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

Qwen 3.8

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 793 posts

Re: Qwen 3.8

#111

Post by chewz »

5701652400 wrote: post #99

in my experience of 1 month daily use, Qwen 3.7 Pro is just unusable. wastes too much time, goes off track, useless stuck loops, cannot debug at all. Deepseek V4 Pro is night-and-day compare to Qwen. actually Qwen models seems the worst SWE experience so far. and it is super expensive compare to Deepseek. cannot delegate anything to it, cannot use it real-time low-level tasks either. totally unusable.

From my experience Qwen-3.7-Max is above the Opus level but delivers results much faster. Slightly worse then Fable. Way ahead of Deepseek 4 Pro (in speed and overall comprehension) - which is a workhorse on its own. I am using them all with Claude Code mostly.

Qwen-3.7-Plus is quite OK, good for subagent use. Way better then Sonnet.

Qwen-3.8-Max-Preview seems working just fine for me at the moment - I am playing with is right now but too early to say anything. At 10% of regular price it is a steal so far.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#112

Post by traceroute66 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #101
traceroute66 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How does this explain open weights? They could easily take the same closed route like their American friends Because they are playing the Americans at their own game. What is the first thing an American company would do ? Spread the old American classic FUD ... "you can't used this closed tool because its run by the communists", right ? So you release it as open weights which is a win-win. Global adoption of the mo…

> So you release it as open weights which is a win-win. Global adoption of the model and you get to give the American AI companies a kick in the nuts because you know they will never release open weights apart from highly quantised crippled shit. And on top of that, it's a perfect opportunity to include poisoned training data or excluding it. You know, omitting anything about Tiananmen Square, China's genocides again…

> You know, omitting anything about Tiananmen Square, China's genocides against Uyghurs and Tibetans, or including texts propagandizing for the "reunification" (aka, annexation) of Taiwan.

I am not Chinese and I'm not defending the Chinese, but I see this argument come up a lot.

The hard reality is that what you say is simply not going to affect 99.9999999999% of users.

Is it realistically going to affect anyone using an LLM in coding ? No.

Is it realistically going to affect anyone using an LLM in $anything_else_not_politically_sensitive ? No.

Does anyone seriously use LLMs for researching politically sensitive matters ? No.

The US does not exactly have an entirely pristine history either. Shall we discuss the post-9-11 related infrastructure of Guantanamo Bay ? Or the "Detention and Interrogation Program" that included a network of clandestine extrajudicial detention centres, officially known as "black sites"[1]?

Or maybe you would like to discuss the US supply of weapons for use in Gaza ?

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_black_sites

Re: Qwen 3.8

#113

Post by roenxi »

zapkyeskrill wrote: post #44
dannyw wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In China, you can’t officially use US APIs. The world saw a taste of this with Fable, but in China, this has been the situation all along. So it’s not a surprise why open weights are so cherished. As frontier models continue to block everyday individuals from securing their own codebase, I expect the adoption and usage of open weights to continue. As an example, HuggingFace recently was investigating a security incid…

How does this explain open weights? They could easily take the same closed route like their American friends

Open sourcing is a complex decision so who knows what their calculations are.

But I'd assume that they're preparing for some sort of winner-take-all market in model quality where if they don't do anything the winner will be aggressive, hostile and American. Likely trying to push the Chinese economy back to the year 2000. If that is the starting point either the Chinese have to win the market (unlikely) or squeeze the profit out of it to make winning the market meaningless.

Publishing high quality open models is a well known tactic for profit squeezing. Being 2nd place with the same business model as the front-runner is a losing strategy in a winner-take-all market so they aren't going to bother with that. But if they can commoditize the model, their superior energy costs and likely coming chip manufacturing wave will hopefully give them a big advantage.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#114

Post by anon373839 »

baq wrote: post #78
gardnr wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to say what their motivation is. The Chinese firms seem to be working hard to commoditize intelligence which may be the most effective way to debase American frontier labs. And yeah: it also happens to be really good for humanity.

There’s a Twitter thread making rounds by Dean Ball about deceleration in AI development caused by open models and I can’t understand how people don’t see that it’s true: open models dismantle the frontier lab capex spend potential by reducing the training budget to zero in the limit. Tokens from different providers are not fungible, but customers are nevertheless very price sensitive and close enough is good enough,…

He recently did a walkback of that post. But ultimately, who cares? If the only way for AI to progress is in the hands of a few closed players, well, I don’t really think humanity needs that. Of course, it’s a preposterous claim in the first place. The ultimate reason deep learning and LLMs have made it as far as they have is the explosion of open research and research artifacts in the last decade.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#115

Post by cyanydeez »

vidarh wrote: post #86
maxignol wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn’t we fear they start doing only close source like most us labs once they catch up in market shares ?

Closing future models won't take away our access to the open weight ones.

people really underestimate how powerful just the consumer available models are. 128GB gets you pretty much a coding agent for typical apps. Even less with a good harness and logic set.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#118

Post by try-working »

dannyw wrote: post #26
gardnr wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to say what their motivation is. The Chinese firms seem to be working hard to commoditize intelligence which may be the most effective way to debase American frontier labs. And yeah: it also happens to be really good for humanity.

In China, you can’t officially use US APIs. The world saw a taste of this with Fable, but in China, this has been the situation all along. So it’s not a surprise why open weights are so cherished. As frontier models continue to block everyday individuals from securing their own codebase, I expect the adoption and usage of open weights to continue. As an example, HuggingFace recently was investigating a security incid…

everyone is using OpenAI and Anthropic in China. We have both providers at work as well.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#119

Post by nullbio »

chewz wrote: post #111
5701652400 wrote: post #99

in my experience of 1 month daily use, Qwen 3.7 Pro is just unusable. wastes too much time, goes off track, useless stuck loops, cannot debug at all. Deepseek V4 Pro is night-and-day compare to Qwen. actually Qwen models seems the worst SWE experience so far. and it is super expensive compare to Deepseek. cannot delegate anything to it, cannot use it real-time low-level tasks either. totally unusable.

From my experience Qwen-3.7-Max is above the Opus level but delivers results much faster. Slightly worse then Fable. Way ahead of Deepseek 4 Pro (in speed and overall comprehension) - which is a workhorse on its own. I am using them all with Claude Code mostly. Qwen-3.7-Plus is quite OK, good for subagent use. Way better then Sonnet. Qwen-3.8-Max-Preview seems working just fine for me at the moment - I am playing wit…

If by Opus you mean Opus 4 and not Opus 4.8, then sure.
Post reply on HN