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

251–260 of 324 posts

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#251

Post by sgt101 »

tfehring wrote: post #160
jjfoooo4 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t really get the business plan for open weights model companies, is the idea companies would pay them for serving?

Thinky's main commercial product AFAIK is Tinker [0] - companies pay them to host their fine-tuning workloads and then the resulting fine-tuned models. I don't know if this is a good business plan, but I'm sure at least one person there has read Joel on Software [1]. [0] https://thinkingmachines.ai/tinker/ [1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/

I don't get this - I can do LORA on my mac... ok I can't do LORA on a 1tn param model, but if I was in the tn parameter model game I would get some kit that I could use to do that...

What's their moat / secret sauce?

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#253

Post by sgt101 »

janalsncm wrote: post #144
jjfoooo4 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t really get the business plan for open weights model companies, is the idea companies would pay them for serving?

From what I can tell it’s a bit of the following. 1. Magic 2. Managed hosting of their model 3. Hurting competitors. If people are using Meta’s commoditized models they’re not paying Google or allowing OpenAI to become too big. 4. Free R&D from open source. If open source developers are optimizing systems to run Llama, that helps Meta. 5. More magic

I think that LeCunns belief was/is that LLM's have limited value and are a dead end, so what they wanted to do was kill any competitor while evolving tech that was/is a winner.

Well, he lost his job on that bet... and yet... I do not think that the verdict of history is quite in.

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#254

Post by sgt101 »

mannanj wrote: post #51
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that Chinese government fund Chinese models way more compared to what those companies receive (except llama, which is outdated but was strong foundation at its time)

I have a similar bet. Looks like people don't like this idea. You got downvoted a lot.

Some stories recently that China has decided to reign in and manage it's model production landscape much more tightly.

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#255

Post by kzrdude »

berkes wrote: post #242
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?

Mistral has released some very good, very useful open models. It's European, that's also non-Chinese.

Google has released some very good and useful models too, Gemma, but they are not so large. But they are in useful size.

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#256

Post by spwa4 »

blovescoffee wrote: post #141
suprjami wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DS3 isn't even looked at anymore. GLM-5.2 is the best in that class right now. It is competitive with current GPT/Claude/Gemini.

"Current GPT/Claude/Gemini" is not a meaningful statement about perf. There's many different models from each of those providers and there's a considerable gap between the best of anthropic and open ai compared to gemini. Benchmarks have GLM 5.2 somewhere underneath Sol and Fable and closer to now last-gen openai and anthropic models.

One error: GLM 5.2 beats the best public Gemini model, 3.5 pro.

There's 2 caveats with the rest. First, GLM 5.2 matches those models in "xhigh" effort modes, which has a very low quota on the subscriptions, especially for Claude.

Second, last-gen GPT/Claude means what they release in April/May of 2026. Or to be even more complete/fair:

GLM 5.2 beats what OpenAI released in March 2026 (GPT 5.5 xxhigh), and what Anthropic released in April 2026 (Opus 4.7 xhigh). It is beaten by what OpenAI released in April of 2026 (GPT 5.6 Sol xxhigh) and Anthropic released in May 2026 (Opus 4.8 (the same as "Fable" ?), xhigh effort)

GLM 5.2 was released on Jun 16 and if OpenAI and Anthropic hadn't done those quick releases they would have been beaten on their best available models ...

So great news! Open source now has SOTA performance 3 months after OpenAI/Anthropic/Google. Wow.

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#257

Post by ReptileMan »

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 will wait for Modernist AI by Myhrvold.

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#258

Post by embedding-shape »

juliangoetze wrote: post #248
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.…

> This supposedly is better than KimiK2.7 How can you tell? I just looked at the benchmarks and was kinda disappointed that it seems to be between KimiK2.6 and KimiK2.7 on most of the benchmarks. Do you refer to what it feels like to use the model? Or are there other benchmarks I haven't seen?

Most of the random comments you read on HN and reddit about how nice/bad various LLMs are, is basically based on the commentator's "vibe" about it, and almost nothing is grounded in evidence or actual usage. Don't read too much into it, want to know how good a model is? Run it with your own non-public benchmark, basically the only way to get proper answers you can somewhat rely on, everything else is manipulated, misunderstood or over-relied on.

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#259

Post by sschueller »

nodja wrote: post #128
codemog wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m trying to be charitable but your comment reads as “China bad” propaganda to me. Who cares that DeepSeek and Z.ai are Chinese companies?

It doesn't matter until it does. If the chinese government decides that open weight model releases are no longer allowed, that's a lot of companies that can't release new models. Same with the US government, etc. Having diversity is important.

However unlike the US models, China banning the release of new models would not break existing ones. Betting on US models only can get you locked out in just a few hours.

Re: Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

#260

Post by mastermage »

swiftcoder wrote: post #249
throwaw12 wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it mean, if it is American? Is it censored or will it eventually stop working in Middle Eastern countries? Or is it biased towards powerful political lobby group interests? When weights are open I usually don't care where is it from, as long as it is working for my use cases well

There's a lot of Sinophobia in the tech world, and the AI race seems to be magnifying that. With very little evidence to back it up, I might add - we've had regular releases of quality open-weight models from Chinese firms, and no sign they are more censored/ideological, than, say, Grok

Only actualy censored thing i found so far was Tianmen Square. And depending on what you use it for thats realy not a big issue.
Post reply on HN