J'ai testé Kimi 3.1 Pro : La fin de OPUS 5.5 ? Mon test !

J'ai testé Kimi 3.1 Pro : La fin de OPUS 5.5 ? Mon test !

I tested Kimi 3.1 Pro: The end of OPUS 5.5? My test!

Title history
  • J'ai testé Kimi 3.1 Pro : La fin de OPUS 5.5 ? Mon test ! — observed on 20261024-0709 UTC (YouTube)

by Parlons IA · View the channel on PSI

Formal & Physical Sciences AI — Models & Research UYQArtificial intelligence (AI)UYQFGenerative artificial intelligence
🎙 Parlons IA 👥 18K 📅 October 24, 2026 ⏱ 26 min 👁 125 📄 expert opinion 🧭 2026-10-24
Available in: English (current) Français

Keywords

Kimi 3.1 ProClaude Opus 5.5GPT 6.1 SolLLM benchmarkAI coding

Summary

In this video, the creator of the Parlons IA channel tests in early access the new AI model Kimi 3.1 Pro by Moonshot AI, comparing it to Claude Opus 5.5, GPT 6.1 Sol and GPT 6 Astra. He begins by analyzing official benchmarks and usage costs, noting that the model positions itself slightly below Opus 5.5 on coding, with a price of $2 per million input tokens and $10 per million output tokens. He highlights the limitations of PDFs in current AI systems (34% accuracy on the GDP benchmark). The main part of the video is devoted to practical tests: generating a video game, 3D modeling via Blender, and building an e-commerce website. While ChatGPT 6.1 Sol impresses with its fluidity and movement mechanics, Kimi 3.1 Pro offers remarkable textures but less polished gameplay. The author shares practical tips (adjusting the ‘steps’ parameter to avoid task interruption) and warns about data sovereignty (servers located in China), recommending Ollama or OpenRouter as hosting alternatives. He also distributes access codes, reflecting a promotional dimension.

172 words

Critical Evaluation

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The value of the information lies primarily in the concrete, hands-on testing of a newly released model, with real comparisons across several application domains (code, 3D, web, games) and concrete pricing figures ($2/M input, $10/M output tokens). The reference to the independent Artificial Analysis platform and official Kimi benchmarks gives the claims a verifiable anchor. However, the argumentation is essentially anecdotal: tests are subjective demonstrations rather than controlled experiments, with no reproducible methodology or raw measurements. The conclusions are assertive (e.g., ‘GPT 6 Astra is already dated’) and rest on personal impressions rather than quantitative evidence. The promotional dimension (distribution of access codes, promotion of a paid training course) further weakens the objectivity of the evaluation.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

Scientific rigor is moderate. The creator cites official benchmarks and a recognized independent platform (Artificial Analysis), but without providing direct links or sufficiently detailed figures to be cross-checked. The cost comparison and model positioning appear plausible and internally consistent, yet remain unverifiable from the video alone. The title faithfully matches the content: the creator genuinely tests Kimi 3.1 Pro and compares it to Opus 5.5, and the question ’the end of OPUS 5.5?’ is answered with nuance — the model is competitive but not categorically superior, especially in gameplay fluidity. The adequacy between title and content is therefore good.

230 words

Title / Content Match

The title accurately reflects the content: the creator tests Kimi 3.1 Pro, compares it to Claude Opus 5.5, and provides a nuanced answer to whether it signals the end of the Opus 5.5 era.

Quality & Reliability

6/10

The video cites official Kimi benchmarks and the independent Artificial Analysis platform, and provides concrete pricing data. However, the evaluation is largely anecdotal and subjective, with a promotional tone (distribution of access codes, self-promotion of a training course), and no direct URLs are given for the referenced sources.

Chapters

Cited Sources

Contribution & Novelties

The video’s original contribution is its early-access, hands-on assessment of Kimi 3.1 Pro at launch, covering not only standard benchmarks but also practical applications (game prototyping, 3D modeling with Blender, e-commerce site building). It highlights a key operational pitfall (the ‘steps’ parameter that can interrupt long coding tasks) and addresses data governance concerns (data sent to China, with Ollama or OpenRouter as mitigations). The comparison framework — pricing, intelligence level and token costs in three dimensions — is useful for users choosing between competing models.

Pour aller plus loin :

  • Artificial Analysis — Independent LLM comparison platform referenced in the video; useful for verifying the model rankings and cost positions cited.
  • Anthropic — Claude — Official site of Anthropic, publisher of Claude Opus 5.5, the main comparison target of the video.
  • Godot Engine — Open-source game engine on which Kimi 3.1 Pro was reportedly trained; relevant to the game-development tests.
  • Blender — Open-source 3D software that the model reportedly downloaded and used autonomously during the test.
  • LLM token pricing and inference costs — concept, without URL; central to the economic comparison made in the video.

185 words

Radar Profile

The radar profile shows a balanced but modest structure: information quantity is the strongest dimension (7/10), while technical depth (5/10) and global reliability (5/10) lag behind. This reflects content that is informative and concrete but subjective and lightly technical, characteristic of an enthusiast review rather than a rigorous scientific evaluation.

Reliability 5/10