321Andrew

Kimi K3 just turned one prompt into a playable Spider-Man-style game inside a browser. Not a static demo. You can swing between cyberpunk buildings, move through the city and actually interact with the world like a rough game prototype. A few months ago, AI coding demos meant generating a landing page with gradients. Now the same interface is producing 3D physics, environments, character movement and gameplay loops without opening Unity. The game is obviously not finished, but that misses the point. Kimi removed the part where you spend days building the first ugly prototype just to see whether the idea works. AI models are no longer helping people write games. They are starting to generate the first playable version before the developer has even created the project folder.

@BraShopping It's cool that we live in such a time

Kimi K3 just turned a prompt into a playable cyberpunk game running inside a browser. Not another landing page with three glowing cards. An actual 3D city with a title screen, explorable streets, vehicles, characters and enough gameplay to make the usual “AI can only build prototypes” argument look slightly uncomfortable. The impressive part is not that every mechanic is polished. It clearly is not replacing a real game studio from one prompt, despite what the thumbnails will claim by tomorrow morning. The impressive part is how much of the starting work disappeared. No manually building the environment, wiring the first interactions or spending three days creating something barely playable before the real development begins. Kimi can now take a vague idea and push it far enough that you are testing the world instead of staring at an empty project folder. That is a very different kind of coding assistant. We spent years paying separate subscriptions for code, research, design and agents. Kimi K3 seems determined to turn all of them into one box that occasionally decides to build Cyberpunk in your browser.

@irinatoxi AT 14??? Kids these days are prodigies

A 14-year-old just made the kind of Blender shot grown adults still call “too advanced.” The distorted face, metallic skin, particles, reflections and cinematic lighting are not coming from some secret Hollywood pipeline. It is one teenager learning the software while everyone else keeps saving tutorials they will never open. And the barrier is getting lower. Claude connected through Blender MCP can inspect the open scene, modify objects and write Python tools directly against Blender’s API. That does not mean one prompt creates this exact render. It means the boring technical wall is collapsing, while taste and repetition remain the only parts nobody can download. A 14-year-old has already started. You are not waiting for better tools. You are waiting to feel ready.

@pulmencr This is simply incredible

Thousands of falling water droplets just formed a running, boxing 3D human in mid-air The system translates motion capture data from a real athlete into timing commands for 2,048 overhead water valves, firing individual droplets millisecond by millisecond No green screen, no CGI, no digital fluid simulations Just a massive physical liquid printer and synchronized strobe lights freezing real water frame by frame The part that actually breaks your brain is that this isn't a digital trick. Every single drop is obeying real-world gravity in physical space Most studios would spend months simulating this exact shot in Houdini This team just built the physics in real life

Claude can apparently do everything now. Someone gave it one flat image of a tiny floating island. Claude connected to Blender through MCP and rebuilt the scene as an actual 3D model. Not a generated screenshot. Not a fake video. Claude is controlling Blender, creating the geometry and assembling the scene inside the software. A year ago it was writing emails. Now it builds apps, runs workflows, handles support, creates websites and apparently does 3D production when it gets bored. At this point, the question is no longer what Claude can do. It is what software we have not connected it to yet.

A $3/month AI workflow is now doing the work of a $1,200/month support agent. It handles 200+ tickets around the clock and, according to the creator, resolves roughly 70% correctly on the first attempt. That means around 140 customer problems disappear before a human even opens the inbox. The remaining 30% still need judgment, refunds and the usual customer-service archaeology. So no, AI did not completely replace support. It replaced most of the queue, which is considerably more useful than another chatbot pretending to understand an angry customer. The expensive product is not the model. It is the workflow that knows what to answer, what to check and when to quietly hand the mess back to a human.

Claude built this landing page in under an hour. She says it generated 300 signups and helped make more than $40,000. No agency. No designer. No month-long funnel project. She gave Claude the offer, audience and product details, then told it to make the page convert. The page itself is almost boring: clear promise, obvious audience and one action to take. Apparently that still works better than adding twelve gradients and calling it “premium UX.” Claude didn’t create the business. It compressed the expensive execution layer from weeks into one afternoon.

Five markdown files just replaced the part of a branding team that costs $10,000 and takes six weeks. Normally you hire a strategist, copywriter and designer, spend thousands, then receive a brand guide nobody opens after Tuesday. This workflow gives Claude Code your voice, visual rules, positioning, audience and content system once. Every page, email and post is generated from the same operating system instead of another random prompt. Claude still cannot invent good taste from nothing. But once the taste is documented, it can reproduce it across an entire business without forgetting the brand every new chat. The next expensive AI product is not another app. It is five boring files that make Claude work like the team you could not afford.

