"GLM-5.2 hit a problem here, because it can't read images. It isn't multimodal. So instead of looking at a screenshot, it fell back on a hacky workaround: it wrote scripts to read the raw pixel data and check whether the colors came out roughly as expected." A better way would be to use https://github.com/openbmb/MiniCPM-V
GLM 5.2 vs. Opus
341–350 of 367 posts
Re: GLM 5.2 vs. Opus
#342I seriously dont' know all this big hullabaloo about one shot prompting. by definition, a single prompt wont' constitute the complexity of a software project. ergo, what you'll get is a series of assumptions made by the model based on preexisting code in its training corpus. I'd rather see a coding agent that can follow steps in a plan file to a T while following guardrails and adhering to the proper coding conventio…
PREACH. I have no idea why THIS has become the standard for illustrating model capabilities. It's endlessly frustrating when that was the initial objective for all these models, but, became increasingly clear over time that none of these models were ever capable of getting the desired output for complex software on the initial prompt. The reality is: - business rules change - ideas for improvement may arise from the…
Re: GLM 5.2 vs. Opus
#343> Through an API it costs a fraction of Opus, and you can run it yourself for free if you have the hardware. I haven't been keeping up on hardware costs for state of the art LLM inference, but this remark made me ask myself how many readers of the article would actually be able to run this model on hardware they own. How much would it cost to acquire such a setup?
GLM-5.2 performing like it would from a good provider - 8x B200s, so $450k. (No personal experience here) GLM-5.2, severely quantised, 512GB Mac Studio, somewhere between $10k-$35k for a used M3. Or run it on a CPU with 768GB of RAM by getting an old PowerEdge with DDR4 for around $5,000. Qwen-3.6-35b-q6, runs well on an RTX 5090 ($4000 + cost of a PC), runs medicore on an Intel Arc B70 ($1000 + cost of a PC plus lot…
Basically a 1x 24GB GPU (32GB would be better) plus 256GB of free system RAM, or a 256GB unified memory machine (like a Mac).
Kind of shocked they got the results they did.
Re: GLM 5.2 vs. Opus
#344Re: GLM 5.2 vs. Opus
#345Earlier quoted context omitted.
how do I configure claude code / pi with it? sounds like a good deal! EDIT: I've RTFM lol, thanks for the links, will give it a shot!
The docs are really helpful : https://dev.synthetic.new/docs/guides/claude-code Glad you figured it out :) Let me know your thoughts about the quota and GLM5.2, so far I don't think I've came across against anything better, $/usefulness wise.
Re: GLM 5.2 vs. Opus
#346Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing with one-shot prompting is that it tests the ability for the model to make good choices on its own, rather than only instruction following. Instruction following has been down for years, and while there are of course metrics that continue to improve as the frontier advances (for example, the ability to continue following the original instructions even as context grows), you can't really get that much better…
It doesn't teat the models ability to make good decisions on its own, it tests the models ability to make something that 'works'. Often you look inside and it does a whole load of questionable things that mostly work, sure, but if you say and designed it properly yourself you would likely come up with something for more sane and maintainable.
Re: GLM 5.2 vs. Opus
#347I’m actually amazed at the output since GLM doesn’t have eyes. If GLM 5.2 costs 1/5 as much, seems like it could be set up to reach out to a multimodal model for vision tasks when required. Closer to parity but probably still significantly cheaper.