Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

qwen.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 400 posts

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

#101

Post by zozbot234 »

WarmWash wrote: post #86
zozbot234 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how local AI models are meant to "entrench China in global supply and logistics". The two areas have nothing to do with one another. You can easily run a Chinese open model on all-American hardware.

They are building a pipeline, and the goal is to get people in the door. If you forever stand at the entrance eating the free samples, that's fine, they don't care. Other people are going through the door and you are still consuming what they feed you. Doesn't mean it's going to be bad or evil, but they are staking their territory of control.

Oh for sure, they're getting a whole lot of Chinese people and other non-Westerners through the door already - mostly, the people who are being ignored or even blocked outright by the big Western labs. That's territory we purposely abandoned, and they're going to control it by default.

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

#102

Post by culi »

subw00f wrote: post #76
WarmWash wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Chinese state wants the world using their models. People think that Chinese AI labs are just super cool bros that love sharing for free. The don't understand it's just a state sponsored venture meant to further entrench China in global supply and logistics. China's VCs are Chinese banks and a sprinkle of "private" money. Private in quotes because technically it still belongs to the state anyway. China doesn't hav…

As opposed to the US, which just has companies and a thin veil of “government”.

Also many of these Chinese companies aren't just opening their weights. They are open sourcing their code AND publishing detailed research papers alongside them to reveal how they accomplished what they accomplished.

That's very different from an American SaaS model which relies of free but proprietary software for early growth

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

#103

Post by zozbot234 »

embedding-shape wrote: post #100
culi wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's an overgeneralization. We've seen all the American models be closed and proprietary from the start. Meanwhile the non-American (especially the Chinese ones) have been open since the start. In fact they often go the opposite direction. Many Chinese models started off proprietary and then were later opened up (like many of the larger Qwen models)

> We've seen all the American models be closed and proprietary from the start. Most*. OpenAI, contrary to popular belief, actually used to believe in open research and (more or less) open models. GPT1 and GPT2 both were model+code releases (although GPT2 was a "staged" release), GPT3 ended up API-only.

OpenAI has released their GPT-OSS series more recently.

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

#104

Post by culi »

embedding-shape wrote: post #100
culi wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's an overgeneralization. We've seen all the American models be closed and proprietary from the start. Meanwhile the non-American (especially the Chinese ones) have been open since the start. In fact they often go the opposite direction. Many Chinese models started off proprietary and then were later opened up (like many of the larger Qwen models)

> We've seen all the American models be closed and proprietary from the start. Most*. OpenAI, contrary to popular belief, actually used to believe in open research and (more or less) open models. GPT1 and GPT2 both were model+code releases (although GPT2 was a "staged" release), GPT3 ended up API-only.

That's fair but those days seem so long gone now.

Also the Chinese models aren't following a typical American SaaS playbook which relies on free/cheap proprietary software for early growth. They are not just publishing their weights but also their code and often even publishing papers in Open Access journals to explicitly highlight what methods and advancements were made to accomplish their results

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

#105

Post by qalmakka »

BobbyJo wrote: post #78
qalmakka wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they're in a win-win situation. Big AI companies would love to see local computing die in favour of the cloud because they are well aware the moment an open model that can run on non ludicrous consumer hardware appears, they're screwed. In this situation Nvidia, AMD and the like would be the only ones profiting from it - even though I'm not convinced they'd prefer going back to fighting for B2C while B2B Is s…

At a consistent amount of usage, datacenters are at least an order of magnitude more hardware efficient. I'm sure Nvidia and AMD would be fine fighting for B2C if it meant volume would be 10+x. Now, given they can't satisfy current volume, they are forced to settle for just having crazy margins.

The problem with B2C is that you need to have leverage of some kind (more demanding applications, planned obsolescence, ...) in order to get people to keep on buying your product. The average consumer may simply consider themselves satisfied with their old product they already own and only replace it when it breaks down. On the contrary, with the cloud you can keep people hooked on getting the latest product whether they need it or not, and get artificial demand from datacentres and such.

