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

GLM 5.2 Is Out

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 544 posts

Re: GLM 5.2 Is Out

#231

Post by _3u10 »

Loquebantur wrote: post #124
OrsonSmelles wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can see the CBRN weapon nexus in your examples that's missing from the Tiananmen prompt, right? Do American models refuse to tell you about COINTELPRO, Kent State, or My Lai, for instance?

American models are restricted from telling you inconvenient truths just as much, you just erroneously assume to know what those truths are in the first place. Which is of course circular thinking: why would they restrict things you already know about? Why would they do it in such a clumsy and obvious way? Look at MKULTRA, you know next to nothing about it and much less do you know what they do in that direction now.…

Yeah, who needs censorship when Canadians attend no kings protests about a democratically elected leader of another country and not King Charles.

Ask Claude a simple question, which is a more democratic country El Salvador or Canada. It’s so completely biased about “western” countries it’s not even funny.

Re: GLM 5.2 Is Out

#232

Post by matheusmoreira »

zhoujing204 wrote: post #164
oooyay wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Pretty much every large Chinese company has state capital baked into it, and these companies will follow the Chinese government's orders 100%. Don't believe anything a Chinese company says about being "open" or "for everyone." Backing any large Chinese company effectively means backing the Chinese government and its oppression in Xinjiang, Tibet, Hong Kong—and maybe soon Taiwan, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere around t…

Backing any large US company effectively means backing the US government and its worldwide oppression as well. I still can't get over the fact it was the land of the free who was the first to ban strong LLM models. If backing China helps undermine that nonsense then I'm afraid I'll take them up on their offer.

Re: GLM 5.2 Is Out

#233

Post by mrandish »

no-name-here wrote: post #153
segmondy wrote: post #109

In the last few days, Chinese labs have given us MiniMaxM3, KimiK2.7 and now GLM5.2. Meanwhile US is censoring models. Reads like fiction.

The Chinese models are censored (too?). > US is censoring models For the current Anthropic issue, I’d say that’s more likely to just be generic corruption, revenge, shakdeown, and/or incompetence from the Trump admin. ‘Censoring’ might be technically correct, but I think one of the aforementioned verbs is a better fit.

> corruption, revenge, shakdeown, and/or incompetence

Sadly, I think it's all four at once.

Re: GLM 5.2 Is Out

#236

Post by becomevocal »

LaurensBER wrote: post #103
Reubend wrote: post #38

Seems like there's no official blog post with benchmark results yet. But I'm once again thankful for the Chinese AI labs for being open with their work and contributing it to the world under permissive licenses like this. The Fable 5 fiasco is just another reminder of how valuable these things are to have.

Based on my first impressions it's about 6 months behind the frontier labs. So very similar to Opus in January. That is, pretty damn impressive and very useable. When it comes to architecture or complex problems it does noticeable worse but I don't think anyone expected anything else. One particular interesting strong point seems to be design and user interfaces. It does seem to punch above it's weight there but that…

Appreciate the quick take! Sounds like a keeper to me. I think the Opus and Fable design (that I saw for a short while) have gotten stale

Re: GLM 5.2 Is Out

#237

Post by mrandish »

thefounder wrote: post #5
ls612 wrote: post #2

Is it a coincidence that both MiniMax and Z.ai are releasing frontier open weights models right as the USG is trying to impose a cap on model capability offered to the public?

No, Dario became too tiresome and annoying that someone had to do something. Personally I hope they ban Opus too. It will only provide more support for open models development. Compare Dario horror posts with this from GLM release: “ Intelligence should be open, accessible, and ready to build with, empowering every developer, everywhere.”

I'm hardly a fanboy of Anthropic or any of the AI companies, but Ant aren't objectively in a different league of tech bro "tiresome and annoying" than OAI, Google, FB, MSFT, etc. Yet they are being targeted just because of the TOU / EULA they set on usage of their product restricting use for lethal combat planning and mass surveillance.

