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

381–390 of 476 posts

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

#381

Post by aesthesia »

xstas1 wrote: post #140
giancarlostoro wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I usually have Claude build a plan first, then I put it into an XML file it updates with phases, usually we talk about some of those tasks, and then once its good and I like it, I have Claude implement the plan. Another thing I tell Claude to do is to not guess, but look at documentation, it messes up a lot less, might use some tokens reading docs, but at least it has a higher success rate code wise.

XML??

One reason to use XML-like formatting is that it makes the beginning and end of sections explicit. This is less of an issue when the model is generating text but can still be helpful when using templated prompts.

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

#383

Post by chartpath »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #359
benjiro29 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> GLM 5.2 Max = Opus 4.8 Max in thinking behavior This is insane! I can't wait until technology progresses to the point we can run these things on consumer hardware!

Are there any indications that this will be possible? Consumer hardware will continue getting better but I can't see 512GB RAM in a MacBook Pro any time soon. I'm hoping linear attention techniques plus MoE will make breakthroughs in size/compression and throughput.

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

#384

Post by tsss »

marcus_cemes wrote: post #195
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…

To be honest, living in Switzerland and speaking with peers, we're just exhausted by the constant AI hype. For a lot of us, the fact that Europe isn't frantically trying to scrape the entire internet and every book in existence for the next massive model isn't a bad thing. The big players are doing their thing, like with the nuclear arms race. We regulate a lot, too much a lot of the time, but sometimes that trickles…

If these models ever reach the point where they are as good a programmer as a human is (and thus can self-improve completely independently), then there won't be an independent Switzerland much longer. AI race is a race for first place.

> like with the nuclear arms race

MacArthur was about to nuke the Chinese in the Korean war. China knows that nuclear weapons, AI and robotics are a matter of survival and not a nice-to-have.

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

#385

Post by matheusmoreira »

chartpath wrote: post #383
matheusmoreira wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GLM 5.2 Max = Opus 4.8 Max in thinking behavior This is insane! I can't wait until technology progresses to the point we can run these things on consumer hardware!

Are there any indications that this will be possible? Consumer hardware will continue getting better but I can't see 512GB RAM in a MacBook Pro any time soon. I'm hoping linear attention techniques plus MoE will make breakthroughs in size/compression and throughput.

Certainly not any time soon, but I have faith it'll happen one day.

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

#386

Post by killix »

coder543 wrote: post #341
hereme888 wrote: post #266

Hmmm... GLM insists it's Gemini. https://github.com/zai-org/GLM-5/issues/79

Claude Sonnet 4.6 identified itself as DeepSeek repeatedly: https://www.reddit.com/r/DeepSeek/comments/1rd5jw7/claude_so... I tested this myself a few months ago, and confirmed that it was really happening. LLMs don't know who they are unless the system prompt tells them, and as all of them are trained on model responses that exist on the web that end up being scraped, the weights may predict a certain incorrect resp…

[flagged]

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

#387

Post by guelo »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #98
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…

> Of course if you convert those values to actual request cost, GLM 5.2 will probably beat GPT 5.5/Opus 4.8, but speed matters for a lot of people, I think. GLM5.2 ends up being far more expensive than I thought it would be when I tried it on openrouter. I ground through $5 USD worth of tokens quite quickly. And this was high, not max.

Using these open models really makes you realize how subsidized Anthropic and OpenAi's subscription plans are.

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

#388

Post by gorbypark »

daniban wrote: post #329

I'm curious what harness everyone is using for these? I want to start to test some of these open models but don't know what tools people use to get these working "agenticaly"

I am using OpenCode with the DeepSeek API with some pretty good results.

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

#389

Post by nwienert »

theplumber wrote: post #54
elwebmaster wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not alone. How about GPT 5.5? Does it come close to Fable 5?

GPT 5.5 xhigh is smarter than Fable but Fable like Opus 4.8 as well is faster and seems more “agentic”. It’s easy to test this. Build a fairly complex software with Claude(opus or Fable). Review the commits with both Claude and GPT 5.5 Xhigh. You can see that Fable is still sloppy(er) compared to GPT. You can test it the other way around as well(drive the dev with GPT and review with GPT and Claude). You get the same…

I somehow take the opposite on almost everything here.

4.8 xhigh or max has a slight edge on 5.5 xhigh, for very complex logic perhaps it loses but it's just better in almost every other way, especially code quality. GPT is a slop machine outputs way too much and over-abstracts, plus its communication is so bad in comparison.

Fable was for sure a step above GPT, I tried them both against a few of the same hard tasks and it was not a small difference.

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

#390

Post by orbital-decay »

robertkarl wrote: post #231
vorticalbox wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a problem I find with opus is will spend so long thinking then going “but wait what if” To point where I stop it and simple tell it to “start writing code you can work it out as you go along” Seems writers block also effects LLM

https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.00206 In this paper they nerf an LLMs ability to emit waffling thinking tokens like "wait", "but", "alternatively", and the models (they're old, small models in the paper) terminate reasoning faster and perform better. I bet Anthropic is tuning this on their backend.

I imagine Anthropic would rather train a small control model instead of resorting to sampling hacks
Post reply on HN