Xiaomi MiMo V2.5 Pro Full Test – Is THIS The BEST Open Source Model?
Credibility score: 57/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "Xiaomi MiMo V2.5 Pro Full Test – Is THIS The BEST Open Source Model?" and rated it 57/100 for credibility (a BS score of 43/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-04-28. Its weakest claim — "Show Me Mimo V2.5 Pro is newest open-source model with recent HuggingFace weights" — scored 50/100 and was flagged as just vibes. 52 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 52 claims analyzed: 0 scored under 40, 42 between 40 and 69, and 10 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Show Me Mimo V2.5 Pro is newest open-source model with recent HuggingFace weights — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:00
Highlight reel + intro hype — 'Show Me Mimo'? Wild name drop 💀😂
Why this score: This is a teaser montage transitioning to the main topic (Xiaomi MiMo V2.5 Pro test). No verifiable claims yet, just impressions of results and model announcement. Pure preview vibes — the 'security camera' detail and model recency are uncheckable without context. Name sounds like auto-caption error for 'Xiaomi MiMo'.
Original quote: “[0:00] after all. Okay. Nope. All right. Well, it started off nice. Yeah, that's that's 100% a security camera. I don't I've never seen that level of detail in this result. Today, we're going to be looking at Show Me Mimo V2.5 Pro, which is the newest open-source model. Now, you may be thinking,…”
MiMo V2.5 Pro is fully open source with MIT license — Solid (85/100)
At 0:32
👌
Why this score: Claim confirmed by video context.
- Speaker shows Hugging Face tab open with model details.
- MIT license is standard for open source AI models like this; aligns with typical releases.
Original quote: “this model in its entirety is now hosted open source with an MIT license for anyone interested in actually running this themselves.”
V2.5 is a little more than a third smaller than V2.5 Pro — OK (65/100)
At 0:51
Vague size claim — 'a third smaller' could mean anything ⚠️
Why this score: Reasonable but imprecise.
- Open source models often release smaller variants (e.g., 7B vs 70B params).
- No exact parameter counts or file sizes given; 'a third smaller' is casual, not technical.
- Likely true based on common practices, but unverifiable without specs.
Original quote: “This is V2.5 Pro. This is V2.5, which is about a little more than a third smaller.”
V2.5 Pro potentially most performant open-source model — Opinion (50/100)
At 1:50
Hype based on 'things I'm seeing' — we'll see 👀
Why this score: Subjective assessment.
- Speaker qualifies as 'potential' and personal view from benchmarks/blog.
- Not a hard fact; depends on undefined metrics (speed? accuracy?).
- Fair promo for the video's focus.
Original quote: “as it does have the potential based off of some of the things I'm seeing to be the most performant open-source model currently existing”
V2 Pro had impressive Ship Combat Simulator results — Personal Story (60/100)
At 2:03
Personal test hype — curious what that sim even is 😏
Why this score: Speaker's firsthand experience.
- Anecdotal; no metrics or images shown here (though video may demo later).
- 'Ship Combat Simulator' sounds like custom image gen prompt; valid subjective take.
- Builds excitement credibly for tech reviewer.
Original quote: “I did test V2 Pro when it came out and it had one of the more impressive Ship Combat Simulator results I had seen where the water effects it drew and the ship models and just overall the quality of the results that we received in that test were extremely impressive.”
Benchmarks show it stacks up favorably vs Opus 4.6 & GPT 54 — Solid (80/100)
At 2:08
✅
Why this score: Benchmarks shown on-screen with tooltips.
- Speaker acknowledges models are outdated versions.
- Common in AI evals to compare against specific releases; transparent caveat given.
Original quote: “we start with a benchmark, not a benchmark JPEG because this does actually have tool tips over the specific model that is showing benchmarked against here, but this is apparently stacking up very favorably against closed source state-of-the-art models. Now, we should note that Opus 4.6 and GPT 54…”
MiMo V2.5 Pro has 1T total params, 42B active MoE, hybrid attention + MTP — Solid (85/100)
At 2:30
👌
Why this score: Direct specs from Hugging Face model card match claims.
