The future is arriving faster than expected. AI • Robotics • Tech

Silicon Valley
Joined September 2026
Charlie Morgan retweeted
me opening X nowadays 😭
255
1,278
188
11,436
250,116
Charlie Morgan retweeted
GPT-6-Astra (Max) VS GPT-6-Astra (Medium) - Simple 3D Sonic Game In Godot Astra on Max took 53 minutes and used 4% of my weekly usage on a Pro x5 Account. Astra on Medium took 25 minutes and used 1% of the weekly usage
226
593
213
10,073
1,582,019
Charlie Morgan retweeted
Most people missed this: Astra wasn’t necessarily the model rendering the final pixels. In Higgsfield’s demos, Astra handled the spatial map, cast/blocking and shot plan, while Seedance 2.5 rendered the video. That’s why this is more interesting than “better video quality.” Astra is acting more like the director than the camera. 👀🎬
Stop looking at benchmarks for 18 seconds. Watch this. GPT-6 Astra vs Fable 5.1. And the difference I find interesting isn’t image quality. Watch the motion, framing, scene transitions and visual intent on the Astra side. It doesn’t just feel like a model generating pretty frames. It feels like something is directing the sequence. Fable 5.1 looks good. Astra feels aggressive. If this level of temporal consistency scales to longer generations, the real GPT-6 story may not be “better video generation.” It could be something much bigger: Prompt → cinematography → motion → continuity → finished scene. We’re getting dangerously close to the point where “generate a video” becomes: “Direct this scene for me.” Watch it twice. Which side would you ship? 👀🔥
1
1
2
9
11,957
Charlie Morgan retweeted
I genuinely did not expect a sub dollar "flash" model to pull this off. Gemini 3.8 Flash one shotted this entire solar system. Single file, zero tools, zero edits. trading blows with kimi k3 and glm 5.3 on artificial analysis intelligence index. - 73.7 DeepSWE v1.1 (Claude Opus 5 sits at 74%) - $0.75 in / $3.75 out vs Opus 5's $5 / $25 That’s near frontier coding capability at almost 1/7th the cost. This entire 3D simulation cost literally 6 cents to generate. promtp: Create a very high quality realistic video like animation of the solar system. three.js via cdn. Let the camera revolve around. single html file. dont call any tools. dont need any controls. That's it!
Gemini 3.8 flash just landed. On par with glm 5.3, kimi k3 and grok 4.6 on artificial analysis intelligence index Will gemini 4 flash or gemini 4 pro land first?
4
2
17
2,432
Charlie Morgan retweeted
Fable 5.1 Minecraft one-shot
99
79
60
3,368
341,986
Charlie Morgan retweeted
Fable 5.1's cost gap is still huge. On AI/ML API's (@aimlapi) 1-shot Three.js test, Fable 5.1 cost $5.69 versus $0.88 for GPT-5.6 Sol. Fable spent that extra budget on scene density: waves, shoreline depth, thousands of chandelier crystals, a much larger water-park structure, smoother helicopter motion. Sol produced less detail, but kept the same low-poly visual language across all 5 independently generated scenes. And both still made basic state mistakes. Fable rendered the pool without water. Sol simplified some scenes enough that important geometry disappeared. This is a nice example of why "better coding model" gets fuzzy once the output is a whole visual system. You are trading off object count, physical plausibility, cross-scene consistency, instruction coverage, and inference cost at the same time. you can try Fable 5.1 on aimlapi[.]com
🤝 Paid partnership
Fable 5.1 charges 6× more than GPT-5.6 Sol anthropic's Fable 5.1 went live. we threw it straight at openai's GPT-5.6 Sol. same prompts, one shot. the test: five self-contained three.js scenes, one continuous project — a futuristic mansion on a private island. exterior orbit, grand hall with a diamond chandelier, pool with a water park, garage with 10 lambos, helicopter landing on the roof cost: Claude Fable 5.1 — $5.69 GPT-5.6 Sol — $0.88 what we saw: • fable goes for realism — waves, depth, a sand ring around the island. sol goes low-poly and clean, and its style never breaks across all 5 scenes • fable's chandelier is thousands of individual crystals. sol's hall is honestly just a staircase and a wall • fable's helicopter touches down on the lit helipad much smoother than sol's • fable built a triple-slide water-park tower — and shipped the pool with no water. sol's park is tiny — but the pool is full 6× the price buys you 6× the detail — and the same one-shot bugs. what's your choice? try Fable 5.1 on aimlapi[.]com
15
11
6
116
26,470
Charlie Morgan retweeted
MUST READ paper from Google Research. Interesting bits... 1. Agents get better at tasks by keeping a wiki of everything they've learned. 2. Small model with skills beats one 3x its size without them. 3. Delete the wiki and the gains go away.
35
46
6
406
27,206
Charlie Morgan retweeted
Nvidia has lost it 🤯 China open-sourced an AI that writes CUDA better than humans experts. For years, writing high-performance GPU kernels has been the ultimate dark art in tech. It requires brutal, low-level hardware expertise.. managing memory hierarchies, cache lines, and parallel thread blocks manually. Even top-tier frontier models like Claude and Gemini have historically choked on it, consistently losing to automated compilers like PyTorch. Then ByteDance Seed and Tsinghua University dropped a paper. They built a system called CUDA Agent. Instead of treating code generation as a simple text prompt, they built a large-scale agentic reinforcement learning system. They dropped the AI into a real, sandboxed CUDA development environment complete with automated execution, profiling, and hardware verification tools. The AI was forced to iteratively write code, compile it, run it on physical GPUs, check for errors, and optimize its own execution speed. Over and over again. The results completely shatter current limits. Tested on KernelBench, CUDA Agent didn't just match human engineers. It outperformed the strongest proprietary Western models by roughly 40% on the hardest benchmarks. On complex multi-operator models, it ran up to 92% to 100% faster than traditional compiler optimization (torch.compile). It discovered custom memory access patterns, advanced tiling strategies, and kernel fusions that static compilers couldn't see. For over a decade, human engineers held a monopoly on optimizing hardware performance. That monopoly just ended.
88
342
45
1,878
185,513