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

171–180 of 476 posts

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

#171

Post by ttul »

mrngld wrote: post #71

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…

DeepSWE “feels” like the right benchmark in comparison to Artificial Analysis indices and other coding benchmarks. And by their metrics, GPT-5.5 is still king in token efficiency, speed, and overall intelligence per dollar.

https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/

Fable 5 is cool and all, but we have not yet seen GPT-5.6.

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

#172

Post by re-thc »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #92
mrngld wrote: post #71

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…

I gave GLM 5.2 a spin on openrouter yesterday and it was mostly fine but it racked up $5 in token use in 30 minutes of (relatively slow) work. It's easily 4x the cost of DeepSeek V4 but I didn't actually feel the results were that much better. I had GPT 5.5 in Codex review it after it was done and there was plenty of slop to go around. Having better luck with MiniMax M3, from a cost/benefit ratio.

> I had GPT 5.5 in Codex review it after it was done and there was plenty of slop to go around.

GPT can find fault in everything and anything including its own work.

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

#173

Post by root-parent »

kristopolous wrote: post #162
Certhas wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of these models come from universities, European or otherwise. Mistral is clearly currently not competing for Frontier Model. Whether this is due to a lack of VC Funds or a lack of technical ability or the former arising from the latter would be interesting to know. The top models are from startups. Among the FAANG only Google managed to get a Frontier model, and they litterally invented the architecture and hav…

I'm actually more curious about IBM. Their granite series appears to be nowhere close to competitive. They had Watson, remember, it won on jeopardy like 15 years ago? They've been at this for a long time Maybe it's good at something else?

Agree that IBM has no excuse. Specially for how long they have been trying to do AI. Although Watson was a completely different technology.

They had to start from scratch, but dont seem to have the management to be smart enough, to stop doing it in house. They could have just acquired a startup that could build a frontier model.

What is also very ironic since their whole bussiness for the last 15 years, has been buying companies a la CA Associates...

Their previous Watson branding and collapse of Watson expectations cost them one CEO, but the current CEO was part of the same team. They just dont learn....

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

#174

Post by sschueller »

Certhas wrote: post #154
tcp_handshaker wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short comments... - GPT 5.5 consistently the best, an opinion who gets me constant downvotes here by the Anthropic Marketeer strike force... - China is going to eat the US lunch on AI - What have European universities and companies been doing? Its like if, on a parallel past/future, Nikola Tesla and Edison would have created flying Cyberpunk machines, while Europeans researchers, would be getting together to request…

None of these models come from universities, European or otherwise. Mistral is clearly currently not competing for Frontier Model. Whether this is due to a lack of VC Funds or a lack of technical ability or the former arising from the latter would be interesting to know. The top models are from startups. Among the FAANG only Google managed to get a Frontier model, and they litterally invented the architecture and hav…

Apertus was built by universities in Switzerland. Although not frontier it is fully open.

[1] https://apertvs.ai/pages/about/

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

#175

Post by CuriouslyC »

anuramat wrote: post #32
unrvl22 wrote: post #4

Why aren't more people talking about this? It's literally Opus 4.7 quality stupid prices. I know providers who are offering this at unlimited tokens for $50 a month. Some are even offering API rates at 3x lower than the official ZAI api rates which are already like 10x cheaper than Opus. (Crof and Umans btw) This is a huge blow to Anthropic/OpenAI/Google and a massive win for the rest of the world. The official API p…

> unlimited tokens for $50 a month link? > Why imho everything but opus produces unusable code (fable was even better...), eg gpt5.5 seems to write the absolute worst code that still technically solves the problem; tbh I'd be totally willing to trade "raw intelligence" for "code taste" more labs need to figure out whatever anthropic did to destroy everybody else on frontiercode bench

Opus has the nickname "Slopus" in a lot of circles for a reason. It can write nice code in isolation, but the way it organizes that code and its rigor in addressing edge cases/making sure things are robust leave a lot to be desired. Opus is particularly famous for having a real problem reinventing stuff that already existed in the codebase because it wanted to get to work before exploring sufficiently.

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

#176

Post by orbital-decay »

cedws wrote: post #28
CuriouslyC wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be careful about unofficial providers, a lot of them misconfigure models or stealth quantize them. For a while the difference between Kimi on the official API and most third party providers was 20-40%.

OpenRouter should be penalising or banning for this.

They have an "exacto" category with providers they supposedly verified

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

#177

Post by unrvl22 »

smith7018 wrote: post #147
redox99 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely opus level for coding.

Do you have benchmarks or at least anecdotes to back that up? I'm not arguing with you; I would just love to see some proof that open models are getting as good as Anthropic's models.

look at benchmarks, use the model yourself. Im usually first to call BS on every chinese model that says they are as good as Opus. this is finally the first one that actually is. It is a massive jump from every other previous chinese model.

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

#178

Post by ponyous »

Just ran and scored 63 3d model generations (via code) across high and no reasoning. 3D Modeling benchmark quickly shows spatial, logic and code performance of the model so I think it's a very good indicator of the quality.

Here are the results compared to Gemini 3.5 Flash:

    Model + config          CodeErr/gen   Cost/gen   Median time   Quality
    gemini-3.5-flash, low      0.71        $0.18        68s       baseline
    GLM 5.2, reasoning high    0.61        $0.18       289s         -6.0%
    GLM 5.2, reasoning off     1.52        $0.10       126s        -13.6%
Although it is cheaper, it is significantly slower, and results are worse overall. Surprisingly - high reasoning produces less code errors than gemini 3.5 flash, but when I actually look at the models they are worse.

Edit: I recently ran evals with Kimi 2.7 and MiniMax-M3 and this is clearly open source SOTA model, by far.

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

#179

Post by lukewarm707 »

mrngld wrote: post #71

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…

with open models you can get a subscription with privacy, at the same cost as codex.

openai, google and anthropic subscriptions are not available with privacy.

looking at the link there it's interesting that going from cursor cli to codex cli take gpt 5.5 from 7th to 3rd. but they didn't do open model in codex.

so, hard to say it's for sure a model benchmark. maybe open models are just shit at swe agent harness...it's not the most parsimonious explanation though.

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

#180

Post by jansan »

kristopolous wrote: post #150
tcp_handshaker wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short comments... - GPT 5.5 consistently the best, an opinion who gets me constant downvotes here by the Anthropic Marketeer strike force... - China is going to eat the US lunch on AI - What have European universities and companies been doing? Its like if, on a parallel past/future, Nikola Tesla and Edison would have created flying Cyberpunk machines, while Europeans researchers, would be getting together to request…

They did muse spark ... it's not garbage. Also what are they building it for? I'd think it's to serve ads better or something like that. Maybe Muse Spark fits facebook's needs perfectly...

Mo Bitar said something like "Meta's LLM is the one you use if you accidentially hit the wrong button in WhatsApp. Its user base is fat-finger phone users."
Post reply on HN