Set aside whether you agree with that TOU / EULA. We can all decide whether the price and terms any product is available for are acceptable to us. When you create a product, you get to decide the price and terms you want to offer it under. The right to be secure in your person and property is part of the constitution. And Anthropic's models are their property. But the US Government is now extorting a private corporation to force them to let the DoW use the product for lethal combat planning and mass surveillance - against their wishes. That's wrong.

In this case, I don't fully agree with the policies of the company or care for some of the management, but that doesn't change that this is bullshit and unconstitutional.

Re: GLM 5.2 Is Out

#238

Post by ddxv »

thewebguyd wrote: post #87
khalic wrote: post #61

Given the US government’s latest stunt with Fable, this is looking more and more like the future. Can’t rely on strategic products if they’re gated by capricious actors. Open weight models are basically immune to that

> Open weight models are basically immune to that Somewhat. The US Gov can make it illegal to transact with, download, use, etc. foreign open weight models. Of course, enforcement will be difficult for individuals (businesses will comply by default, and they would all be pulled off Github and other US based hosting locations if they went the sanctions route). But, we are also quickly going down the road of frightenin…

I think that this is what OpenAI/Anthropic want but they wont say it publicly. The will be OK with the US banning regulating and banning open source models as it let's Anthropic and OpenAI charge huge premiums to American business clients for their models.

Also the marketing of them getting to say "our models are so dangerous" only a few companies or select users are allowed to use (benchmark) them would help keep their valuations high.

Re: GLM 5.2 Is Out

#239

Post by wyrdcurt »

dataflow wrote: post #221
wyrdcurt wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ask an American LLM (really any LLM, since Chinese models are trained on the same publicly-available English text) who the first Black man in space was. You'll likely get the name of the first African-American in space, rather than the name of the Afro-Cuban who was actually first. This may seem like a relatively innocuous error, but the point is that every culture has its biases and blind spots.

> Ask an American LLM (really any LLM, since Chinese models are trained on the same publicly-available English text) who the first Black man in space was. You'll likely get the name of the first African-American in space, rather than the name of the Afro-Cuban who was actually first. Well I just asked Claude and it gave the correct answer: "The first Black man in space was Arnaldo Tamayo Méndez, a Cuban cosmonaut who…

Indeed, I used the word "likely" for a reason. n = 1 isn't enough to identify a pattern. Try different models, try re-rolling the answers, and try turning reasoning off (models can catch "knee-jerk" mistakes in their chain-of-thought).

I doubt even Opus 4.8 gets it right 100% of the time, however this specific example is also one I've left feedback about in multiple places, so it's also probable that newer models are more likely to get it right.

E: In fact, I just tried with Opus 4.8 through API, no tools and reasoning off, and got the following response:

"The first Black man in space was Guion "Guy" Bluford, an American astronaut who flew aboard the Space Shuttle Challenger on August 30, 1983, as part of mission STS-8. It's worth noting a related distinction: Arnaldo Tamayo Méndez, a Cuban of African descent, actually became the first person of African heritage in space earlier, in September 1980, aboard the Soviet Soyuz 38 mission. He is often recognized as the first Black person and first person of Latin American descent in space. So depending on the specific criteria: Arnaldo Tamayo Méndez (Cuba) — first person of African descent in space (1980) Guion Bluford (USA) — first African American in space (1983)"

The correct answer is there, yes, but why does the wrong answer come out first?

Re: GLM 5.2 Is Out

#240

Post by Tepix »

sgc wrote: post #172
wgd wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GLM-5 series is 744B-A40B. This is not a local model for any reasonable definition of local, but it's an open model which means (once they upload the weights in a week or so) there will be a dozen third-party inference providers competing on price per token.

As far as I can tell this type of model requires 640GB+ of memory using FP8. So likely can be run using 320GB+ memory if using FP4 or similar. So that would be 3 Nvidia DGX Sparks, or 12k of hardware. Is that correct? If so, it could make perfect sense for a small business.

You probably need four of them in practice.
Post reply on HN