Live data from Hacker News

GLM 5.2 beats Claude in our benchmarks

semgrep.dev

241–250 of 559 posts

Re: GLM 5.2 beats Claude in our benchmarks

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea as far has hobbies go, I feel like this is on the low end. I know people who collect watches and corvettes, that's way more expensive and functionally you can't really do anything special with them.

The difference is watches and corvettes typically appreciate in value, where as computer hardware typically drops like a rock.

hmm ok let's build a state of the art from 2021 homelab using 2x Epyc Milan chips + DDR4 RAM and lmk how much it costs...

Re: GLM 5.2 beats Claude in our benchmarks

#242
post #203

Does a bit worse than Opus 4.8 in my tests[0], but it's 5x cheaper and 3x slower. [0]: https://aibenchy.com/compare/anthropic-claude-opus-4-8-mediu...

Note that being open-weights, "slower" is relative, as it depends on who's serving the model. This can drastically change over time too.

Re: GLM 5.2 beats Claude in our benchmarks

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need a benchmark of independent community sourced benchmarks! …probably already is one

It's not super scientific, but I really like to watch Bijan Bowen's videos on Youtube. I think he's pretty fair about the way he compares them, and it's enough for what I'm doing.

Actually doing something normal but challenging with a model is generally enough for me. I do a quick (an hour or two) project, and see how it holds up. If I'm feeling like it's harder than it should be, I switch to a comparable model I know is good. e.g. I most recently tested Gemini Flash 3.5 for making a web app. It shit the bed...kinda worked, but was ugly and needed several bugfixes right off the bat. I tried the same app in Opus 4.8, which aced it with barely any extra conversation, it looked great (basic but clean, like it was intentional) without any effort.

I like reading benchmarks, but I take them all with a grain of salt. They're just to tell me if the model is worth even trying for my task. I've heavily used self-hosted Qwen 3.6 and Gemma 4 on a bunch of different tasks, and while the benchmarks consistently say Qwen is the better model, I simply don't find that to be the case for anything I do. I think Qwen is tuned for benchmarks, while Google couldn't give two shits about most of the benchmarks, they're just busy making unusually smart tiny models.

Re: GLM 5.2 beats Claude in our benchmarks

#244
post #59

I have taken another look on these open models after the fiasco of Fable and GPT 5.6 this weekend and... GLM-5.2 truly is a good workhorse model for daily programming. I consider myself a heavy user of LLMs and a seasoned developer. A typical session for me with GPT is usually over a hundred dollars... This weekend I programmed a matrix bot with encryption and a Rust agent with some tools. Because I need one and Open…

> A typical session for me with GPT is usually over a hundred dollars. I don't think a $100 session is "typical". I use GPT for months. $20/m plus plan is enough for my daily work.

It's really interesting what "normal" is for folks. I use the $200/month Anthropic subscription and use it within a few percentages of my limit every week.

I'd blow through $20/month plan in hours.

Re: GLM 5.2 beats Claude in our benchmarks

#245
post #59

I have taken another look on these open models after the fiasco of Fable and GPT 5.6 this weekend and... GLM-5.2 truly is a good workhorse model for daily programming. I consider myself a heavy user of LLMs and a seasoned developer. A typical session for me with GPT is usually over a hundred dollars... This weekend I programmed a matrix bot with encryption and a Rust agent with some tools. Because I need one and Open…

GLM 5.2 is a great model, but if you only want to use the best model available, it isn't there yet. Every lab releases models that memorize benchmark answers, both intentionally and unintentionally. But we consistently find that models from Chinese labs have a wider gap between public benchmarks and our evaluations, which we designed to be less vulnerable to benchmaxxing. In multi-agent coding environments, GLM 5.2 i…

Opus 4.6 is still my preferred model for work, so this is great to hear.

Re: GLM 5.2 beats Claude in our benchmarks

#246
post #170
post #59

I have taken another look on these open models after the fiasco of Fable and GPT 5.6 this weekend and... GLM-5.2 truly is a good workhorse model for daily programming. I consider myself a heavy user of LLMs and a seasoned developer. A typical session for me with GPT is usually over a hundred dollars... This weekend I programmed a matrix bot with encryption and a Rust agent with some tools. Because I need one and Open…

Twenty dollars? How are you comfortable spending that much to write something as simple as a matrix bot? Are people doing this kind of thing just super rich or am I missing something?

Is spending $20 considered "super rich"?

Re: GLM 5.2 beats Claude in our benchmarks

#247

I use GLM 5.2 via Neuralwatt and it's gotten so cheap I wouldn't mind cancelling my personal Claude subscription if work gave me one. I've spent 374M tokens this month and it only cost me $18 on energy-based pricing.

How's the reliability and speed?

Re: GLM 5.2 beats Claude in our benchmarks

#248
post #170
post #59

I have taken another look on these open models after the fiasco of Fable and GPT 5.6 this weekend and... GLM-5.2 truly is a good workhorse model for daily programming. I consider myself a heavy user of LLMs and a seasoned developer. A typical session for me with GPT is usually over a hundred dollars... This weekend I programmed a matrix bot with encryption and a Rust agent with some tools. Because I need one and Open…

Twenty dollars? How are you comfortable spending that much to write something as simple as a matrix bot? Are people doing this kind of thing just super rich or am I missing something?

$20 is really cheap for the amount of work saved, considering you're in the US.

Re: GLM 5.2 beats Claude in our benchmarks

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do quantized models specifically prune out specific knowledge? I think they just compress things down but they're still in there. You'd most likely need to do that when you're doing the initial model training, but I'm not expert.

> they just compress things down but they're still in there The compression is almost certainly in part specific knowledge getting fuzzed.

Yeah, but it's everything getting fuzzed, including the parts you care about.
Post reply on HN