave it a threejs task because it is an area that SOTA models have made big strides in, that other models just are not great at. I asked it to build a replica of Rocket League. I'll put the prompt in the comments. The game was pretty bad and notably worse than GPT 5.5. Even after multiple fixes, it took 7-8 back and forth with Codex just to get it an almost playable condition. Prior to these fixes, the game was not playable. Maybe it's really strong in other disciplines. I'd love to test that but I hit my limit in 1 prompt lol. GPT 5.5 by contrast did a pretty good job and required no follow ups. Fable would have absolutely nailed this as well. But yeah, early impressions...not great. But I hope I'm wrong. More testing tomorrow.
0:29

I tried this so you don't have to. I know this is going to absolutely shock you but no this does not match the performance of Mythos. A few early thoughts: 1. The limits are pretty bad. I used 100% of my 5-hour usage in less than 1 prompt. 2. I specifically gave it a threejs task because it is an area that SOTA models have made big strides in, that other models just are not great at. I asked it to build a replica of Rocket League. I'll put the prompt in the comments. The game was pretty bad and notably worse than GPT 5.5. Even after multiple fixes, it took 7-8 back and forth with Codex just to get it an almost playable condition. Prior to these fixes, the game was not playable. Maybe it's really strong in other disciplines. I'd love to test that but I hit my limit in 1 prompt lol. GPT 5.5 by contrast did a pretty good job and required no follow ups. Fable would have absolutely nailed this as well. But yeah, early impressions...not great. But I hope I'm wrong. More testing tomorrow.

am.will

594,106 次观看 • 3 个月前

The value produced by models is getting so much better so fast that old hardware is actually getting *more* expensive to rent. 3 years ago, the best model you could run on a H100 chip was GPT-4. Now, you can run GPT-5.4 on it, which is smaller and cheaper to run while producing much more valuable tokens. w. Dylan Patel
3:46

The value produced by models is getting so much better so fast that old hardware is actually getting *more* expensive to rent. 3 years ago, the best model you could run on a H100 chip was GPT-4. Now, you can run GPT-5.4 on it, which is smaller and cheaper to run while producing much more valuable tokens. w. Dylan Patel

Dwarkesh Patel

78,277 次观看 • 6 个月前

Claude Code with Sonnet 4.5 is actually incredible I gave it a prompt for a super complex app, and it one shot the entire thing In this video I walk you through how to use Claude Code to build a prompt library app you can start using immediately (no coding experience required):
19:42

Claude Code with Sonnet 4.5 is actually incredible I gave it a prompt for a super complex app, and it one shot the entire thing In this video I walk you through how to use Claude Code to build a prompt library app you can start using immediately (no coding experience required):

Alex Finn

40,955 次观看 • 11 个月前

Introducing Cognee v1.0: a major breakthrough in agentic intelligence. It is 145% better than Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 at long context memory retrieval. Cognee allows a 100 BILLION token context window 100,000x more than Claude. It's: - 6.9x cheaper than GPT 5.5 and Opus 4.8 - Cold starts in 350ms & searches in 260ms Why this matters: Today agents forget important context, redo tasks, waste tokens, and slow down as workflows get more complex. Cognee solves this. It’s not a place to build agents. It connects to the agents you’ve already built, across any platform, and makes them significantly cheaper, faster, and more accurate. Here's how it works:
3:01

Introducing Cognee v1.0: a major breakthrough in agentic intelligence. It is 145% better than Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 at long context memory retrieval. Cognee allows a 100 BILLION token context window 100,000x more than Claude. It's: - 6.9x cheaper than GPT 5.5 and Opus 4.8 - Cold starts in 350ms & searches in 260ms Why this matters: Today agents forget important context, redo tasks, waste tokens, and slow down as workflows get more complex. Cognee solves this. It’s not a place to build agents. It connects to the agents you’ve already built, across any platform, and makes them significantly cheaper, faster, and more accurate. Here's how it works:

Vasilije

848,683 次观看 • 2 个月前

I had early access, and a longer post is coming, but GPT-6 is stunning & is good enough that it actually does complex meaningful work for me autonomously for days. As a more fun example, it made a historically-based simulation of the Library of Alexandria:
0:48

I had early access, and a longer post is coming, but GPT-6 is stunning & is good enough that it actually does complex meaningful work for me autonomously for days. As a more fun example, it made a historically-based simulation of the Library of Alexandria:

Ethan Mollick

102,210 次观看 • 18 天前

Did my (very not scientific) F-Zero test for Anthropic's new Fable model. It didn't quite one shot below, I had to give a few more prompts like "give it more of a sense of speed." But still impressive! Quote tweeting what GPT 5.5 made from 2 months ago.
0:25

Did my (very not scientific) F-Zero test for Anthropic's new Fable model. It didn't quite one shot below, I had to give a few more prompts like "give it more of a sense of speed." But still impressive! Quote tweeting what GPT 5.5 made from 2 months ago.

Peter Yang

272,927 次观看 • 3 个月前

Sadhguru: Thinking of murder is far worse than actually committing the act "..you never committed the murder, but you did it in your mind a thousand times. That is a far deeper karma that affects your system much, much more. It poisons you much, much more. You planned and did it; that is a secondary level. But in a spur of the moment you did it, that's another level.
1:16

Sadhguru: Thinking of murder is far worse than actually committing the act "..you never committed the murder, but you did it in your mind a thousand times. That is a far deeper karma that affects your system much, much more. It poisons you much, much more. You planned and did it; that is a secondary level. But in a spur of the moment you did it, that's another level.

Tony Jacob | FindaClip.com

68,929 次观看 • 3 个月前