Live data from Hacker News

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

qwen.ai

121–130 of 400 posts

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

#121
post #16
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.

I'm using GLM 5.1 for the last two weeks as a cheaper alternative to Sonnet, and it's great - probably somewhere between Sonnet and Opus. It's pretty slow though.

This is what kills it for me… The long thinking blocks can make a simple task take 30 minutes.

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

#122
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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've used Claude for many months now. Since February I see a stark decline in the work I do with it. I find myself repeating the following pattern: I use an AI model to assist me with work, and after some time, I notice the quality doesn't justify the time investment. I decide to try a similar task with another provider. I try a few more tests, then decide to switch over for full time work, and it feels like it's a…

I wonder about this. I see two obvious possibilities (if we ignore bias):

1. The models are purposefully nerfed, before the release of the next model, similar to how Apple allegedly nerfed their older phones when the next model was out.

2. You are relying more and more on the models and are using your talent less and less. What you are observing is the ratio of your vs. the model’s work leaning more and more to the model’s. When a new model is released, it produces better quality code then before, so the work improves with it, but your talent keeps deteriorating at a constant rate.

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

#123
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…

I tried GLM and Qwen last week for a day. And some issues it could solve, while some, on surface relatively easy, task it just could not solve after a few tries, that Opus oneshotted this morning with the same prompt. It’s a single example ofcourse, but I really wanted to give it a fair try. All it had to do was create a sortable list in Magento admin. But on the other hand, GLM did oneshot a phpstorm plugin

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

#124
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Dogmatism is a spectrum and for too many people it's on the animal side of the scale.

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

#125
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a little more optimistic than that. I suspect that the open-weight models we already have are going to be enough to support incremental development of new ones, using reasonably-accessible levels of compute. The idea that every new foundation model needs to be pretrained from scratch, using warehouses of GPUs to crunch the same 50 terabytes of data from the same original dumps of Common Crawl and various Russian…

Change layer size and you have to retrain. Change number of layers and you have to retrain. Change tokenization and you have to retrain.

Hopefully we will find a way to make it so that making minor changes don't require a full retrain. Training how to train, as a concept, comes to mind.

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

#126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

AFAIK all these companies have SOTA or near-SOTA models available under enterprise licenses. AI companies are not interested in your secret sauce, they are trying to capture the SDLC wholesale.

If an American company, let's say a company that writes software for power stations, would use the services of a French or Chinese AI company under such enterprise licenses, how long would you think it would take until someone, in Congress e.g., would interfere?

What if they learned that half of the American small and medium sized companies would have started pouring all their business information into such a service?

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

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've used Claude for many months now. Since February I see a stark decline in the work I do with it. I find myself repeating the following pattern: I use an AI model to assist me with work, and after some time, I notice the quality doesn't justify the time investment. I decide to try a similar task with another provider. I try a few more tests, then decide to switch over for full time work, and it feels like it's a…

I wonder about this. I see two obvious possibilities (if we ignore bias): 1. The models are purposefully nerfed, before the release of the next model, similar to how Apple allegedly nerfed their older phones when the next model was out. 2. You are relying more and more on the models and are using your talent less and less. What you are observing is the ratio of your vs. the model’s work leaning more and more to the m…

I definitely find your last point is true for me. The more work I am doing with AI the more I am expecting it to do, similar to how you can expect more over time from a junior you are delegating to and training. However the model isn't learning or improving the same way, so your trust is quickly broken.

As you note, the developer's input is still driving the model quite a bit so if the developer is contributing less and less as they trust more, the results would get worse.

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

#128

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.

[flagged]

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

#129
https://www.alibabacloud.com/help/en/model-studio/context-ca... I’ve also been testing models like Opus, Codex, and Qwen, and Qwen is strong in many coding tasks. However, my main concern is how it behaves in long-running sessions.

While Qwen advertises large context windows, in practice the effectiveness of long-context usage seems to depend heavily on its context caching behavior. According to the official documentation, Qwen provides both implicit and explicit context caching, but these come with constraints such as short TTL (around a few minutes), prefix-based matching, and minimum token thresholds.

Because of these constraints, especially in workflows like coding agents where context grows over time, cache reuse may not scale as effectively as expected. As a result, even though the per-token price looks low, the effective cost in long sessions can feel higher due to reduced cache hit rates and repeated computation.

That said, in certain areas such as security-related tasks, I’ve personally had cases where Qwen performed better than Opus.

In my personal experience, Qwen tends to perform much better than Opus on shorter units like individual methods or functions. However, when looking at the overall coding experience, I found it works better as a function-level generator rather than as an autonomous, end-to-end coding assistant like Claude.

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

#130
post #67

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 what? I still prefer that over US total dominance. Let them fight it out.

Yeah, a lot of people are still living within the paradigm of tribalism: my team good, other team bad.

But the events of the past decade or so have clearly demonstrated that there are no "good" actors.

I personally couldn't care less who wins in the China vs US AI competition, both sides have a long list of pros and cons.

Post reply on HN