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

#106

Post by taurath »

OtomotO wrote: post #83
alex7o wrote: post #71

Ok I find it funny that people compare models and are like, opus 4.7 is SOTA and is much better etc, but I have used glm 5.1 (I assume this comes form them training on both opus and codex) for things opus couldn't do and have seen it make better code, haven't tried the qwen max series but I have seen the local 122b model do smarter more correct things based on docs than opus so yes benchmarks are one thing but realit…

Many people averted religion (which I can get behind with), but have never removed the dogmatic thinking that lay at its root. As so many things these days: It's a cult. I've used Claude for many months now. Since February I see a stark decline in the work I do with it. I've also tried to use it for GPU programming where it absolutely sucks at, with Sonnet, Opus 4.5 and 4.6 But if you share that sentiment, it's alway…

I agree - the problem is it’s hard to see how people who say they’re using it effectively actually are using it, what they’re outputting, and making any sort of comparison on quality or maintainability or coherence.

In the same way, it’s hard to see how people who say they’re struggling are actually using it.

There’s truth somewhere in between “it’s the answer to everything” and “skill issue”. We know it’s overhyped. We know that it’s still useful to some extent, in many domains.

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

#107

Post by psychoslave »

OtomotO wrote: post #83
alex7o wrote: post #71

Ok I find it funny that people compare models and are like, opus 4.7 is SOTA and is much better etc, but I have used glm 5.1 (I assume this comes form them training on both opus and codex) for things opus couldn't do and have seen it make better code, haven't tried the qwen max series but I have seen the local 122b model do smarter more correct things based on docs than opus so yes benchmarks are one thing but realit…

Many people averted religion (which I can get behind with), but have never removed the dogmatic thinking that lay at its root. As so many things these days: It's a cult. I've used Claude for many months now. Since February I see a stark decline in the work I do with it. I've also tried to use it for GPU programming where it absolutely sucks at, with Sonnet, Opus 4.5 and 4.6 But if you share that sentiment, it's alway…

What is it that is dogma free? If one goes hardcore pyrrhonism, doubting that there is anything currently doubting as this statement is processed somehow, that is perfectly sound.

At some point the is a need to have faith in some stable enough ground to be able to walk onto.

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

#108

Post by culi »

jjice wrote: post #2

With them comparing to Opus 4.5, I find it hard to take some of these in good faith. Opus 4.7 is new, so I don't expect that, but Opus 4.6 has been out for quite some time.

Opus 4.6 was released in February. It can take quite some time to run all these benchmarks properly

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

#109

Post by robot_jesus »

culi wrote: post #99
ninjahawk1 wrote: post #29

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 that's an overgeneralization. We've seen all the American models be closed and proprietary from the start. Meanwhile the non-American (especially the Chinese ones) have been open since the start. In fact they often go the opposite direction. Many Chinese models started off proprietary and then were later opened up (like many of the larger Qwen models)

> We've seen all the American models be closed and proprietary from the start

What about Gemma and Llama and gpt-oss, not to mention lots of smaller/specialized models from Nvidia and others?

I would never argue that China isn't ahead in the open weights game, of course, but it's not like it's "all" American models by any stretch.

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

#110

Post by ecshafer »

OtomotO wrote: post #83
alex7o wrote: post #71

Ok I find it funny that people compare models and are like, opus 4.7 is SOTA and is much better etc, but I have used glm 5.1 (I assume this comes form them training on both opus and codex) for things opus couldn't do and have seen it make better code, haven't tried the qwen max series but I have seen the local 122b model do smarter more correct things based on docs than opus so yes benchmarks are one thing but realit…

Many people averted religion (which I can get behind with), but have never removed the dogmatic thinking that lay at its root. As so many things these days: It's a cult. I've used Claude for many months now. Since February I see a stark decline in the work I do with it. I've also tried to use it for GPU programming where it absolutely sucks at, with Sonnet, Opus 4.5 and 4.6 But if you share that sentiment, it's alway…

All people think dogmatically. The only difference is what the ontological commitments and methaphysical foundations are. Take out God and people will fit politics, sports teams, tools, whatever in there. Its inescapable.
Post reply on HN