@LyckyOus this is also worth noting

@an321d lowkey experience matters, he had 14 apps already, that's the real edge

A guy vibe-coded an app in one weekend and says it reached $200,000 in revenue five days later. Then he spent the next 80 seconds explaining why you probably won’t do the same. He had already built 14 apps. AI made the product faster, but it did not find customers, convince them to pay or magically turn one social media post into distribution. That is the part most “build a $100K SaaS this weekend” videos quietly delete. Coding became cheap. Getting attention and selling something people want remained annoyingly human. You can build the app in two days. Building the person capable of turning it into a business may still take five years.

@Piefena hahaha, nice video

A 23-year-old in Texas made $8,421 from a gun-range woman who has never touched a rifle. He created her with AI, spent roughly $240 on generation tools, then charged $9.99 for access to her private content. Within a month, 843 men subscribed. The clever part was the character. While thousands of creators were generating identical gym influencers, he built an attractive sharpshooter who posted from firing ranges, cleaned rifles and acted like every shot was completely normal. The contrast did most of the marketing. A pretty woman holding a sniper rifle was unusual enough to stop the scroll, while the slightly provocative endings made people replay each video to see what they had missed. He posted the clips on TikTok and Instagram first. Once the account started growing, he redirected the most curious viewers to Fanvue, where the content became considerably less focused on firearms. The entire system took 31 days to build and recovered its initial cost during the second week.

@asymetx Exactly

@an321d The real product is the operating system

A guy claims his AI agents made $16,000 in 60 days while he did almost nothing. Not with some revolutionary startup. They were running three Etsy stores. Claude Opus acts as the manager. It delegates the cheap work to smaller agents that research products, create designs, write listings and publish everything without waiting for a human to approve every step. The interesting part is not the Etsy money. It is that he did not build one AI product. He built a workflow that repeatedly finds products, creates them and puts them in front of buyers. Most people are still asking Claude to generate one logo or write one description. This system gives Claude workers, a manager and a business to operate. The creator’s revenue claim is not independently verified, and “almost nothing” probably contains a generous definition of nothing. But the direction is obvious: the next $10,000 AI product may just be a workflow that keeps doing profitable work after the prompt is finished.

A website agency would charge you $10,000 for this. Claude Code can now assemble it from three existing resources before the agency finishes preparing the invoice. Claude handles the build. Framer Motion adds the transitions and hover effects. UI/UX Pro Max teaches it the typography, spacing and design rules that stop the result from looking suspiciously AI-generated. Then 21st dev gives Claude a library of finished hero sections, navigation bars, 3D elements and scroll animations. You choose what you want, and it assembles the site almost like Lego. This does not magically give Claude taste. Someone still has to stop it from placing twelve animations on a landing page for an accounting firm. But the expensive part used to be building every interaction from scratch. Now the real skill is creating a workflow that consistently turns a rough brief into something clients believe costs $10,000.

@reizzlla The Golden Rule

@an321d Sell first, build later. That’s the cheat code

Someone just compressed a $0 to $1M AI business plan into 40 seconds. The smartest part: he builds almost nothing until a customer agrees to pay. Claude Code creates the company, landing page and waitlist. Then the workflow finds leads, writes the cold sales script, books the call and only after the first deal does Claude build the automation the client actually requested. Most people do the exact opposite. They spend three months building an AI SaaS nobody asked for, add a purple gradient, then launch it to 14 bots and their mother. This approach sells the expensive problem first and generates the product around the buyer. The client does not care which model wrote the code. They care that a painful process disappeared without hiring three more employees. That is why the next $10,000 AI product probably will not be another app. It will be a repeatable workflow Claude can build, run and verify while one person sells the outcome to a different business every week. One person with Claude now looks suspiciously like a small agency. Unfortunately, Claude still cannot make the sales call less awkward.

@sonicdr1p I want as many people as possible to understand this

@an321d This is the direction that actually works. One solid workflow with self-checking beats throwing bigger prompts at a single chat.

A guy gave Claude one instruction: Make me as much money as possible. Thirty days later, he claims his revenue had tripled. But Claude didn’t discover some secret business model. He upgraded it with four systems that attack weak ideas, verify its own work, manage context and run multiple agents at the same time. Now Claude doesn’t just answer questions. It researches opportunities, rejects bad concepts, builds the product, checks the output and decides what to do next. This is why the next $10,000 AI product probably won’t be another app with a chat box. It will be a workflow that turns one vague business goal into 50 completed decisions while you are still deciding what prompt to write.