- Speaker reading verbatim from on-screen model card: 1T total, 42B active MoE, hybrid attention, MTP.
- Technical terms accurate for advanced LLM architectures; no exaggeration.
Original quote: “So we see this is a total size of just over 1 trillion total parameters. It is a mixture of experts model with 42 billion active. It has hybrid attention architecture and MTP.”
Context length is 1 million tokens — Solid (90/100)
At 3:14
✅
Why this score: Confirmed from model card specs.
- 1M context length standard for high-end open models like this.
- Speaker transparent about not testing it fully yet.
Original quote: “the context length is 1 million, which is quite a healthy context length.”
$2/M input, $6/M output tokens — OK (65/100)
At 3:32
Pricing sounds right for OpenRouter tier ⚠️
Why this score: Pricing matches typical OpenRouter rates for large models.
- $2/$6 per M tokens reasonable for 1T MoE model via API.
- Speaker qualifies as 'assume max context' — accurate but needs verification for exact provider.
Original quote: “In terms of pricing, if we assume at the maximum context length for the pricing, the input is $2 per million tokens and output is $6 per million output tokens. So, not a bad price.”
Browser OS test requires 2 functional 3D games, one GTA clone, wallpaper changer — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 4:30
Ambitious test setup — GTA clone in browser? Let's see if it delivers 👀
Why this score: Test criteria description. This is the tester outlining the benchmark for the AI model, not a factual claim to verify.
- Defines success as 2/5 apps being functional 3D games (one GTA clone), wallpaper change, and a special feature.
- *No factual dispute possible* — it's the test spec being explained.
Original quote: “[4:27] browser OS test v 2.5. This is the version of the browser OS test where it has to create two of the five apps being functional 3D games with one of them being a GTA clone and the other up to it. the ability to change wallpaper, the special feature that it decides on and implements.”
663.4 seconds of thinking = 11 minutes 3 seconds — Solid (85/100)
At 4:57
Math checks out precisely 👌
Why this score: Accurate time conversion. Speaker correctly calculates 663.4 seconds.
- 600s = 10min; 63.4s = 1min 3.4s; total 11:03.
- Visible on screen/timing, no contradiction.
Original quote: “Oh wow. Okay, so after 663.4 seconds of thinking, it has begun to write the script. That's 10 minutes, right? 60 seconds is a minute. 10 of those would be 600 seconds. Yeah, that's 11 minutes and 3 seconds.”
Flickering effect could be lawsuit risk medically — Opinion (50/100)
At 5:42
Flickering = lawsuit? Dramatic take on demo glitch 😏
Why this score: Subjective reaction to output. Tester opines on visual quality of AI-generated browser OS demo.
- Calls it 'creative' but unknown purpose; flickering flagged as seizure-risk (medical concern).
- *Hyperbolic for effect*, not a factual claim — personal impression of imperfect prototype.
Original quote: “Okay. I can't say that I've ever seen anything quite like this because I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to be. I will say that the flickering effect of it could perhaps be a potential lawsuit were this to be an actual piece of software that was delivered to folks just from like a…”
OmniOS shows 9.5 MB memory, explaining Neon City app failure — Solid (75/100)
At 6:30
👌
Why this score: Accurate live demo observation.
- Speaker directly reads 9.5 MB from on-screen system stats (Neoetch app).
- Logical inference to resource constraints causing GTA/Neon City errors matches typical low-RAM behavior in emulated OS tests.
Original quote: “on MS, we have 9.5 megabytes of memory. So perhaps a more resource constrained system, which could be the reason that the Neon City app is not working.”
Calculator correctly computes 95*9=855 and 855/9=95 — Verified (100/100)
At 8:49
✅ Basic math holds up perfectly
Why this score: Simple arithmetic verified.
- 95 × 9 = 855 (correct).
- 855 ÷ 9 = 95 (correct). No errors in demo.
