4 measurements spanning 6 days, net +2. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 1,010–1,012 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
13 Aug 2026, 06:19
1,012
+1
10 Aug 2026, 12:15
1,011
+1
8 Aug 2026, 00:33
1,010
no change
7 Aug 2026, 15:49
1,010
first reading
Engagement
19 posts held, back to 27 January 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
35.8%
avg views ÷ 1,012 subscribers
Avg views / post
362
1 post measured
Reaction rate
1.93%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
1
of 19 held
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.
What these figures were computed from
Window
Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 27 July 2026
Posts held
19 (27 January 2026 – 27 July 2026)
Views total
362
Reactions total
7
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
8 Aug 2026, 00:33 UTC
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
What this channel posts
Video runtime
1m 25s
Average length
1m 25s
Measured directly from 1 video with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no ≈ mark.
Reaction mix
183 reactions across 18 posts, in 14 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 32.2% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
❤
59
32.2%
👍
51
27.9%
🔥
36
19.7%
😁
8
4.37%
❤🔥
7
3.83%
⚡
5
2.73%
👌
4
2.19%
✍
3
1.64%
😢
3
1.64%
🤡
3
1.64%
☃
1
0.546%
🌚
1
0.546%
👎
1
0.546%
💔
1
0.546%
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 18 of the 19 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 183reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 19 most recent posts we hold, published 27 January 2026 to 27 July 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
Telegram Stars
Stars received
5
across the posts below
Posts paid on
3
of 19 we hold a reading for · 16%
Most on one post
2
single highest reading
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @llm_notes. Telegram publishes the count on the public post preview alongside ordinary reactions, and this register reads it there. It is the only figure on this site that measures money moving rather than attention.
Stars are not reactions, and the two are never added. They are rendered in the same strip on Telegram and counted in the same shape, but one is a tap and the other is a purchase. The reaction totals and the engagement rate elsewhere on this page exclude every figure in this section, and no rate here is computed against a reaction count.
This is not revenue, and we publish no currency figure. What a Star costs a reader and what it pays a channel are different numbers, Telegram takes a share we cannot observe, and the terms have changed. Converting a Star count into money would be an estimate dressed as a measurement, so the count is where we stop.
Counted over the 19 most recent posts we hold for this entry, published 27 January 2026 to 27 July 2026. Star counts above 1,000 reach us in Telegram’s short form and carry the same three-significant-figure rounding as everything else on this page.
Claude Opus 5: почти Fable за половину цены
Коллеги, всем привет!
24 июля Anthropic выпустила Claude Opus 5 — новый флагман Opus-класса. Заявка простая: подойти вплотную к интеллекту Fable 5, но примерно за половину цены.
Если коротко: это модель «на каждый день». Она стала дефолтной на Claude Max и сильнейшей доступной на Claude Pro. При этом на кибербезопасных задачах Opus 5 по-прежнему позади Mythos 5 — и это, …
🔓🚀 Возвращение Fable 5 и появление Sonnet 5
Anthropic за сутки закрыла историю с приостановкой топовой модели и выпустила новый Sonnet.
🔓 Возвращение Fable 5
12 июня власти США ввели экспортный контроль на Fable 5 и Mythos 5, ограничив доступ иностранным гражданам. Проверять гражданство в реальном времени было нельзя, поэтому Anthropic отключила обе модели для всех. Сейчас пишут, что ограничения сняты.
Правда в мо…
Для меня главный сдвиг здесь такой: мы всё быстрее и дальше уходим от режима «написал промпт → получил ответ» к режиму «поставил задачу → модель сама выстроила и развернула процесс → ты оцениваешь результат и направляешь доработки».
Это очень похоже на то, что мы уже видим в Claude Code и агентных пайплайнах: ценность смещается из ручного контроля каждого шага в постановку задачи, проверку качества и умение правильн…
Claude Fable 5: первая публичная модель класса Mythos
Коллеги, всем привет!
Несколько часов назад Anthropic выпустила Claude Fable 5 — первую общедоступную модель класса Mythos. Это, кажется, важный релиз не только с точки зрения прироста качества, но и с точки зрения того, как меняется сам формат работы с AI.
