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

551–560 of 793 posts

Re: Qwen 3.8

#551

Post by hodgehog11 »

reckless wrote: post #33
hodgehog11 wrote: post #14

The "second only to Fable 5" comment is pretty telling here. I remember early on when a lot of naysayers were saying that Fable was barely an improvement on Opus. Like it or not, Anthropic have a genuine moat right now with that model, provided they continue to allow people to use it. It will be genuinely exciting when an open model is able to beat it.

5.6-sol would be a better comparison given it's general availability and usage allowances

They are likely assessing based on "raw intelligence" benchmarks, rather than agentic ones. Fable crushes in those, but that doesn't necessarily translate to microscopic rigor, which is what most people use these models for. You only see it when you ask really tough questions.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#552

Post by p1necone »

k__ wrote: post #294
2Gkashmiri wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My 2 weeks with DeepSeek V4: Pro is ~50% more expensive than Flash. Both need babysitting. Plan, split in small tasks, give it docs, types, tests, linter, best practice examples, etc. Always start a new session when starting a task. Do regular manual sanity checks, and tell it to find issues in the codebase. I pay like $1,50 per day for Pro.

I use GLM-5.2 as an orchestrator model which delegates to Deepseek subagents (v4 flash or pro depending on complexity) and it works pretty well for a quite complex compiler codebase when I do deep enough up front planning for features/fixes.

If you believe the benchmarks Deepseek v4 is pretty shitty at long running work in large codebases, but really really good at self contained algorithmic/math reasoning - which is basically ideal for a compiler for a language with a relatively complex type system. And with its cache pricing it's very cheap.

GLM-5.2 is too expensive at api pricing for my taste though even when it's not producing the bulk of the output tokens - I pay for the mid-tier subscription and switch the orchestrator over to other models via open router when I run out - Minimax M3 feels okay but definitely a step down from GLM-5.2.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#553

Post by harshreality »

TheDong wrote: post #335
kelnos wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's hard to say what their motivation is. Feels pretty easy to me. They want to turn LLMs into a commodity, and watch the US AI labs crash and burn. There will still be plenty of customers who will pay them to host the models and run inference, even if the weights are open and others can offer competing products. (If necessary, the Chinese government can ban use of foreign inference services by Chinese citizens an…

I feel like there could also be a simpler explanation. Why does a debian contributor make debian free, why do they work on this thing anyone can use? Is it because linux and debian hate windows and iOS and want to see american fail? No, it's because most debian contributors believe software source code, information, should be free, users should be free to modify the code they use, and that they're building a thing th…

> Is it because linux and debian hate windows and iOS and want to see american [closed-source duopoly] fail?

maybe a little?

Re: Qwen 3.8

#554

Post by liamwire »

m000 wrote: post #441
KeplerBoy wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sir, this is a multi-billion dollar operation. There have to be some incentives.

[flagged]

I like the comparison, but I'm not sure it holds. What did it cost him to develop beyond intangibles such as his time and money forgone? Because the latter especially is not equivalent to upfront capex and opex costs that preempt any ability to be charitable. Genuinely asking, but I'd be hard pressed to think it's even within the same magnitude.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#555

Post by ceroxylon »

ceroxylon wrote: post #350
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…

Does HuggingFace not have trusted partner verification? Or is it that even with that verification the content of the messages is still blocked because they are attack commands?

To the downvoters: this was a genuine, good faith question.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#556

Post by timClicks »

samxli wrote: post #531
simonw wrote: post #525

(I can't draw a pelican for this one because Alibaba Cloud have flagged my email address and won't let me pay them for access. So I'm waiting for the open weights release, or for the new model to show up on OpenRouter.)

lol the pelican benchmark is basically the only review process I trust at this point. kinda wild that alibaba of all companies is making it hard to give them money tho, you'd think they'd want prominent devs testing their stuff. openrouter usually picks these up pretty fast, hopefully it shows up there soon. You can also just download the qwen app and do this in the chat interface using their MCP tools for local dev.

It's an interesting example of the metric becoming a target. Simon started drawing pelicans because it wasn't something that existed before.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#557

Post by g42gregory »

kelnos wrote: post #324
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.

> It's hard to say what their motivation is. Feels pretty easy to me. They want to turn LLMs into a commodity, and watch the US AI labs crash and burn. There will still be plenty of customers who will pay them to host the models and run inference, even if the weights are open and others can offer competing products. (If necessary, the Chinese government can ban use of foreign inference services by Chinese citizens an…

As I recall, in 2023/24 OpenAI told US Gov that AGI will be achieved in 2026 and we will use this AGI to “dominate” China. Based on this, US Gov cut off China from all AI hardware. It looks like China got the message and this is the response.

Also, a little competition is good for everybody (especially US consumers), no?

Re: Qwen 3.8

#558

Post by Agingcoder »

TheDong wrote: post #335
kelnos wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's hard to say what their motivation is. Feels pretty easy to me. They want to turn LLMs into a commodity, and watch the US AI labs crash and burn. There will still be plenty of customers who will pay them to host the models and run inference, even if the weights are open and others can offer competing products. (If necessary, the Chinese government can ban use of foreign inference services by Chinese citizens an…

I feel like there could also be a simpler explanation. Why does a debian contributor make debian free, why do they work on this thing anyone can use? Is it because linux and debian hate windows and iOS and want to see american fail? No, it's because most debian contributors believe software source code, information, should be free, users should be free to modify the code they use, and that they're building a thing th…

Models are treated as weapons with export controls - if they can do this it’s with the blessing of the Chinese government who’s getting something out of it.

It’s fairly obviously about being a nuisance to the US.

Re: Qwen 3.8

#559

Post by justatdotin »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #469
asdewqqwer wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is hilarious to see people from arguable the most polarized political systems in the world believing the evil 1.5 billion people across the sea share one single mind, either a saint, or a devil.

It will be a great day for China and the world when the Chinese people are free from a totalitarian dictatorship. But until then we have to speak of the policy of the Chinese government as the policy of China, even if many, or most disagree with those policies.

now do usa

Re: Qwen 3.8

#560

Post by _carbyau_ »

simonw wrote: post #525

(I can't draw a pelican for this one because Alibaba Cloud have flagged my email address and won't let me pay them for access. So I'm waiting for the open weights release, or for the new model to show up on OpenRouter.)

[flagged]
Post reply on HN