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

GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis

artificialanalysis.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 476 posts

Re: GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis

#71

Post by mrngld »

Artificial Analysis coding benchmark shows GLM5.1 on high pretty close to GPT5.5 xhigh in cost to run, with GPT5.5 on medium significantly less expensive. Compared to GPT5.5 medium GLM5.1xhigh is twice the cost and half the intelligence. They don't have GLM5.2 on there yet, but that'd a big gap to bridge.

https://artificialanalysis.ai/agents/coding-agents?coding-ag...

I thought I was "holding it wrong" until DeepSWE came along -- personally it seems to match my own experiences pretty well. Really makes me wonder how legitimate some of the internet noise is about open models. There's surely some use cases for them, not everything needs the absolute frontier (GPT5.5 on low is awesome), but if you want to be near the frontier everyone needs to be honest about the fact that we're only talking about Opus, Fable, GPT5.5.

Re: GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis

#72

Post by kissgyorgy »

I tried it today through Openrouter and the API is atrocious. I got multiple rate limit and random errors every turn.

Somebody wrote [1]; "I am never touching Minimax or GLM again. Their APIs had constant outages and I had to restart my runs multiple times — after burning money on the runs that failed midway." and I 100% agree.

The model might be good, but if the API is so bad, it's effectively useless.

[1]: https://kasra.blog/blog/i-spent-1500-seeing-if-llms-could-ha...

Re: GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis

#73

Post by Havoc »

CubsFan1060 wrote: post #58

Knowing very little about how to run these, how close are we to medium or larger businesses starting to buy hardware to run models like this to keep the models local? It’s expensive, and not as capable as the frontier models, but would have some pretty big benefits around privacy and agency.

It’s a ~750B model so still a hell of a lot of vram

Would need to be a pretty determined medium biz

Re: GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis

#74

Post by Havoc »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #7

I've been playing with this model a fair amount over the last 24 hours, and I can confirm it's quite capable, while being a little bit verbose (I've seen it reconsider things 3-4 times in thinking traces before deciding on a path forward), and not being quite as good as GPT5.5 at working through complex abstract requirements. Honestly it's good enough that I feel comfortable recommending a Z.AI sub + a $20/mo OpenAI…

> while being a little bit verbose

Discovered today that they set reasoning effort to max by default. So that’s probably why

Re: GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis

#76

Post by osti »

mordae wrote: post #49
rahidz wrote: post #24

Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither DeepSeek nor GLM have image input modality. This makes them less useful when looking at UIs, photos, screenshots, etc. doesn't it? Or do they have alternate ways of doing so?

They do not and it sucks for certain tasks. It also means that if they actually trained with vision, they'd be on par with Anthropic models as vision seems to improve model performance across the board even for non-vision tasks.

Many other open source models have vision but they don't compare to GLM in terms of coding quality. So I don't think it's because of vision that the frontier models are better, it's more that they are probably just much bigger models.

Re: GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis

#77

Post by Havoc »

rahidz wrote: post #24

Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither DeepSeek nor GLM have image input modality. This makes them less useful when looking at UIs, photos, screenshots, etc. doesn't it? Or do they have alternate ways of doing so?

They have a separate VL model but never tried it

Re: GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis

#78

Post by Havoc »

kissgyorgy wrote: post #72

I tried it today through Openrouter and the API is atrocious. I got multiple rate limit and random errors every turn. Somebody wrote [1]; "I am never touching Minimax or GLM again. Their APIs had constant outages and I had to restart my runs multiple times — after burning money on the runs that failed midway." and I 100% agree. The model might be good, but if the API is so bad, it's effectively useless. [1]: https://…

That’s what happens when you offer something decent at a fraction of the price of opus - more demand than you can serve

Re: GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis

#79

Post by fc417fc802 »

Schiendelman wrote: post #64
fc417fc802 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're seriously suggesting that setting up opencode or tweaking your claude code config or etc is too much trouble to be worth saving $50 /mo? That's absurd. Doubly so when the audience in question is already using LLMs so ... just ask your existing LLM for help if it seems daunting.

I'm not just suggesting that, I'm trying to be crystal clear: it's a gap that probably cuts TAM by 95% or more. Most LLM users are not software engineers. Even those that are don't care enough to muck with their settings to try out a model. Keep in mind I'm not answering the question "Is this hard to install?" - I'm answering the question "Why aren't people talking about this?"

Doesn't pass the sniff test. Casuals messing around already go to far more trouble to set up openclaw or comfyui or what have you.

Re: GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis

#80

Post by vitalyan123 »

benjiro29 wrote: post #59
Tiberium wrote: post #2

It seems to really be a nice step-up and is getting quite close to the frontier. I wish they'd start focusing on the reasoning efficiency now, though. I have a simple (relatively) test task to evaluate LLMs: writing a simple math evaluator library in Nim (it's about 400-600 lines total max), and GLM 5.2 (xhigh which maps to max effort) spent over 15 minutes (!) reasoning, spending about 45k tokens, before it finally…

GLM 5.2 Max = Opus 4.8 Max in thinking behavior. The thinking chain is so similar, and so is the amount of token usage on the output. If you want reasonable token usage, you need to run it GLM 5.2 at High. There is little drop in quality from Max to High (for most tasks). And it cuts token usage by 2 a 2.5x. GLM 5.2, Max is really something you only need for complex tasks. In essence, GLM 5.2 is Opus 4.8 its little b…

distillation of thinking models is not particularly effective - both "Open"AI and Misanthropic don't show you the real chain of thought, only its severely downscaled version. both do everything in their power to combat such outrageous copyright infringement, so the bulk of unethically scrapped data the Chinese have is from several generations ago.
Post reply on HN