After running all these tests, here’s my advice: – For apps, websites, and complex coding projects → use Claude 4.5
– For general tasks, reasoning, and everyday use → use ChatGPT 5 Both are powerful, but each shines in different lanes. Which one are you going to be using?
MACHINE LEARNING
-
Claude 4.5 vs ChatGPT 5: Best Use Cases
By
–
-
Explaining Transformers: Simple to Complex
By
–
7. ELI5 → Expert Shift
— God of Prompt (@godofprompt) 1 octobre 2025
Prompt:
Explain how transformers work in AI:
• First for a 10-year-old
• Then for a PhD student in ML
→ Tests range, simplification, and technical clarity. pic.twitter.com/FR03amNkwU7. ELI5 → Expert Shift Prompt: Explain how transformers work in AI:
• First for a 10-year-old
• Then for a PhD student in ML → Tests range, simplification, and technical clarity. -

BAIR Researchers Win Best Student Paper at CoRL2025
By
–
Congratulations to BAIR Researchers from @trevordarrell @pabbeel @JitendraMalikCV @akanazawa labs who won the Best Student Paper award at the just concluded #CoRL2025 in Seoul, Korea for their paper "Visual Imitation Enables Contextual Humanoid Control." @arthurallshire
-
Constraints Drive Progress: AI’s Current Technical Bottlenecks
By
–
Part of why “wall/no wall” is not a useful distinction. Walls block progress, but they also concentrate effort in ways that can result in rapid improvement. See also progress on hallucinations. Current reverse salients: continual learning, pro-activity, effective memory…
-
Environmental Interaction Essential for Learning Complex Tasks
By
–
Which needed huge amounts of interaction with the environment — they weren’t just given the rules and told to think hard about it.
-

Arthur Mensch supports Periodic Labs AI scientist project
By
–
AI needs to be connected to the physical world, proud to be supporting ! William Fedus (@LiamFedus) Today, @ekindogus and I are excited to introduce @periodiclabs. Our goal is to create an AI scientist. Science works by conjecturing how the world might be, running experiments, and learning from the results. Intelligence is necessary, but not sufficient. New knowledge is created when ideas are found to be consistent with reality. And so, at Periodic, we are building AI scientists and the autonomous laboratories for them to operate. Until now, scientific AI advances have come from models trained on the internet. But despite its vastness — it’s still finite (estimates are ~10T text tokens where one English word may be 1-2 tokens). And in recent years the best frontier AI models have fully exhausted it. Researchers seek better use of this data, but as any scientist knows: though re-reading a textbook may give new insights, they eventually need to try their idea to see if it holds. Autonomous labs are central to our strategy. They provide huge amounts of high-quality data (each experiment can produce GBs of data!) that exists nowhere else. They generate valuable negative results which are seldom published. But most importantly, they give our AI scientists the tools to act. We’re starting in the physical sciences. Technological progress is limited by our ability to design the physical world. We’re starting here because experiments have high signal-to-noise and are (relatively) fast, physical simulations effectively model many systems, but more broadly, physics is a verifiable environment. AI has progressed fastest in domains with data and verifiable results – for example, in math and code. Here, nature is the RL environment. One of our goals is to discover superconductors that work at higher temperatures than today's materials. Significant advances could help us create next-generation transportation and build power grids with minimal losses. But this is just one example — if we can automate materials design, we have the potential to accelerate Moore’s Law, space travel, and nuclear fusion. We’re also working to deploy our solutions with industry. As an example, we're helping a semiconductor manufacturer that is facing issues with heat dissipation on their chips. We’re training custom agents for their engineers and researchers to make sense of their experimental data in order to iterate faster. Our founding team co-created ChatGPT, DeepMind’s GNoME, OpenAI’s Operator (now Agent), the neural attention mechanism, MatterGen; have scaled autonomous physics labs; and have contributed to some of the most important materials discoveries of the last decade. We’ve come together to scale up and reimagine how science is done. We’re fortunate to be backed by investors who share our vision, including @a16z who led our $300M round, as well as @Felicis, DST Global, NVentures (NVIDIA’s venture capital arm), @Accel and individuals including @JeffBezos , @eladgil , @ericschmidt, and @JeffDean. Their support will help us grow our team, scale our labs, and develop the first generation of AI scientists. — https://nitter.net/LiamFedus/status/1973055380193431965#m
→ View original post on X — @arthurmensch, 2025-09-30 19:26 UTC
-
EXL3 Quantization Development for AI Models
By
–
working on an exl3 quantization for it right now i am more excited for this though (quote tweet)
-
Terminal-Bench 2.0 Advances SOTA for Next-Gen AI Agents
By
–
We’re excited to contribute to Terminal-Bench 2.0, and help advance SOTA for evaluating next-gen AI agents. S/O: @Mike_A_Merrill @alexgshaw @terminal_bench @StanfordAILab @LaudeInstitute Read more:
-
Terminal-Bench: Evaluating AI Coding Assistants Performance
By
–
Why does Terminal-Bench matter?
AI coding assistants (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, & Devin) rely on command-line interfaces. The terminal represents a convergence of power, flexibility, & the text-based modality where language models excel—hence the need for robust evaluation. -
Advanced AI Agents Benchmark Performance Comparison
By
–
Terminal-Bench is challenging even for the most advanced agents: • OpenAI's Codex (gpt-5-codex): 42.8% verified score • Anthropic’s Claude Code (claude-sonnet-4-5): 50.0% per their release announcement • Leaderboard: