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

231–240 of 793 posts

Re: Qwen 3.8

#231

Post by rikima_ »

DanielHB wrote: post #46
hodgehog11 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is pretty safe to say at this point that having large open LLM models available is better for humanity than them remaining proprietary. Echoing Linus Torvalds' recent comments, AI is genuinely useful right now, and is here to stay in one form or another.

The fear is not about the models open weights it is the erosion of training capability in other countries. Why train models when they do it for free? Until they don't of course, or they start doing what the US is doing right now by locking out some models to government only or internal market only. What people should be afraid is the rug pull.

So either you openweight it, or not. Neither is good for other countries, according to this logic.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#232

Post by SomeHacker44 »

androiddrew wrote: post #154
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.

I have been running 3.6 27b on a dual AMD r9700 setup using Opencode and Matt Pocock's skills workflow for writing Golang CLIs. It's decent, but won't win any awards on code architecture. I guess you can try to AGENTS.md the deficits but I am just exploring its raw Opencode experience right now. Much slower than an API but still 3x times faster than I can read. Tuning it in with a community chat template and a specif…

Would you mind sharing more please? I literally just finished the same set up, with a 9950X CPU and 192G RAM at 4,800 MT/s. I used lemonade with Vulkan and the UD-Q8_x_x model from HF. 256k context. I have about 8G VRAM free, and use the iGPU for my desktop/monitor on Arch. What options do you give llama-cpp or whatever you run please? What other models have you found fit nicely in the 2xR9700? Thanks!!

Re: Qwen 3.8

#233

Post by 5701652400 »

beefsack wrote: post #229

For those trying to get it to work in OpenCode with a Qwen Cloud Token Plan, this is what worked for me. Note that I've just matched Qwen 3.7 Max for the limits as I don't know exactly what they are. "provider": { "alibaba-token-plan": { "models": { "qwen3.8-max-preview": { "limit": { "context": 1048576, "output": 65536 }, "modalities": { "input": [ "text" ], "output": [ "text" ] }, "name": "Qwen3.8 Max Preview" } }…

also, be very careful which API endpoint and API Token you use. make sure you use right one (obseve your quota is used up. if you hit right endpoint quota used almost immediately). so that you do not accidentally burn API endpoint tokens (they are expensive, can easily hit 200 USD / 3 days which do not count towards your membership "Credits", if you say purchased it with 200 USD signup bonus in Alibaba Cloud)

Re: Qwen 3.8

#234

Post by rikima_ »

WhereIsTheTruth wrote: post #105
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.

It doesn't matter if it's cheaper, specially if it consumes more resources to do the same task as the competition Besides, in a few days, they'll change their pricing, doubling it during their peak hours, so, realistically: - It will be 2x more expensive if you live in their time zone - It will be 1.5x more expensive if you live in a time zone that is adjacent to theirs - It will be the same price IF you use it while…

While willingly handing your data to american labs. Surely sounds so based.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#235

Post by leereeves »

traceroute66 wrote: post #112
mschuster91 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 usin…

> 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]?

Linking a US website discussing the topic doesn't exactly support your point.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#236

Post by Demiurge »

big-chungus4 wrote: post #130
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.

Qwen3.7 pro is meh, but 3.7 max is a very good model

Are these different models or different efforts for thinking (internal back and forth review) using the same model?

Re: Qwen 3.8

#238

Post by amelius »

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…

Can we please include information of what languages we use when making claims like these?

It makes a huge difference if you're writing Javascript/HTML/CSS, Python, or C++/Rust.

Also the application type matters, e.g. user interfaces or scientific computing.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#239

Post by anonuser123 »

gardnr wrote: post #6
adrian_b wrote: post #4

I assume that this announcement has been prompted by that of Moonshot AI, which has just announced a 2.8T parameter open-weights LLM, Kimi K3, to be published on Huggingface by 27 July. Now the response of Alibaba is that they will also publish soon a big open weights LLM, the 2.4T parameter Qwen 3.8. I wonder if Alibaba has always planned to make this big LLM open weights, or they have chosen to do this now, to bett…

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.

> It's hard to say what their motivation is

Why is it hard? Their government has been very clear that they plan to win on manufacturing: https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202601/08/content_WS695f1b55...

Technically they've been saying it for the last 40 years.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#240

Post by ivewonyoung »

mattmanser wrote: post #175
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.

Comments like this boggle my mind. The model which everyone else raves about and is wildly successful with legions of programmers virtually demanding access while abandoning ChatGPT and Copilot in droves, is rather dumb? Have you considered that it's more likely that you're doing something wrong?

> is wildly successful with legions of programmers virtually demanding access while abandoning ChatGPT and Copilot in droves

Do you have a source for that? Codex went from 5 million users to 9 million users in the past few weeks since GPT 5.6 released. It was so popular that Claude was forced to extend Fable access by a week and then permanently for some plans.

Post reply on HN