I signed up to a z.ai max account, $144. Hardly been able to use it as it 429s on most requests. They’re also refusing to refund me.
[deleted]
GLM-5.2 is a step change for open agents
121–130 of 240 posts
Re: GLM-5.2 is a step change for open agents
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure how I'm supposed to get $200 of value out of personal use!
Here most of my colleagues have +200 dollar rates. It's really a no brainer. But sure, in south America or some Asian countries maybe it is. But still most devs need it anyway. Also in the poor regions.
In Sweden $200 is ~5% of average programmer monthly income after tax. $200/h rate is not a representative salary for SEs in South America, Asian countries nor Europe.
If you're running a business I agree it's a no-brainer, but the context here is for personal projects.
Re: GLM-5.2 is a step change for open agents
#123Can people share their GLM and open model setups in general please? What provider do you use. Why do you trust it with serving full quality? What harness do you use? Why do you trust it not to have malware (most harnessed are TS apps). I am just trying GLM 5.1 from Nvidia build in open code would love to hear how you all do it, thanks.
> What provider do you use.
> Why do you trust it with serving full quality?
> What harness do you use? Why do you trust it not to have malware (most harnessed are TS apps).
Re: GLM-5.2 is a step change for open agents
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here most of my colleagues have +200 dollar rates. It's really a no brainer. But sure, in south America or some Asian countries maybe it is. But still most devs need it anyway. Also in the poor regions.
In Sweden $200 is ~5% of average programmer monthly income after tax. $200/h rate is not a representative salary for SEs in South America, Asian countries nor Europe. If you're running a business I agree it's a no-brainer, but the context here is for personal projects.
Come on. The 200 spend on Claude is easily earned back. A few hours of work maximum.
Re: GLM-5.2 is a step change for open agents
#125I know very little about the current state of replacability of Opus but I do sometimes imagine a reality where Opus has been rebuilt as an open model. What plan does Anthropic have when it does happen?
Will they still rent out their own model, will they support the open model and become a resource provider? Will they be able to repay the billions of dollars ?
This is probably the first question I would ask someone from Anthropic, if I ever meet one.
Re: GLM-5.2 is a step change for open agents
#126The idea of an open-weight Mythos model is not scary at all. This space is moving so quickly that it'll looked at in 1-2 years as childs play.
I don't understand those takes.
Open-weights perhaps, but definitely not self-hostable – since those require $20k+ capex – which is the real "step change" to me, as it ends the stranglehold providers have over censorship.
The only silver lining would be increased competition in API providers of those open-weight models leading to truly affordable prices and a race to remove stupid "safety" checks.
Re: GLM-5.2 is a step change for open agents
#127Re: GLM-5.2 is a step change for open agents
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
How will anyone running home instances be able to compete against people paying some money running much more powerful models on much more powerful hardware?
It’ll be interesting. I’m using Qwen3.6:27B at home and mostly Sonnet/Opus (depending on the complexity of the task) at work. You have to break things down into smaller chunks for the local models. For the bigger cloud ones they can do a lot of the broader thinking.
Time is money, but apparently now thinking is money as well. How much is it going to cost to think harder? If it's, say, $10 to use a bigger cloud model, it becomes easier to qualify the cost of thinking.
Re: GLM-5.2 is a step change for open agents
#129GLM-5.2 has been a step change in how fast i can burn through tokens. I subscribed to their max plan to try it out. It counted me 700M tokens and drained my weekly quota in under 2 days. Quota just reset less than 24h ago and i'm already >60% weekly quota usage. For reference the kind of work i did would have used somewhere between 3% and 5% of Codex max or Claude max. The model is good, the plan is a scam
Kimi and GLM models have coined a new term: Thinkslop. They run a chain of thought that is up to 10x longer than other models and it seems that through a lookback mechanism they are able to use the CoT to reason about solutions to tasks they couldn't otherwise solve. The downside is of course that they consume many more tokens off your plan, and also that they are significantly slower. Kimi K2.7 takes about 7x longer…
> Kimi and GLM models have coined a new term: Thinkslop.
> [...]
> So for now I'm happy with just two models: GPT and DeepSeek.
1. DeepSeek V3.2, V4 Flash, V4 Pro, at high or max thinking, ... when recommending a model it should always be a precise model, not just an AI lab
2. DeepSeek V4 Flash at max thinking is the most verbose model (among top models) in the AA benchmarks. See the "Intelligence Index Token Use" chart: [1]
[1]: https://artificialanalysis.ai/models?models=gpt-5-5-high%2Cg...
Re: GLM-5.2 is a step change for open agents
#130Open weight models from Chinese labs tend to be significantly cheaper. I think theyre absolutely needed. I can't afford 200 USD a month for personal use of coding AI, and I don't think such prices are reasonable for most of the world economy anyway. Not to mention US firms might be giving their employees a lot more than that. It's increasingly feeling, to me, that theres a gap building up between haves and have nots.…
Someone else on this forum put it well, U.S. is trying to achieve AGI at all costs, while Chinese models are seeking widespread adoption.
Everyone wants widespread adoption, of course. I'm sure that China is also working on more expensive frontier intelligence models behind doors, but they're lagging behind America on that front. Going for cost-optimized open weight models is their bet to stay relevant in a market where they can't compete for the "luxury" segment. It is important for them to get a foot in the door and maintain a presence in the press to attract future customers, given the general animosity towards China in the west that they need to overcome. Similarly, European providers like Mistral are hopelessly outclassed in every respect and thus try to carve out a niche in the market with regulation and anti-American fearmongering. They position themselves as "privacy-conscious" not out of goodwill but because it is their only chance to survive as a company with an utterly inferior product.