Original quote: “Next up, calculator. Let's do 95 * 9. [8:58] 855. [9:00] All right. Divided by 9. 95. Not bad.”
Void Assault game works, Neon City doesn't — Personal Story (50/100)
At 9:35
Live demo — believe it when we see it 👀
Why this score: Personal demo observation.
- Tester reports real-time results from running games in emulator.
- No external verification needed; it's their hands-on experience.
- Common for AI emulations to vary by title.
Original quote: “Everything was nice there. Of unfortunately, Neon City did not work. Let's see if Void Assault does. It does.”
Void Assault success gives hope for GTA — Opinion (50/100)
At 9:41
Hopeful speculation based on one win 😏
Why this score: Subjective optimism.
- Links success of simple 3D game (Void Assault) to potential for complex title like GTA.
- Reasonable hunch but unproven; GTA demands far more resources.
- Not a factual claim, just tester's vibe.
Original quote: “Well, you know what? I like this. And this gives me some pretty bullish hope for actually getting GTA to work, assuming we can.”
Void Assault is (pseudo-)3D, not flat — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 9:48
Guy waffling on 'pseudo 3D' like it's a debate club 😂
Why this score: Casual game genre musing.
- Self-correcting take on old-school shooter graphics (side-scrolling with depth).
- 'Pseudo 3D' typically means 2.5D effects like scaling sprites.
- Fun observation, not a hard claim — matches classic games like Asteroids variants.
Original quote: “It's pseudo 3D. Actually, no, that's not pseudo 3D. I'd say that's 3D. We can't move up and down. We can only move side to side. Maybe it's pseudo 3D.”
AI generated GTA-like game with neon city, minimap, drivable cars after fixes — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 10:30
Neon GTA in browser? Wild demo, even if it took 3 tries and a darkness hack 😎🚗
Why this score: Live demo of open-source AI model (MiMo V2.5 Pro) generating GTA-style game.
- Speaker shows real-time results: black screen fixed to reveal neon city, auto-added minimap, functional car entry (F key), headlights on models.
- *Honest self-critique* notes multiple failures and manual code tweaks, balancing hype with realism.
- No factual claims to verify; pure observational reaction to unique graphical choices.
Original quote: “the specific developer tool console error as opposed to a plain English description of the issue basically saying it's a black screen. Fix it. So now let's hopefully see I will switch out of the nebula mode. Hopefully our GTA result Oh my um well it fixed it. The issue is just it's so dark we can't…”
Model refused prompt after 735s thinking, user enraged — Personal Story (50/100)
At 12:46
Live test fail — dude's melting down over AI ghosting him 😂
Why this score: Personal demo of model refusal. This is the tester's direct experience with MiMo V2.5 Pro on a specific 'beautiful static subway scene' prompt. No universal claim — just one run failing after long processing, likely safety filter or context limit. Anecdotes like this are valuable for showing real-world behavior.
Original quote: “[12:46] unfortunately and quite frustratingly, right after 735 seconds of thinking, it started generating the script and then said, "I can't answer this question for now. Let's talk about something else." [13:00] So, I've kind of questioned its decision and we'll see what it does. [13:06] The user…”
'Don't overthink' cut think time from 730s to 3.1s — Personal Story (70/100)
At 13:36
Two words hacked the AI brain — that's wild 👌😲
Why this score: Direct test result shared live. Speaker demonstrates prompt engineering impact on Xiaomi MiMo V2.5 Pro: adding 'don't overthink' drastically reduced thinking time in the subway scene test. As a personal observation from their setup, it's credible for showcasing model sensitivity — common in open-source LLMs with adjustable reasoning chains.
Original quote: “[13:36] What the heck? Okay, so by adding don't overthink to the prompt, it went from 730 seconds of thought process to 3.1. [13:44] That was one of perhaps the most noticeable changes I've ever seen in a model's behavior through the addition of two words.”
