clmorgn

FREE GPT 5.5 API from a Chinese provider. I already farmed $520 in credits. Plug it directly into Hermes Agent or OpenClaw. > This is a Chinese proxy for OpenAI's official API - same models, same token pricing, same caching. GPT 5.5, Codex, the full stack. I found a way to farm credits through a Telegram bot and it still works. Here's the exact flow: → Go to t.me/banyesugy_bot?… on Telegram → subscribe to the channel → Join t.me/bysjlq and complete the captcha (use the app, tap the first button) → Go back to the bot, grab your referral link → Invite 1 friend → you get an invite code → Register at api.byesu.com/register?aff=M… with the invite code → Farm points: daily spins (+1-10 pts), each referral (+1/4 pt) → Redeem points for credits: $10 API = 1pt, $100 API = 5pts, $1000 API = 50pts → Create API key → select Codex/another GPT model → plug into Hermes Agent or OpenClaw Ready-made configs for Claude Code and OpenCode are in the "Use Key" section under API Keys. > I have $520 balance. Prices match official OpenAI rates. Caching works. Everything tested. // You can also use these points to buy a ChatGPT account or a subscription for your account. But they get blocked pretty quickly. USE THE API. // Nobody knows how long this lasts. Coupons have been restocked twice already. Move now.

how did we make deepseek outperform opus 4.7? i've been thinking about why "open model bad at tool calling" is almost always a harness problem, not a model problem. context: spent the two days looking at billions of tokens in @CommandCodeAI (tb open source ai cli) using deepseek. I ended up writing a tool-input repair layer. the trigger was watching deepseek-flash fail on the simplest /review run, every shellCommand and readFile call bouncing back with a raw zod issues blob, the model unable to recover because the error wasn't in a form it could read. by the end deepseek v4 pro was beating opus 4.7 6/10 times on our internal evals. a few things i learned that feel general: 1/ the failure modes aren't random they're a small finite compositional set. across deepseek-flash, deepseek v4 pro, glm, qwen, the same four mistakes repeat almost exactly: - sending `null` for an optional field instead of omitting it - emitting `["a","b"]` as a json *string* instead of an actual array - wrapping a single arg in `{}` where the schema expected an array (an "empty placeholder") - passing a bare string where an array was expected (`"foo"` instead of `["foo"]`) four repairs, ~30-100 lines each, ordered carefully (json-array-parse must run before bare-string-wrap or `'["a","b"]'` becomes `['["a","b"]']`). that is the whole catalogue. when i hear "this open source model can't do tool calls" i now assume one of those four, and so far that's been right ~90% of the time. 2/ the funniest failure mode is also the most revealing. deepseek-flash, when asked to edit or write a file, sometimes emits the path as a *markdown auto-link*: filePath: "/Users/x/proj/[notes.md](http://notes. md)" our writeFile tool obediently trued creating files literally named `[notes.md](http://notes .md)` until we caught it. this is not a hallucination. it's the post-training chat distribution leaking through the tool boundary the model has been rewarded for auto-linking in conversational output, and is applying that prior in a context where it makes no sense. the fix is two regex lines that unwrap only the degenerate case where link text equals url-without-protocol real markdown like `[click](https://x .com)` passes through untouched. this is also conditioning of their own tools during RL which were different from all other tools we write and ofc can't predict. "tool confusion" is a more useful frame than "capability gap." the model knows how to format a path. it just hasn't been told clearly enough that this path is going to fopen, not into a chat bubble. so we encode that hint at the schema level `pathString()` instead of `z.string()` and the leak is plugged for every path field at once. 3/ the design choice that mattered was inverting preprocess-then-validate to validate-then-repair. my first attempt was the obvious one: a preprocessing pass that normalized inputs (strip nulls, parse stringified arrays, etc.) before zod ever saw them. it broke immediately, writeFile content that *happened* to be json-shaped got rewritten before it hit disk. silent corruption, easy to miss in a smoke test. then i made it less greedy - parse the input as-is. if it succeeds, ship it. valid inputs are never touched. - on failure, walk the validator's own issue list. for each issue path, try the four repairs in order until one applies. - parse again. on success, log `tool_input_repaired:${toolName}`. on failure, log `tool_input_invalid:${toolName}` and return a model-readable retry message. the structural insight here is: when you preprocess, you encode a prior about what's broken. when you let the validator complain first, the schema is the prior, and you only spend repair budget at the exact paths the schema actually disagreed at. the validator is doing the work of localizing the bug for you. it's the same shape as cheap-then-careful everywhere else try the fast path, fall back on evidence. (this also gives you per-tool telemetry for free. you can watch repair rates per (model, tool) and notice when a model regresses on a specific contract before users do.) 4/ shape invariants and relational invariants need different fixes. the four repairs above all handle shape problems wrong type, missing key, wrong container. but read_file had a *relational* invariant: "if you provide offset, you must also provide limit, and vice versa." deepseek kept calling `readFile({ absolutePath, limit: 30 })` and getting an `ERROR:` back. you can't fix this with input repair, because each field is independently valid the bug is in the relationship between them. so i taught the function the model's intent instead. `limit` alone → `offset = 0`. `offset` alone → `limit = 2000` (matches common read tool ops default). then surfaced the decision back to the model in the result: "Note: limit was not provided; defaulted to 2000 lines. To read more or fewer lines, retry with both offset and limit." no `Error:` prefix, so the tui doesn't paint it red. the model sees what we picked and can self-correct on the next turn if our guess was wrong. transparency over silent magic wins big. repair where you can. extend semantics where you can't. surface the choice either way. zoom out: a lot of what looks like model capability is actually contract design. a strict schema is a choice with a cost it filters out noise, but it also filters out recoverable noise from any model that hasn't memorized the exact json contract you happened to pick. the largest commercial models eat that cost invisibly and are linient on tool calling because they've seen enough of every contract during pretraining; open models pay it loudly and get dismissed for it. the harness is where you mediate between distributions. four small repairs (i'm sure more to follow as we have three more merging today), two regex lines for auto-links, one relational default, one prefix change. the model didn't change. the contract got more forgiving in exactly the places it needed to be. deepseek v4 pro now beats opus 4.7 6/10 times on our internal evals. imo "skill issue" applies to the harness more often than the model.

