Live data from Hacker News

Qwen3.6-Max-Preview: Smarter, Sharper, Still Evolving

qwen.ai

41–50 of 400 posts

Re: Qwen3.6-Max-Preview: Smarter, Sharper, Still Evolving

#41

The way to develop in this space seems to be to give away free stuff, get your name out there, then make everything proprietary. I hope they still continue releasing open weights. The day no one releases open weights is a sad day for humanity. Normal people won’t own their own compute if that ever happens.

I think it is in the interest of chip makers to make sure we all get local models

Re: Qwen3.6-Max-Preview: Smarter, Sharper, Still Evolving

#42

Nowadays, I'm working on a realtime path tracer where you need proper understanding of microfacet reflection models, PDFs, (multiple) importance sampling, ReSTIR, etc.. Saying that mine is a somewhat specific use case. And I use Claude, Gemini, GLM, Qwen to double check my math, my code and to get practical information to make my path tracer more efficient. Claude and Gemini failed me more than a couple of times with…

What size of Qwen is that, though? The largest sizes are admittedly difficult to run locally (though this is an issue of current capability wrt. inference engines, not just raw hardware).

I'm directly using https://chat.qwen.ai (Qwen3.6-Plus) and planning to switch to Qwen Code with subscription.

Re: Qwen3.6-Max-Preview: Smarter, Sharper, Still Evolving

#43

Everybody's out here chasing SOTA, meanwhile I'm getting all my coding done with MiniMax M2.5 in multiple parallel sessions for $10/month and never running into limits.

For serious work, the difference between spending $10/month and $100/month is not even worth considering for most professional developers. There are exceptions like students and people in very low income countries, but I’m always confused by developers with in careers where six figure salaries are normal who are going cheap on tools.

I find even the SOTA models to be far away from trustworthy for anything beyond throwaway tasks. Supervising a less-than-SOTA model to save $10 to $100 per month is not attractive to me in the least.

I have been experimenting with self hosted models for smaller throwaway tasks a lot. It’s fun, but I’m not going to waste my time with it for the real work.

Re: Qwen3.6-Max-Preview: Smarter, Sharper, Still Evolving

#44
post #41

The way to develop in this space seems to be to give away free stuff, get your name out there, then make everything proprietary. I hope they still continue releasing open weights. The day no one releases open weights is a sad day for humanity. Normal people won’t own their own compute if that ever happens.

I think it is in the interest of chip makers to make sure we all get local models

Definitely. Many big hardware firms are directly supporting HuggingFace for this very reason.

Re: Qwen3.6-Max-Preview: Smarter, Sharper, Still Evolving

#45

The way to develop in this space seems to be to give away free stuff, get your name out there, then make everything proprietary. I hope they still continue releasing open weights. The day no one releases open weights is a sad day for humanity. Normal people won’t own their own compute if that ever happens.

Any reason for them to do this other than altruism? I don’t think this can be regulated.

Re: Qwen3.6-Max-Preview: Smarter, Sharper, Still Evolving

#46
post #41

The way to develop in this space seems to be to give away free stuff, get your name out there, then make everything proprietary. I hope they still continue releasing open weights. The day no one releases open weights is a sad day for humanity. Normal people won’t own their own compute if that ever happens.

I think it is in the interest of chip makers to make sure we all get local models

True, chip companies have the opposite mindset, Nvidia is making their own open weights I believe

Re: Qwen3.6-Max-Preview: Smarter, Sharper, Still Evolving

#47
post #8

I find it odd that none of OpenAI models was used in comparison, but used Z GLM 5.1. Is Z (GLM 5.1) really that good? It is crushing Opus 4.5 in these benchmarks, if that is true, I would have expected to read many articles on HN on how people flocked CC and Codex to use it.

GLM 5.1 is the first model I've found good enough to spring for a subscription for other than Claude and Codex.

It's not crushing Opus 4.5 in real-life use for me, but it's close enough to be near interchangeable with Sonnet for me for a lot of tasks, though some of the "savings" are eaten up by seemingly using more tokens for similar complexity tasks (I don't have enough data yet, but I've pushed ~500m tokens through it so far.

Re: Qwen3.6-Max-Preview: Smarter, Sharper, Still Evolving

#48

Everybody's out here chasing SOTA, meanwhile I'm getting all my coding done with MiniMax M2.5 in multiple parallel sessions for $10/month and never running into limits.

For serious work, the difference between spending $10/month and $100/month is not even worth considering for most professional developers. There are exceptions like students and people in very low income countries, but I’m always confused by developers with in careers where six figure salaries are normal who are going cheap on tools. I find even the SOTA models to be far away from trustworthy for anything beyond thro…

You need to supervise the model anyway, because you want that code to be long-term maintainable and defect free, and AI is nowhere near strong enough to guarantee that anytime soon. Using the latest Opus for literally everything is just a huge waste of effort.

Re: Qwen3.6-Max-Preview: Smarter, Sharper, Still Evolving

#49

The way to develop in this space seems to be to give away free stuff, get your name out there, then make everything proprietary. I hope they still continue releasing open weights. The day no one releases open weights is a sad day for humanity. Normal people won’t own their own compute if that ever happens.

Always has been, it’s literally saas; the slight difference is that the lowest tier subscriptions at the frontier labs are basically free trials nowadays, too
Post reply on HN