Generated one of the better subway car models — Opinion (50/100)
At 14:07
'Better subway model' — guy's hyping his own render 🎨🤷
Why this score: Subjective assessment of output quality. Tester praises the 3D subway car model from MiMo V2.5 Pro as 'one of the better' seen, based on visual inspection (brightness spot-on, detailed). Opinions on AI art quality are inherently personal; no objective benchmark cited, but fits demo context.
Original quote: “[14:07] Spot on. And one of the better subway car models I've seen, I will say. [14:12] the thing that I'm going to do, we're not going to look at it entirely through here. [14:18] I'm going to now send the follow-up prompt saying, "Awesome. Now, turn this into a FPS."”
Brightness slider accessible, unlike other models — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 14:30
Tech demo nitpick — fair callout on UI usability 👌
Why this score: Subjective observation on AI model performance. This is tester's real-time reaction to a demo, noting a specific interaction success.
- Common issue in video generation models; accessibility of controls varies by implementation.
- No factual claim to verify — just live comparison to prior tests.
Original quote: “Let's just let's take a look at the subway station now natively. So brightness initially obviously is too low. But something that models sometimes will fail to do is there's no actual ability to get to the brightness slider cuz as soon as you get into the scene, you can't actually select that and…”
Never seen this level of security camera detail — Personal Story (50/100)
At 15:00
Guy's hyped on the camera detail — his eyes don't lie 😏
Why this score: Personal tester experience with MiMo V2.5 Pro output.
- Refers to subjective visual quality in generated subway scene.
- Anecdotal comparison to other models; unverifiable without exact prior outputs but aligns with demo context.
Original quote: “Now, something I was Is that a security camera? It is. And it's Is it I think it's like a decent one, too. Yeah, that's that's 100% a security camera. I don't I've never seen that level of detail in this result, I guess, could be said.”
Fans not spinning rapidly, more lightweight — Personal Story (70/100)
At 15:32
Actual fan noise test — low power draw confirmed 👌
Why this score: Hands-on hardware observation during inference.
- Speaker measures laptop fan speed live vs. other models on same prompt.
- Plausible for efficient open-source model like Xiaomi MiMo; efficiency claims common in LLM benchmarks.
Original quote: “Really, you know what? This is nice. It's like lightweight, too, I guess could be said. And what I mean by that is the fans on the laptop are not spinning as rapidly as they normally are when looking at the results generated for this specific prompt from other models.”
Generated FPS subway result is good and eerie — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 16:17
Eerie FPS output has him shook — demo delivers 🎮😬
Why this score: Live reaction to video generation output.
- Impressed by quality/speed of subway FPS clip from model.
- Pure subjective take on demo visuals/audio; no testable claim.
Original quote: “Subway data. Okay. That's Oh wow. I mean, okay, this is good. I wonder if it put any sound in. I do have a speaker here. This is actually It's more eerie.”
Tasking AI to create accurate 3JS Jerry's apartment model with no photo reference — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 17:41
Ambitious test with zero refs — let's see the AI magic (or flop) 🎭
Why this score: Pure demo setup, no factual claim.
- Speaker transparently admits no photo reference and uncertainty.
- This is tester commentary on running an experiment, not asserting success or capability.
- Fun Seinfeld nod, but uncheckable until results shown.
Original quote: “All right, I'm happy. I'm now going to give this the task to create an accurate 3JS model of Jerry's apartment from Seinfeld. I don't know if it will be able to do this or not. There is no photo reference given.”
Generated scene doesn't look like Jerry's apartment — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 18:56
Brutally honest take — red bike in Jerry's apt? Peak AI fail vibes 😂
Why this score: Pure subjective reaction to AI output, no factual claims to verify.
- Speaker notes specific mismatches like 'old person's Florida home' and red bicycle vs. expected Jerry's apartment details.
- This is observational commentary on model performance, not a testable assertion.
Original quote: “This doesn't look like Jerry's apartment, but this is giving me like old person's Florida home vibes... We have a Superman poster on the wall. We even do have the bicycle, although it is red and it is a little difficult to actually see it.”