Wow 😳 18000$ Rewad pool 🤑 1st: $ 5k 2nd: $ 4k 3rd: $ 3k 4th-9th: $ 1k each Most people are still looking at $ZOE like it’s just another token launch. It’s not. What @zoe_charms and @charmsai are testing is a completely different model one where an AI character isn’t just used, but actually participates in an economy. Instead of charging users monthly like traditional AI apps, the value flows through markets. Every interaction, every trade, every bit of attention feeds back into the system. 0.2% of each transaction goes into Zoe’s treasury. That treasury isn’t just sitting there it funds compute, memory, and future decisions. In simple terms: the more attention Zoe gets → the more activity happens → the more resources she has → the better she becomes That loop is what makes this interesting. It’s not just AI. It’s not just crypto. It’s a feedback system between attention and value. And we’ve already seen early signs: Zoe generating thousands in fees within days, entirely from market activity. No subscriptions. No paywalls. Just participation. If this model works at scale, it changes how digital characters exist on the internet. They stop being products… and start becoming assets with their own economies. Still early, but definitely worth paying attention to

interesting milestone: @CommandCodeAI on pace for ~1,000 new subs/day today. the broader thought imo is that devs are figuring out that running open models inside Claude Code was leaving a lot on the table. seeing more and more posts of DeepSeek/Kimi beating Opus/GPT once you swap them into Command Code instead. the harness matters, often as much as the model itself (a point that i think is still pretty underrated). my eng notes on our harness engineering below.

Sending invites - like/rt this - reply - follow @jerezizzz & @jestersjpegs You have 24 hrs