Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GLM 5.2 beats Claude in our benchmarks

semgrep.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 559 posts

Re: GLM 5.2 beats Claude in our benchmarks

#391

Post by yard2010 »

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #246
dom96 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

Recall that the marginal utility of money diminishes when you have more of it - when you have a lot of money it's easier to turn it into even more money, and vice-verca. It's not linear. So 20$ difference has exponential not linear influence on "being rich".

Re: GLM 5.2 beats Claude in our benchmarks

#392

Post by [deleted] »

scottcha wrote: post #224
computerex wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have had bad experience with neuralwatt GLM 5.2. Seems like they may be using quantized version of the model.

Hi I'm the CTO of neuralwatt, would love to hear your feedback on what your experience was. Feel free to email me scott@neuralwatt.com. Also for GLM5.2 we run the FP8 quantization at 1M context which is a common deployment target.

[deleted]

Re: GLM 5.2 beats Claude in our benchmarks

#394

Post by jklmnopqrstuvw »

simple10 wrote: post #255
jklmnopqrstuvw wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I use an observability tool with claude code [1] that shows me usage including prompt and session cost. Even though I use a max subscription, it's interesting to see what it would cost me if I was using API directly. My typical session ranges from $100-$400 - higher end when using workflows with lots of subagents. $100/session is expected when using the API without the subsidized subscription pricing. Most larger org…

>Most larger orgs have to use API pricing AFAIK.

There are Business and Enterprise plans, both have discounting.

Re: GLM 5.2 beats Claude in our benchmarks

#395

Post by Ladioss »

andai wrote: post #290
jfaat wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but if you only want to use the best model available, it isn't there yet I'm trying to wrap my head around exactly why so may people seem to want the best model available when it has recently become clear that most halfway decent models can write damn good code for a fraction of the price. And the frontier models get nerfed constantly so you with open weight you can get something slightly less performant but way mo…

Yeah, the funniest thing about everyone freaking out about Fable's capabilities recently was that for most of the stuff they were amazed by, you could get roughly the same result from DeepSeek Flash. I used to be obsessed with what's the best model. Then a while back when the new best model came out, I tested it on a task. I also tested its little brother (much smaller model from same company). They both completed th…

"Best model" discourse always remember me of my days in Monster Hunter with people who refused to consider playing with anything other than the meta set for their weapon and then proceed to immediately cart right at the beginning of the hunt :)

With the wealth of models available (open source vs closed, api vs local), I find optimizing the cost-efficiency of your token consumption an important part of business-oriented AI engineering. You don't need "the best" for every task.

Re: GLM 5.2 beats Claude in our benchmarks

#396

Post by Madmallard »

nl wrote: post #328
Madmallard wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Notice the website url is the same name as the commentor. Notice he's using "trust me bro" benchmarks. Can we just remove all the motivated speech on HN? This is just not trustworthy information at all and obviously is incentivized. Everyone is grinding and marketing nobody is actually discussing anything for real.

What does this even mean?

It means people have self-inflicted AI psychosis

Re: GLM 5.2 beats Claude in our benchmarks

#398

Post by __alexs »

gertlabs wrote: post #172
pimeys wrote: 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…

I find it hard to trust a ranking system that gives Sonnet a higher capability score than Fable.

Re: GLM 5.2 beats Claude in our benchmarks

#400

Post by xlii »

I switch from Codex to GLM 5.2 when I'm out of tokens. The main difference for me is time to completion.

GPT gets there Though the harness makes a significant difference. On Pi GLM5.2 dreams for minutes, with OpenCode it's more on the point and gets to editing quicker.

Post reply on HN