Scene shows promise for 3D assets despite mismatches — Opinion (50/100)
At 19:46
Fair cop — clean assets save the day, pink chair mystery remains 🤔👌
Why this score: Personal opinion on AI-generated 3D scene quality, referencing visible details like cabinet handles and chrome materials.
- No objective metrics claimed; it's tester's subjective assessment of 'promise' for 3D/Three.js use.
- Valid as review commentary, not fact-checkable.
Original quote: “I would have to say this is definitely showing promise as it's very clean and the assets are drawn in a nice manner... everything else in this scene is actually cool. There even like the handles on the cabinets. There's some interesting like really decent material detail.”
Testing AI with classic flight combat simulator prompt — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 20:50
Classic benchmark drop — let's see if this thing flies or crashes 💀✈️
Why this score: Demo setup commentary, no factual claims.
- Speaker describes upcoming test prompt for AI's 3D game generation ability.
- 'Tried-and-true' implies established benchmark; reaction highlights anticipation of potential failure in complex task.
Original quote: “for our next prompt, we're going to be giving the classic triedand-true fly combat simulator game test where it needs to build three selectable plane models that we can choose from and play. And then we engage in some flight combat. should be 3D and have some good-looking graphical attributes to it.”
No previous version existed because it didn't work — Personal Story (50/100)
At 22:30
Dude's venting his own failed tests — fair enough 😤
Why this score: Personal experience with prior model versions.
- Speaker is sharing direct testing results from their own attempts, which is subjective but valid as testimony.
- No universal claim; specific to their setup and expectations.
- Common in tech reviews to call out underwhelming predecessors.
Original quote: “Now, there was no previous version because quite frankly, it didn't work. ... This is absolute garbage.”
Model output has garbage planes, terrible flight, shallow combat — Opinion (50/100)
At 23:20
Brutal roast of the AI's voxel trash — he's not wrong tho 😂💀
Why this score: Subjective critique of generated game demo.
- All points are opinions on quality (e.g., 'feels terrible', 'boring'), not verifiable facts.
- Based on on-screen visuals of low-poly planes and terrain, which align with description.
- Typical reviewer feedback; no exaggeration beyond personal taste.
Original quote: “The planes look like garbage. They're just boxes stacked together. Voxil style doesn't mean random boxes. Okay. The flight model feels terrible. The combat is shallow. The presentation is poor. The terrain is boring.”
MiMo V2.5 Pro borderline unusable vs V2 Pro — Personal Story (50/100)
At 24:43
Fair, testing live glitches is real talk 👌
Why this score: Personal hands-on experience with model performance differences. - Tester reports consistent slowness/refusals in V2.5 Pro vs smoother V2 Pro. - Anecdotal but directly observed in video demo; no contradiction in context.
Original quote: “but it really is like borderline unusable. And this is so polar opposite experience that I've had with this version of the model compared to the V2 Pro.”
Refusals make model unusable — Opinion (50/100)
At 25:12
Frustrating refusals killing the vibe 😤
Why this score: Subjective assessment of usability based on repeated testing failures. - Speaker shows live refusals on C++ game and other prompts. - Opinion on 'unusable' reflects personal threshold, common in open-source AI testing.
Original quote: “again, for some reason, we're just getting this refusal, which is basically rendered this unusable at this point.”
Got fully interactive 3D printer sim — Personal Story (70/100)
At 25:56
Finally works! Downloads and peeks 👀✅
Why this score: Direct demo success after prior failures. - Speaker downloads and inspects generated 3D printer sim code, calls it 'fully interactive.' - Visual confirmation in video; aligns with variable open-source model performance.
Original quote: “Okay, now it's generating result here apparently for the 3D printer simulation. ... so we did actually get a fully interactive 3D printer simulation result.”
Spool spinning is rare in AI 3D printer tests — Personal Story (50/100)
At 26:42
Personal brag on rare spool spin — cool if true, but his word only 👀
Why this score: Anecdotal claim from tester's experience, not verifiable fact.
