Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model • Hacker News Board

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#181

Post by nl » Thu, Jul 16, 2026, 1:39 AM UTC

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #42

verdverm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not as good as GLM 5.2 for agentic workflows while also being bigger. Competition is going to be ruthless because the super low cost to switching. There is also AllenAi in the US, but they have yet to produce a model at this scale. Thankfully, new contenders can come out of nowhere and do well, as long as they can produce a competitive model.

> Its not as good as GLM 5.2 for agentic workflows while also being bigger GLM 5.2 underwent extensive post-training and iteration since its original release to reach its current state. This seems like an extremely strong model for a first release, with a lot of potential for improvement, just like DS4. Sometimes I wish Meta had stuck with Llama 4 a bit longer to see how much further it could be pushed.

Llama 4 was a bad architecture.

Meta Spark is moderately promising but of course closed source.

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#182

Post by nl » Thu, Jul 16, 2026, 1:40 AM UTC

hirako2000 wrote: post #156

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its not as good as GLM 5.2 for agentic workflows while also being bigger GLM 5.2 underwent extensive post-training and iteration since its original release to reach its current state. This seems like an extremely strong model for a first release, with a lot of potential for improvement, just like DS4. Sometimes I wish Meta had stuck with Llama 4 a bit longer to see how much further it could be pushed.

Llama 4 wasn't deemed a success, and Meta pivoted away as its now former head of AI couldn't demonstrate, nor even showed interest in, business profit. They overspent on llama 3 anyway so money ran dry, LeCun is good at running research, but budgets didn't stretch. Meta isn't investing in frontier big models anymore.

> Meta isn't investing in frontier big models anymore

Yes they are. Meta Muse is their attempt.

It's below frontier performance at the moment but they are spending on getting there.

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#183

Post by zamadatix » Thu, Jul 16, 2026, 1:42 AM UTC

Der_Einzige wrote: post #174

paxys wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean if you don't care it's utilized properly you can make a lot of local models have > 10 million context length. I don't know why you would, the quality is already crappy enough when models are built around using it well from the ground up, but go ahead.

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#184

Post by zamadatix » Thu, Jul 16, 2026, 1:44 AM UTC

paxys wrote: post #151

oehtXRwMkIs wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gemma 4

The largest Gemma 4 model has 31B parameters. It’s not in the same class.

I think there's two halves to the conversation: which models have more weights and which models are better than the other ones listed. I think this was about the latter part. There are plenty of smaller models these days which knock the socks off older models 10x the size.

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#185

Post by JumpCrisscross » Thu, Jul 16, 2026, 1:44 AM UTC

wxw wrote: post #88

> Inkling is not the strongest overall model available today, open or closed. Instead, a combination of qualities makes it a good open-weights base for customization: multimodal capabilities, efficient thinking, and availability on Tinker for fine-tuning. Open base models that can be fine tuned on Tinker is a great business model IMO. You (i.e. an enterprise) can own your own model & have it perform frontier-or-bette…

> that can be fine tuned on Tinker

Good source to understand why this is valuable?

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#186

Post by andriy_koval » Thu, Jul 16, 2026, 1:46 AM UTC

ergocoder wrote: post #180

andriy_koval wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

its not representative example of open weight business sustainability.

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#187

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 16, 2026, 1:47 AM UTC

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #48

charcircuit wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the moat? The time it takes for AI to rewrite an efficient inference stack for a new model? Considering most LLMs follow a similar architecture, adapting to a new model shouldn't take that much time.

There is no moat. At the moment, all of these companies are burning money to gain mindshare and market share. That's what Thinking Machines is doing; they're not looking for a business model.

[deleted]

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#188

Post by paxys » Thu, Jul 16, 2026, 1:56 AM UTC

zamadatix wrote: post #184

paxys wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The largest Gemma 4 model has 31B parameters. It’s not in the same class.

I think there's two halves to the conversation: which models have more weights and which models are better than the other ones listed. I think this was about the latter part. There are plenty of smaller models these days which knock the socks off older models 10x the size.

We are talking about the top tier of open weights models - GLM-5.2, DeepSeek V4, Qwen3, Kimi K2. The ones ranking on leaderboards and giving frontier labs a run for their money. Gemma may have its uses but it is not in that conversation.

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#189

Post by ascent817 » Thu, Jul 16, 2026, 2:02 AM UTC

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?

There's also poolside.ai

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#190

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 16, 2026, 2:04 AM UTC

Der_Einzige wrote: post #174

paxys wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]