Channel
@AImafiaClub
On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry
2,563subscribers
+40 since we began measuring on 8 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 1,000–3,162.
| Telegram ID | -1001682119048 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @AImafiaClub |
| Created | Between 1 December 2021 and 30 April 2023 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 8 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 16 September 2026 |
| Measurements held | 13 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 16 September 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/AImafiaClub |
Technology — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-FP8, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 15 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 100% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and why it has no browse page of its own yet.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 16 Sept 2026, 15:22 | 2,563 | +1 |
| 12 Sept 2026, 14:21 | 2,562 | +11 |
| 8 Sept 2026, 18:01 | 2,551 | +5 |
| 3 Sept 2026, 21:21 | 2,546 | -2 |
| 31 Aug 2026, 14:27 | 2,548 | +2 |
| 28 Aug 2026, 05:12 | 2,546 | +10 |
| 24 Aug 2026, 20:25 | 2,536 | +4 |
| 21 Aug 2026, 03:02 | 2,532 | +2 |
| 18 Aug 2026, 00:04 | 2,530 | +1 |
| 14 Aug 2026, 16:35 | 2,529 | +4 |
| 11 Aug 2026, 10:32 | 2,525 | +2 |
| 8 Aug 2026, 16:54 | 2,523 | no change |
| 8 Aug 2026, 06:01 | 2,523 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 6 March 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 page of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
Nothing published in the last 30 days. ERR and ER are rolling 30-day measures, so there is nothing to compute — we hold 20 posts for this entry, the most recent from 30 July 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
106 reactions across 18 posts, in 6 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 39.6% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🔥 | 42 | 39.6% | |
| 👍 | 31 | 29.2% | |
| 👏 | 26 | 24.5% | |
| 😱 | 3 | 2.83% | |
| 🤔 | 3 | 2.83% | |
| 💔 | 1 | 0.943% |
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 20 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 106 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 6 March 2026 to 30 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.
¿Ha muerto el Prompt Engineering? La mayoría está usando reglas antiguas para prompts en actuales modelos frontera: Fable, Opus 5, GPT Sol o Kimi-3 Resultado: Gastan más tokens, peores respuestas, más coste. He revisado por ti toda la documentación de OpenAI y Anthropic. Y he creado una Guía gratuita con: → Los 5 anti-hacks que debes borrar → Las 4 nuevas reglas del prompting → La plantilla 2026 → Un prompt para …
👏3🔥3👍2
Tenemos un problema con Anthopic y es algo que puede acabar perjudicándonos a todos. GLM 5.2. Kimi K3. Qwen 3.8. Tres modelos open source. Todos a la altura de Fable 5. En semanas. El problema no es técnico. Es económico. Meta tiene centros de datos. Google tiene centros de datos y chips. SpaceX tiene hasta la generación eléctrica. Mientras Anthropic: → No posee infraestructura. Solo modelos. Costes escalan con …
China ha decidido que la mejor forma de ganar la guerra de la IA es arruinar a la competencia de Silicon Valley. GLM-5.2 está a un paso minúsculo de Claude Opus 4.8 en capacidades de código y ahora p𝘂𝗲𝗱𝗲𝘀 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗼 𝗴𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗵𝗼𝗿𝗮 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗺𝗼 𝘃í𝗮 𝗧𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗥𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗿. 🔹 No, China no es nuestro "amigo" pero ahora mismo sí nuestro "aliado". 🔹 Están comoditizando la capa del modelo para destruir el foso defensivo de OpenAI y Anthopic…
Hay un negocio que casi nadie hace y paga seis cifras: Migrar empresas de OpenAI/Anthropic a modelos Open Source. Lo que casi todos entienden mal: 1️⃣ Open source ≠ tu infraestructura. Tienes DeepSeek en Azure, servidores en Europa, misma API. Cero hardware 2️⃣ No todos tus procesos necesitan un modelo frontera. 3️⃣ El modelo abierto es peor. Ese es tu trabajo: mejor contexto, mejor arnés. Shopify no montó inf…
👏1