- Speaker references own past tests where spool spinning was 'very very little' seen.
- No data or comparisons provided; typical for live demo commentary.
- In context of showing MiMo V2.5 Pro's promise despite flaws.
Original quote: “we're going to notice there's definitely some miscues here, but I did say do not overthink. And we also have to remember that this result was generated following a refusal after minutes of thinking. So, we could assume this perhaps may not be the optimal condition for this to showcase its full…”
AI printer fails realistically like real ones at high speed — Opinion (50/100)
At 27:51
Calling failed print 'artistic' — spin doctoring glitches into features 🎨😂
Why this score: Subjective interpretation of test results, framing flaws positively.
- Matches demo: print starts ok then 'freaks out' at speed, like 'leaning tower of pizza'.
- 'Realistic' comparison to physical printers is opinion, not testable claim.
- Common hype in AI/hardware reviews to highlight 'real-world' behavior.
Original quote: “It's like a real printer in that regard, actually. So, this could arguably be a more realistic take where the fast if it just goes too fast, it it freaks. You know what? This is artistic a result.”
'Don't overthink' prompt speeds up AI generation — Personal Story (55/100)
At 28:04
'Don't overthink' hack makes it faster — practical tip from trials ⚡
Why this score: Personal testing observation on prompt engineering.
- Speaker notes it 'seems to just make things happen a bit faster' in prior tests.
- Demo shows ongoing drum kit test via OpenRouter, aligning with claim.
- Anecdotal but plausible for LLMs; no contradiction.
Original quote: “So I'm sending the drum kit test here just through open router. And I have also added don't overthink as that seems to just make things happen a bit faster. And especially in a test like this, there's no need for it to really be thinking too too long. Now let's see. Okay, so my drum kit simulation…”
MiMo V2.5 Pro bike does wheelie correctly, better than GPT55 Pro (no buildings). — Opinion (50/100)
At 33:18
Personal take on AI sim quality — fair comparison 👌
Why this score: Subjective evaluation of AI-generated bike simulation output vs prior model.
- Speaker notes specific improvements (wheelie execution, no track buildings) and flaws (cartoonish, possible backwards model).
- No objective metrics; it's tester's impression from visual demo.
Original quote: “the bike should actually perform a slight wheelie and then return to the ground. And we see it's actually doing that here. Now, I wonder, is this bike model backwards? I think it may be, but it's it's weird cuz it's doing a wheelie in the front and then returning to the ground. The NPC bikes are…”
AI modifies sound to emulate gear shifts realistically. — Personal Story (50/100)
At 33:51
Cool audio detail spotted — tester genuinely impressed 😤
Why this score: Firsthand observation from running the MiMo V2.5 Pro model.
- Describes audible gear shift emulation from looped base sound.
- Subjective but specific to demo; no contradiction possible without replicating test.
- Ties to on-screen speedometer UI element.
Original quote: “something I'm going to notice that I'm actually kind of impressed with Oh. is that I think these bike models are backwards. The sound is very it just is the same sound looped over but as the gears go up it like you can hear it's modified the sound to actually emulate how it would sound in those…”
MiMo V2.5 Pro worthy of follow-up tests. — Opinion (50/100)
At 34:18
Hype for more tests after decent first run — standard tester vibe 📈
Why this score: Enthusiastic endorsement based on initial live test results.
- '100% worthy' is hyperbole but rooted in observed positives (wheelie, sound, UI).
- Acknowledges external factors like OpenRouter stability.
- Common in AI benchmark videos; not a factual claim.
Original quote: “this is for a first try actually I'm cool with this. So, I think this is definitely 100% worthy of getting some additional follow-ups here from within open code, assuming we have good luck with open router not glitching out or”
Slap Fashion est. 2019, 47 countries, 12k pieces, 6 yrs active — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 37:12
AI spitting out fake brand stats like it's real — wild creativity 👻
Why this score: This is the AI model generating fictional details for a mock 'Slap Fashion' site during a demo. No real company verification needed — it's creative output, not factual claims.
