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

Post by zozbot234 » Mon, Apr 20, 2026, 4:35 PM UTC

culi wrote: post #104

embedding-shape wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Post by walthamstow » Mon, Apr 20, 2026, 4:36 PM UTC

robot_jesus wrote: post #109

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 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.

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Apr 20, 2026, 4:37 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #103

embedding-shape wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Post by Zetaphor » Mon, Apr 20, 2026, 4:40 PM UTC

OtomotO wrote: post #85

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…

So an OPEN model that I can run on my own fucking hardware will entrench China in global supply and logistics how? Contrary: How will the closed, proprietary models from Anthropic, "Open"AI and Co. lead us all to freedom? Freedom of what exactly? Freedom of my money? At some point this "anti-communism" bullshit propaganda has to stop. And that moment was decades ago!

Post by flatline » Mon, Apr 20, 2026, 4:41 PM UTC

AnonymousPlanet wrote: post #90

Aurornis wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

For actually serious work, it's a stark difference if your proprietary and security relevant code is sent abroad to a foreign, possibly future hostile country, or is sent to some data center around the corner. It doesn't even need to be defence related.