Live data from Hacker News

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

qwen.ai

221–230 of 400 posts

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

#221
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you talking about GLM 5.1, DeepSeek V3.2 or Kimi K2.6 (released one hour ago!)? Oh wait, it doesn't apply to those…

Z.ai's Coding Plan with GLM 5.1 (Max) did more than double in price. It was $80 two weeks ago, and now it's $160.

[deleted]

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

#222
post #214
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been running Opus and GLM side-by side for a couple weeks now, and I've been impressed with GLM. I will absolutely agree that it's slow, but if you let it cook, it can be really impressive and absolutely on the level of Opus. Keep in mind, I don't really use AI to build entire services, I'm mostly using it to make small changes or help me find bugs, so the slowness doesn't bother me. Maybe if I set it to make a…

> The big kicker for GLM for me is I can use it in Pi, or whatever harness I like. Yes, but... isn't the same true for Opus and all the other models too?

Opus is about 7 times more expensive than GLM with API pricing. And since you can only use the Opus subscription plan in CC, you're essentially locked into API pricing for Pi and any other harness.

So you're either paying $1000's for Opus in Pi, or $30/month for GLM in Pi. If the results are mostly equivalent that's an easy choice for most of us.

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

#223
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was watching Qwen3.6-35B-A3B (locally) doing the same dance yesterday. It eventually finished and had a reasonable answer, but it sure went back and forth on a bunch of things I had explicitly said not to do before coming to a conclusion. At least said conclusion was not any of the things I'd said not to do.

That is essentially what the reasoning reinforcement training does. It is getting the model to say things that are more likely to result in the correct final answer. Everything it does in between doesn't necessarily need to be valid argument to produce the answer. You can think of it as filling the context with whatever is needed to make the right answer come out next. Valid arguments obviously help. but so might exp…

That's pretty cool, thanks for the extra context! (pardon the... not even pun I guess)

Also, thanks for pointing me at that specific paper; I spend a lot more of my life closer to classical control theory than ML theory so it's always neat to see the intersection of them. My unsubstantiated hypothesis is that controls & ML are going to start getting looked at more holistically, and not in the way I normal see it (which is "why worry about classical control theory, just solve the problem with RL"). Control theory is largely about steering dynamic systems along stable trajectories through state space... which is largely what iterative "fill in the next word" LLM models are doing. The intersection, I hope, will be interesting and add significant efficiency.

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

#224
post #137
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

None of that is true, at least in theory. You can trivially change layer size simply by adding extra columns initialized as 0, effectively embedding your smaller network in a larger network. You can add layers in a similar way, and in fact LLMs are surprisingly robust to having layers added and removed - you can sometimes actually improve performance simply by duplicating some middle layers[0]. Tokenization is probab…

You took a simple path, embedding smaller into larger. What if you need to reduce number of layers and/or width of hidden layers? How will you embed larger into smaller? As for the "addition of same layers" - would the process of "layers to add" selection be considered training?

What if you still have to obtain the best result possible for given coefficient/tokenization budget?

I think that my comment express general case, while yours provide some exceptions.

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

#225

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…

$100 / month will get you rate limited to much to rely on with the Claude plans. People still report getting rate limited on the $200 / plan.

Also not everyone wants to use Claude Code, so if they're paying API pricing it's more likely thousands of dollars a month. If you can get the same results by spending a fraction of that, why wouldn't you?

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

#226

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.

I’m not sure what you are implying by “enterprise license”, but if you think it provides any meaningful protection against malicious US government actors, you really need to read and internalize the US CLOUD Act.

On a related note, I really need to try some local models (probably starting with qwen), since, at least in 2026, the Chinese models are way better at protecting democracy and free speech than the US models.

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

#227
post #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 document…

Unless stuff changed since I last checked, context caching just reduces cost / latency. It does not change what tokens are emitted.

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

#228
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…

The only reason I'm stuck with Claude and Chatgpt is because of their tool calling. They do have some pretty useful features like skills etc. I've tried using qwen and deepseek but they can't even output documents. How are you guys handling documents and excels with these tools? I'd love to switch tbh.

You can use both codex and Claude CLI with local models. I used codex with Gemma4 and it did pretty well. I did get one weird session where the model got confused and couldn't decide which tools actually existed in its inventory, but usually it could use tools just fine.

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

#229
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…

If you showed me code from GLM 5.1, Opus 4.6, and Kimi K2.6, my ranking for best model would be highly random.

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

#230

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 do you use instead of the Claude code client app?
Post reply on HN