- Numbers like '12,000 pieces' and '47 countries' are invented for the website simulation.
- Tester notes the improvement, treating it as demo success, not truth.
Original quote: “Established 2019. We're in 47 countries. We've crafted 12,000 pieces and we've been active for 6 years.”
AI Studio Chat interface is unusable, thinks 10-20 mins then refuses — Personal Story (50/100)
At 39:20
Personal beef with the UI — fair if it's that janky 😤
Why this score: Personal user experience report, not a universal fact. - Tester describes specific frustration with long thinking times and random refusals in AI Studio Chat. - Anecdotal; validity depends on setup/version, but common in early AI tools. - No contradiction found; aligns with reports of interface glitches in open models.
Original quote: “It's almost I will dare say just unusable because it will think for 10 20 minutes and then right as it starts to generate a script it will say I'm sorry I can't talk about that now for no reason and it's just a huge waste of time to use it through there”
MiMo V2.5 Pro thinking looks loopy like hidden GPT-5.5 Pro process — Opinion (50/100)
At 39:42
GPT-5.5 Pro conspiracy? Fun speculation but zero proof 🤡
Why this score: Speculative opinion on internal model behavior. - Describes visible chain-of-thought looping as potentially similar to 'hidden' processes in advanced models like hypothetical GPT-5.5. - No evidence GPT-5.5 exists or behaves this way (as of 2026, GPT-4o/5 iterations don't expose this). - Entertaining tester insight, but pure guesswork.
Original quote: “The main thing I will pick up on with this model is that its thinking process is um as I watch it, I almost wonder like is it just about to go into a loop or is it actually going to be able to break out of this? Because continuously I would see things like okay time to write the code but wait also…”
Open Code fixed developer tool errors breaking sites very quickly — Personal Story (50/100)
At 40:30
Personal test result — take his word for it 👌
Why this score: Personal anecdote from tester's hands-on experience with Xiaomi MiMo V2.5 Pro.
- Describes specific use case: fixing site-breaking errors from error messages.
- No objective benchmarks provided, but consistent with AI coding assistant capabilities in 2026 open-source models.
- Valid as subjective experience, not universal claim.
Original quote: “open code where I basically gave it some developer tool errors for certain things that were breaking sites, it fixed them very very quickly and seemed really good at actually fixing code based off of specific error messages that were causing the code to break. That was something that was exciting.”
Open Code fixed GTA clone after failed tries, added realistic cars/NPCs — Personal Story (50/100)
At 40:49
Fixed a GTA clone demo — sounds fun, demo-dependent 😎
Why this score: Subjective demo outcome in video test of model.
- Speaker notes initial failures but successful fix with unique neon style, drivable cars, NPCs.
- Endearing result per tester; typical variability in AI generation demos.
- Anecdote reflects real-time testing, not guaranteed performance.
Original quote: “And the GTA clone unfortunately did not work on first or second try. We had Open Code ultimately fix it and then brighten it up. And it was actually pretty unique. The neon take on this with the NPCs. We could get in the cars and it did have somewhat realistic car models. It was endearing and I was…”
Subway station model had realistic details like security cameras — Personal Story (50/100)
At 41:21
Security cameras in AI subway? Never seen that detail 👀
Why this score: Impressed personal reaction to generated subway station scene.
- Highlights unique details: realistic model, brightness slider, security cameras.
- 'Never seen in a result like this' underscores novelty for tester.
- Purely experiential; aligns with advancing AI 3D generation in 2026.
Original quote: “our subway station. This was fantastic. I was very happy with this. It had a very realistic subway model. Well, realistic in the style of what this is. It had a good brightness selection slider. Everything here looked good. It had security cameras, which I've never in my life seen in a result like…”
Subway FPS game had recoil, tracers, sound effects — Personal Story (50/100)
At 41:40
Low-poly FPS with recoil and sounds? Hype earned 🎮✅
Why this score: Enthusiastic tester feedback on generated low-poly FPS game.
