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

Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

thinkingmachines.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 324 posts

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#171

Post by htrp »

gkapur wrote: post #52
andriy_koval wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It could be but there are a host of companies going after open weights models: Arcee, Reflection, Llama (TBD on Meta's focus on closed-source versus open-source), etc. my bet is that Chinese government fund Chinese models way more compared to what those companies receive (except llama, which is outdated but was strong foundation at its time)

The story of Reflection AI is supposedly that the company was faffing and failing at winning in the coding agent space, but was introduced to Jenson, who suggested they build an open-weight model and said he would fund it. That turned into a $2 billion financing with NVIDIA doing roughly $500 million and was a complete pivot. I think the bet would have to be that a US Open Weight company either: 1. Gets a lot of mone…

>The story of Reflection AI is supposedly that the company was faffing and failing at winning in the coding agent space, but was introduced to Jenson, who suggested they build an open-weight model and said he would fund it. That turned into a $2 billion financing with NVIDIA doing roughly $500 million and was a complete pivot.

You can pretty much remove the supposedly here

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#172

Post by metmac »

yellowlimetea wrote: post #169

[flagged]

You may be new here. This is Simon’s de facto benchmark for models. I happen to find it a really good one.

Small aside: It’s crazy to me that while it’s improved over time it does seem like most of the models haven’t been trained specifically to defeat this one.

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#173

Post by TurdF3rguson »

metmac wrote: post #172
yellowlimetea wrote: post #169

[flagged]

You may be new here. This is Simon’s de facto benchmark for models. I happen to find it a really good one. Small aside: It’s crazy to me that while it’s improved over time it does seem like most of the models haven’t been trained specifically to defeat this one.

The pelican thing is definitely getting deeper into model weights over time just by getting fed threads like this.

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#174

Post by Der_Einzige »

paxys wrote: post #119
segmondy wrote: post #65

Very nice, multi modal, largest open weight model that supports audio. Would be interesting to see how good the audio capability is. If you want to run locally, checkout https://github.com/danielhanchen/llama.cpp/tree/add-inkling https://unsloth.ai/docs/models/inkling https://huggingface.co/unsloth/inkling-GGUF https://huggingface.co/unsloth/inkling-NVFP4 This supposedly is better than KimiK2.7, as much hype as GLM5.…

Not to mention - it is American. This is the first competitive non-Chinese open weights model since what, Llama 3?

Llama 4 was unfairly hated on. Still the longest context window on any LLM ever (so what if you can't use it properly?) and unironically had decent image capabilities compared to llama3 which had none.

Benchmark cheating aside, it wasn't that bad.

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#175

Post by Der_Einzige »

speedping wrote: post #21
Aurornis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it's ~30% bigger and not as good as GLM 5.2, why would I tinker with this model? The benchmarks never tell the full story. Some of the open weights models have been benchmaxxed for a while. Their utility on real work can be different than the benchmark number. The multimodal input is also a big deal. Having vision input is really helpful for a lot of tasks.

I second that. Gemini 3.5 Flash rocks the benchmark charts but is terrible as an agent. Horrible instruction adherence and makes WAY too many tool calls

Gemini 3.1 pro is still better at creative writing than any other model.

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#176

Post by icase »

ls_stats wrote: post #2

America needs its own DeepSeek or Z.ai, a lot of people (myself included) root for open chinese models to win because they have no other choice. Thinking Machines might be it.

i refuse to root for our enemies, but otherwise you are correct.

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#178

Post by FrankBooth »

soundworlds wrote: post #147
ls_stats wrote: post #2

America needs its own DeepSeek or Z.ai, a lot of people (myself included) root for open chinese models to win because they have no other choice. Thinking Machines might be it.

AllenAI is also one to keep your eye on. Founded by Paul Allen of Microsoft, they are one of the best teams working towards truly transparent / open AI (including training data)

I love the tasteful thickness of Paul Allen’s model.

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#179

Post by nl »

soundworlds wrote: post #147
ls_stats wrote: post #2

America needs its own DeepSeek or Z.ai, a lot of people (myself included) root for open chinese models to win because they have no other choice. Thinking Machines might be it.

AllenAI is also one to keep your eye on. Founded by Paul Allen of Microsoft, they are one of the best teams working towards truly transparent / open AI (including training data)

AllenAI is great, but they don't have the budget or remit to build large models.

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#180

Post by ergocoder »

andriy_koval wrote: post #100
ergocoder wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same business model that Deepseek is using. Open-source models + services. This is more attractive because it doesn't lock in the vendors. If I grow larger, I can decide to deploy the open-source models.

> The same business model that Deepseek is using. there is a chance their business model is absorbing government funding..

I don't think it's bad if the mandate of that funding is to have open-weights.
Post reply on HN