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

181–190 of 793 posts

Re: Qwen 3.8

#181

Post by dannyw »

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.

It’s also like smartphones. In the early years, every year was a huge jump. I still remember marvelling at my iPhone 4’s detailed display, and video calling for the first time.

Now? I don’t even know or care about what the latest iPhones have, I’ll get a new one when mine breaks.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#182

Post by SwellJoe »

ernsheong wrote: post #158
tormeh wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is qwen 3.6 27b the best model you can run locally at the moment? Not that I have the VRAM for it, but just curious.

Yes it's between this and Gemma 4 31B which is much slower, but looks like it won't ever get an upgrade. I have to conclude that the MoE variants are unreliable, and MTP sometimes just can't get tricky formatting right.

I find the 4-bit QAT with MTP to be entirely usable speed on both my boxes (Strix Halo and a desktop with two V620 GPUs, which are slightly faster than the Strix Halo).

Re: Qwen 3.8

#183

Post by aduwah »

2Gkashmiri wrote: post #157
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.

Can you tell me more about deepseek? I paid $2 for deepseek api, put the key in void editor and made a crypto tool in html. It turned out to be around 67kb. I used sample files in CSV that were a few hundred lines. It spent around $1.8 in the hour or two or light coding and follow up bugs. Is it really really this much? I can't imagine spending a month using it for a day job, it would cost more than the salary so wha…

A local AI is not about cost. In fact you will likely pay more for it than with most providers. Just look up the advantages of having access to a technology like this that can be self hosted

Re: Qwen 3.8

#184

Post by chewz »

porksoda wrote: post #164
chewz wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If by Opus you mean Opus 4 and not Opus 4.8, then sure I meant Opus 4.8 which is rather dumb and ineffective in coding harness, especially with higher thinking levels.

My experience was so much different to this, that I have the unfortunate impression that you're shilling. It really was not a capable model, it felt like the old oai models back when we were all excited but couldn't actually trust them even in the littlest ways. What harness were you using, did you do any work to make it better? What was I doing wrong? I just pointed opencode at it, with a pretty simple (large-ish) d…

Have you actually used Opus 4.8 in Claude Code? It takes way too long to do any practical task on higher thinking levels due to over-engineering. And I am not the only one complaining. Lots of people downgrade to Opus 4.6 exactly for this reason.

Opus 4.8 training works well for agentic work. Not for code harness.

EDIT:

```

stronger on coding and raw capability but can be more argumentative, verbose, and costly.

Reliability and instruction-following Many users say 4.6 felt more reliable and followed instructions better. "With 4.6, when I tell it something, it actually remembers the spirit of what I asked for and keeps applying it."

Others report 4.8 drifts from preferences and can be frustrating to control. "I still find myself getting frustrated when it ignores preferences and drifts from instructions"

Some people find 4.7/4.8 push back more and act more adversarial than 4.6. "The biggest complaint against 4.8 is that it is argumentative and "pushes back" constantly"

Coding quality and capability Several users praise 4.8’s coding strength and thoroughness. "4.8 is technically impressive, especially for coding"

Other reports say 4.6 could be better for certain coding workflows and breaks less. "4.6 still >> 4.8 for anyone else as well? Maybe I'm in the minority, but for my use cases Opus 4.6 is still better than"

Some recommend mixing models: use 4.8 for key tasks and 4.6 for general work to save tokens. "What I do is... use 4.8 for key moments, and for everything else 4.6"

Cost, speed and token behavior Users note 4.8 often uses more tokens and can feel slower because it “thinks” more. "4.8 is much more cautious, and as a result - slower. It checks everything, thinks for a long time etc."

```

[https://www.reddit.com/answers/601770d4-4059-478d-aa52-b445c...]

Re: Qwen 3.8

#185

Post by joegibbs »

esrauch wrote: post #166
vitorgrs wrote: post #161

SVG's pelican https://gist.github.com/vitordelucca/521c2d63c9b852c622e7648... Made on the website, so not sure if on the API there's more thinking options...

I feel like the pelican test can't be relevant anymore; the whole point was to to something that wouldn't be in the training set at all and now it is?

What about an armadillo playing a piano? There are so many potential combinations It would say something if the pelican looked great but the armadillo looked terrible

Re: Qwen 3.8

#187

Post by docheinestages »

scotty79 wrote: post #149
docheinestages wrote: post #49

Qwen has set an excellent track record for architecting and releasing open-weight models that consumer-grade devices can run. What is needed the most right now is something similar to Bonsai 27B, with a modest memory footprint, but faster and more capable. On-device models can make up for intelligence by being faster, thinking longer, or doing more quick iteration rounds.

I can't really blame them that the biggest labs focused on trainig and realeasing huge models. The niche for small models should be filled with medium sized labs doing distillations of the huge ones into consumer grade hardware runnable models and LORAs for the huge ones.

I think AI will evolve the same way computers did. We're somewhere in the 80s-90s timeline of the evolution. My prediction is that on-device models will have excellent tool-calling, reasoning, and general skills, but the domain-specific knowledge will be retrieved on-demand from vendors like Google. Rather than downloading models, each device will have a hardware component with weights baked into silicon for maximum efficiency.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#188

Post by Planktonne »

porksoda wrote: post #164
chewz wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If by Opus you mean Opus 4 and not Opus 4.8, then sure I meant Opus 4.8 which is rather dumb and ineffective in coding harness, especially with higher thinking levels.

My experience was so much different to this, that I have the unfortunate impression that you're shilling. It really was not a capable model, it felt like the old oai models back when we were all excited but couldn't actually trust them even in the littlest ways. What harness were you using, did you do any work to make it better? What was I doing wrong? I just pointed opencode at it, with a pretty simple (large-ish) d…

> My experience was so much different to this, that I have the unfortunate impression that you're shilling

I think you might both just be reading way too much into one-off random experiences that you've decided are evidence of significant and stable capability.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#189

Post by androiddrew »

eurekin wrote: post #63

With 3.6 27b, I just stopped changing local models and started tinkering with things on top (like mem0). Feels genuinely useful and more than a toy

I have only been using 3.6 27B for coding. Is mem0 for agents like Openclaw or Hermes? How are you using it?

Re: Qwen 3.8

#190

Post by lofaszvanitt »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #98
XCSme wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DeepSeek V4 pricing is insane, 10x-30x cheaper to use than most other models, and it usually is good enough for most tasks.

Who do you buy DeepSeek from? I bought it through OpenRouter and used it with Pi agent. The model was good, but there appeared to be a pricing glitch or something, because it burned through $50 in under an hour on pretty trivial stuff. Pi agent claimed it only used like $1. OpenRouter claimed differently and said I used all $50.

Why do you even need openrouter as a middle man?
Post reply on HN