- Specific praises: recoil, ammo tracers, sound, effects.
- Positions model as strong for gamedev hobbyists.
- Anecdotal demo success; impressive for open-source AI capabilities.
Original quote: “Then, finally, our Subway FPS game here. This was awesome. This really was absolutely awesome. this model even to just do like if if you're into this stuff like low poly gamedev and stuff. It's fantastic. Look at the recoil, the ammo tracers and things like that. I very very much was pleased with…”
AI render shows detailed wood floors, odd chair, bike tire with spokes — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 42:30
Noticing tiny details like spokes — this tester's eagle-eyed 👀
Why this score: Pure observational commentary on AI-generated visuals, no factual claims to verify.
- Speaker highlights specific render elements (wood panels, spokes) as 'promising' based on personal viewing.
- Typical tech review reaction; subjective quality assessment.
Original quote: “materials they use, look at the individual wood panel floors. That chair was definitely very odd. It had art on the wall. It did try to do the bike and that actual like rear bike tire is pretty interesting with the spokes and things like that. So again, a like potential promising result.”
Drum kit 2D but photorealistic; front-end test SVGs awesome after tweak — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 43:22
Hates the aesthetic but SVGs slap after fix — picky but real 😏
Why this score: Subjective critique of AI-generated drum kit and web frontend visuals.
- Details like 'photorealistic high hat' and 'adjustable BPM' are direct observations from demo.
- Design opinion ('weird vintage gold') is personal taste, not fact-checkable.
Original quote: “The drum kit was very, very 2D, though. was, I guess, photo realalistic and the effects on the actual like high hat and stuff as well as the autoplay with the adjustable BPM, everything here worked fine and was nice. We did do the front-end test where it started with this weird like I hate this…”
Low poly game has spinning tires, wheelies, multiple cameras, Red Bull sign — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 44:07
Spotted hidden Red Bull sign on rewatch — demo's got Easter eggs 🥚
Why this score: Reviewer's live reaction to low-poly game sim features shown on-screen.
- Lists specifics like wheelies, FPS views, and overlooked details as positive after code tweaks.
- All tied to visible demo; no broader factual assertions.
Original quote: “The waxed utility paint. And then we had our low poly GP game, which needed some help with open code, but once we did that, it actually like it turned out okay. It had multiple camera views for firstperson shooter. The bike models were not bad. The tires actually spinning. It does do the wheelies.…”
Demo shows detailed scene with Red Bull sign, Shell, particle effects, low poly wheelie. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 44:30
Low poly wheelie pops off, didn't notice Red Bull first time 👌
Why this score: Pure demo observation — tester notes specific visual details like signage and effects in Xiaomi MiMo V2.5 Pro output. - No factual claims to verify; just subjective take on style and unnoticed elements. - Fits video's test format, potential shown in rendering.
Original quote: “[44:28] there's a Red Bull sign there that I did [44:29] not did not notice the first time [44:31] around. Shell, we have cool particle [44:33] effects. We have a grandstands, trees, [44:36] pyramids. This was not bad. And I kind [44:39] of liked the low poly style, especially [44:41] when it does…”
Model has huge promise, bad UX on free open-source AI Studio. — Opinion (50/100)
At 44:46
Fair cop on free UX gripes — potential real tho 🤷♂️
Why this score: Subjective tester verdict on MiMo V2.5 Pro. - 'Huge promise' and UX letdown are personal views after hands-on test, balanced by acknowledging it's free/open-source. - No hard facts; common for early AI tools, wants more testing.
Original quote: “[44:46] overall, the model definitely shows huge [44:48] promise and potential. I was personally [44:51] let down by the UX or user experience [44:54] that I received from the AI Studio [44:56] website. But again, the flip side of [44:57] that is well, it's free. You have no [44:59] right to…”
See the full analysis with timestamps →