Официальный анонс здесь
Если коротко: Mythos — это новый класс моделей Claude, который Anthropic позицион…
📦 Скидки на AI-инструменты для новых пользователей
Коллеги, всем привет! 👋
В Lenny's Product Pass вчера обновился список продуктов — бандл годовых подписок на AI-инструменты за $200 (базовый тариф) или $350 (Insider).
💡 Что изменилось по сравнению с апрельской версией 2025 года
Вернулись в список:
🔹 Cursor — AI-среда для разработки методом Vibecoding (только для Insider-тарифа)
🔹 Google AI — расширенный доступ к …
Agentic Harness Deep Dive и текущие новости
🆕 На этой неделе Anthropic выпустили две большие новости.
16 апреля — Claude Opus 4.7, новая флагманская модель, которая обошла GPT-5.4 и Gemini 3.1 Pro на бенчмарках по agentic coding и scaled tool use. +13% на 93-task coding benchmark относительно 4.6, изображения до 2576 px по длинной стороне, новый уровень усилий xhigh и task budgets в API, команда /ultrareview в Clau…
В продолжении темы клонирования компаний ...
🛰 Бывший PM Google написал аналог Palantir за выходные
Билавал Сидху (Bilawal Sidhu) — бывший продакт-менеджер Google Maps, 6 лет строивший 3D-картографию изнутри. В феврале 2026 года он запустил WorldView — геопространственный командный центр прямо в браузере. Без секретных допусков. Без команды. За три дня.
Интернет назвал это «vibe coded Palantir». Сооснователь Palan…
8 AI-клонов единорогов за 8 недель: итоги очередного потока курса по AI-программированию
Коллеги, всем привет!
На прошлой неделе мы завершили очередной поток курса по AI-программированию — за 8 недель сделали 8 рабочих прототипов «компаний-единорогов». С первого потока наш подход сильно эволюционировал: в этот раз мы использовали исключительно Claude Code и собрали из кастомных скиллов готовый пайплайн не только дл…
🎬 Как Claude AI видит тебя по ту сторону чата
На днях ради интереса я попросил Claude.ai снять ролик о том, как меняется его восприятие пользователя с течением времени. Не абстрактно, а конкретно — на основе нашего с ним опыта работы. Совершенно не ожидал как он расставит акценты. Оказывается, что для него "лично" skill-based подход важен и кардинально меняет его восприятие пользователя (если так можно выразиться).
…
🗞 AI-дайджест: 1–14 марта 2026
Две насыщенных недели: 20+ новых моделей, несколько миллиардных раундов и важные обновления по всем фронтам.
🤖 Модели
① GPT-5.4 (5 марта) — главный релиз периода. OpenAI выпустил модель с нативным Computer Use, контекстом до 1 млн токенов и снижением галлюцинаций на 33%. Доступна в версиях Standard ($30/1M) и Pro ($180/1M), а также в режиме Thinking. Одновременно GPT-5.1 выведен из C…
Еще одна крутая новость от Антропик
Anthropic удваивает лимиты Claude до конца марта 🎁
С 13 по 27 марта 2026 года Anthropic проводит временную акцию: лимиты использования Claude удваиваются в непиковые часы.
Условия акции:
📅 Период: 13–27 марта 2026
⏰ Удвоенный лимит действует вне 8:00–14:00 ET (по Москве это вне интервала 15:00–21:00 => теперь имеет еще бОльший смысл ставить задачи на ночь и пораньше вставать :)
…
Шикарные новости от Антропик
Opus 4.6 и Sonnet 4.6: контекст 1M токенов теперь в general availability 🧠
Anthropic перевела поддержку контекстного окна до 1 миллиона токенов в статус GA для Opus 4.6 и Sonnet 4.6. Без доплат и бета-флагов.
Правда с моим Max планом при создании новой сессии все еще пишет, что 1M для Sonnet 4.6 - с доплатой, а 1M для Opus 4.6 - без доплаты (см. скриншот)
Что изменилось:
▫️ Единая цен…
⚡4❤4👍4
Showing the 12 most recent of 19 posts we hold for @llm_notes. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Citation-graph rank
Citation-graph rank — 680,068 of 1,160,990entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.
Forward network
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Mentions
Named by 1 registered channel — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
Cite this entry
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 13 August 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Заметки LLM-энтузиаста” (@llm_notes), 1,012 subscribers as measured 13 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/llm_notes.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.