Anthropic nos toma por tontos. Una vez más. Fable 5 apareció, lo banearon. Cuando volvió, Anthropic le puso fecha: una semana. Date prisa. Luego ampliaron el plazo. Otra vez. Y lo volverán a ampliar. La realidad: NO pueden quitarlo. Sin Fable 5, el mejor modelo de pago de Anthropic es Opus 4.8. Pierde contra GPT 5.6. Y contra GPT 5.5. El GPT viejo. A ese punto no hay razón para pagar Claude. Ninguna. Fable 5 n…
🔥2
Las últimas semanas solo se habló de Fable 5. Parecía un modelo muy superior al resto. Hasta hoy. GPT-5.6 Sol lo supera en DeepSWE, coding y razonamiento. Y no solo eso, lo hace por mucho menos dinero. → DeepSWE 1.1: nuevo SOTA, por delante de Fable 5 → Agents' Last Exam: 53.6 vs 40.5 (+13.1 pts) → Coding Agent Index: 80 vs 77.2, un 30% más barato → Terra y Luna superan a Fable 5 a 1/16 del coste Muchos siguen pen…
👍1🔥1
🚨 Nvidia ha puesto gratis los siguientes cursos de IA. Solo hasta 7 de Julio. Actúa rápido antes de que sean de pago. NVIDIA tiene 7 cursos y 2 masterclasses gratis sobre IA generativa, RAG, agentes, ciencia de datos y visión artificial. Y varios entregan certificado de finalización. Aquí tienes los enlaces oficiales: 1️⃣ Acelera tus flujos de ciencia de datos sin cambiar el código Aprende a acelerar procesos d…
🔥2
𝗔𝗹𝗴𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗼 𝗲𝘀𝘁á 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻 𝗲𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗮𝗷𝗼. 🚨 Nuevo post:"La Gran mentira del trabajo IA" - dónde está el x100 IA y la era de la Agencia. Puedes leerlo completo en: https://aimafia.substack.com/p/trabajo-ia
👏2🔥2
La mayoría prueba un agente IA 20 minutos y escribe una review. Yo llevo más de 30 días usando Hermes a diario y cada vez me convence más por una razón: reduce fricción. Setup sencillo. - Memoria local. - Sistema de Skills que mejoran. - Integración con Telegram/Discord. - Aprende y mejora con cada uso Comparativa completa: Hermes vs OpenClaw. LINK ⬇️ https://agentesia.substack.com/p/hermes-vs-openclaw
👏1
🔥 LO MÁS DESTACADO EN IA ESTA SEMANA Esto es un resumen de lo más importante que ha pasado en la IA esta semana para que te pongas al día en 5 minutos. 1. 🤖 CLAUDE YA ESCRIBE EL 80% DEL CÓDIGO EN ANTHROPIC Anthropic confirma que su propio modelo es el principal desarrollador de la empresa. El nivel de confianza que tienen en su herramienta es absoluto. 2. ⚔️ HERMES VS OPENCLAW: LA GUERRA DE LOS AGENTES IA OpenClaw…
🔥3👏2
𝗠𝗶 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗜𝗔 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 (Mayo 2026). Lo Que Realmente Uso a diario: 👨💻 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗿: Codex + Opencode + antigravity 🧠 𝗠𝗲𝗷𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗼: GPT 5.5 / barato: Deppseek v4 pro 📝 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗮𝗿 𝘆 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗿: Claude 🕵️♂️ 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝗿: perplexity (cada vez menos) ⚒️ 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮 𝗮𝘂𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗮𝗿: Codex + Hermes 🎨 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮 𝗶𝗺á𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘀: Nano Banana 2 🔊𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗮 𝗮𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗼/𝗽𝗼𝗱𝗰𝗮𝘀𝘁𝘀: fish audio 🎧 𝗺ú𝘀𝗶𝗰𝗮: moises 🆓 𝗜𝗔 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗦𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗲𝗻 𝗹𝗼𝗰𝗮𝗹: lmstudio + Qwen3.6 (💻 Macbo
🔥7👍2
Un chico de 23 años usó ChatGPT para atacar un problema matemático que llevaba 60 años abierto y sin solución. No era un genio desconocido. No tenía formación matemática avanzada. Uso la IA para pensar de una forma que ningún experto en el mundo es capaz. Aquí tienes el prompt de 185 lineas para replicar esta estrategia. ⮕ https://aimafia.substack.com/p/prompt-mejor-pensamiento-soluciones
🔥6
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @AImafiaClub. 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.
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.
The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.
This channel appears in 1 seed channel's Telegram-generated recommendation list in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
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 16 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Inteligencia Artificial & ChatGPT 🤖 Mafia IA para Creadores” (@AImafiaClub), 2,563 subscribers as measured 16 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/AImafiaClub.
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.