Live data from Hacker News

Qwen3.8-Max: A New Bar for Coding and Cowork

qwen.ai

581–590 of 652 posts

Re: Qwen3.8-Max: A New Bar for Coding and Cowork

#581

This makes me wonder if AI companies even have a MOAT in the first place. All requests to an LLM are idempotent, for every API call you need to send it the entire conversation history so that it can process it. LLMs do not learn or remember anything, which makes it super easy for users to switch LLMs on the fly. Most popular AI frameworks, make this a one-liner change these days. And that makes me wonder if the trill…

I think Anthropic/OpenAI do have a moat in the (western) enterprise market. Chinese hosted models are a no-go, and my experience with enterprise IT departments is that they will not self-host. So far signing up with a known product (e.g. Claude) seems to be the way they will go and this is the moat that the AI companies have. Alternatively there is Copilot, but that for now seems to mostly be backed by Anthropic/OpenAI models[1].

Will this continue? The field is moving too fast to tell. Kimi, Qwen, Deepseek also produce very capable models but that doesn't automatically translate into trillion dollar valuations.

However, trillion dollar valuations on Anthropic and OpenAI, such new companies, never publicly traded and such huge valuations decided just by investors. This is just asking for trouble.

1. https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/reference/ai-models/suppo...

Re: Qwen3.8-Max: A New Bar for Coding and Cowork

#582
post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Qwen3.6-35B is my daily driver for AI, and what convinced me to cancel my Claude subscription back in April. The Qwen3.6 line is easily the best local model I've tried, and I've tried a lot. I've got it diligently grinding away on my laptop right now, reviewing and fixing some bugs in my F# code.

With laptop being ...?

It's just an M4 MacBook Air with 16gb ram – probably incapable of running models itself. I actually run the models on my Mac Studio which is an M1 Ultra with 64gb, and oh-my-pi on my laptop is configured to use the models over the local network.

Re: Qwen3.8-Max: A New Bar for Coding and Cowork

#583

I used the qwen 3.6 models and convinced myself to go ahead and get a gpu. I got the 7900 xt with 20 gb vram.

Bad move. Should have used the money to buy NVIDIA stock

5 years ago maybe. That juice has been squeezed.

Re: Qwen3.8-Max: A New Bar for Coding and Cowork

#584
post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Qwen3.6-35B is my daily driver for AI, and what convinced me to cancel my Claude subscription back in April. The Qwen3.6 line is easily the best local model I've tried, and I've tried a lot. I've got it diligently grinding away on my laptop right now, reviewing and fixing some bugs in my F# code.

Is your Qwen3.6 locally run on your laptop? What kind of tokens/s are you getting from your laptop GPU?

Qwen is running on my Mac Studio, an M1 Ultra 64gb. My harness (oh-my-pi) on my laptop is configured to use the models hosted on my local network, since it's just a MacBook Air 16gb and probably incapable of running anything useful itself.

I get about 45-55 tokens per second using Qwen with this setup. I could probably squeeze out more if I messed around with the settings, but I'm mostly using oMLX's defaults for the model.

Re: Qwen3.8-Max: A New Bar for Coding and Cowork

#585
post #471

As someone who is searching for a new programming contract right now, reading all of the incredible abilities here is pretty intimidating. Especially since I get almost all of my projects from Upwork which is an outsourcing site. I believe I am competing directly with these frontier models in some circumstances. Like there are a ton of programmers who previously would be outsourcing work to that site, but now they as…

Suppose I wanted you or someone else on Upwork or Fiverr to port a Rails 4 app to Rails 8 (or React or HTMX or anything up to date and maintainable). Assume the business logic and all edge cases work in the legacy app. The app is "done", just too old to work on or run on modern hosts. Hence the project. Would/could you use AI to deliver the project at 10x the speed? Or at 1/10 the price? Or charge the same amount as…

There is still some use to having someone else supervise it and/or test it etc. But most of that gap could probably be closed by setting up your harness so that it can efficiently do the end to end testing including UI itself. Recent model releases seem to know how to set up playwright or whatever and test the live page on its own. But I still see some improvement to be made when I look at it myself.

I would say 90% of outsourced developers are going to use AI just like someone making top US dollar. Actually for the majority of projects on Upwork, the need to generate with AI is much greater. And I think it's nonsense the idea that an overseas programmer can't figure out how to make adequate requests to a frontier model.

The models are smart enough that someone could literally just say "convert to Rails 8 like you are real real good best Railsdev" and follow up with a few "now test and make the bestest code Base" and if they are repeating that maybe with a few different leading models.. will a real Rails dev be able to find some fault? Sure. Would they have also found issues with the work of another human Rails dev? Yes probably.I just don't think it takes as much actual skill at this point. And certainly there is no secret ability that people in San Francisco have but not in Bangladesh or only certain neighborhoods or whatever.

One guy I was talking to said he was frustrated because his developer was not using AI enough. I came to the conclusion based on his requirements and relatively generous project timeline that that developer was deliberately avoiding using AI or admitting that he was using AI because he knew if he did then the main project phase would be finished in less than a month.

It does help dealing with what previously were often impossible timelines. Recently my Upwork profile has focused on AI agents so I have not been seeing many of those typical line of business type jobs.

But also more than half of those more typical business web apps are now starting with "I have already generated a prototype" and they want it to be made. "production ready" which I think contractors are taking advantage of how vague that is especially since the majority of these projects have pretty modest actual usage. I actually don't like that because it's much less concrete than delivering actual features.

Re: Qwen3.8-Max: A New Bar for Coding and Cowork

#586
post #215
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree, I don't necessarily see a strong argument favoring OpenAI or Anthropic here. In the interest of perspective, can anyone (perhaps playing devil's advocate) give one? The open models are now good enough for what I want to do with them, let alone any future improvements. And factoring in efficiency gains, a model in the ~70b range starting to satisfy my needs would completely obviate the need to pay others for in…

> In the interest of perspective, can anyone (perhaps playing devil's advocate) give one? I have numerous cases where Sol failed and only Fable could solve a problem. For example yesterday I was merging a Q2 curved with a Bezier curved face in 3D using OpenSCAD. I tried for over 2 hours with Sol 5.6 high and x-high. Fable two-shotted it in about 30 minutes. In my experience open models (or GLM, DS and Kimi) are radic…

Same experience here.

I settled on Fable for design, Opus for build routine, and every now and then I'd try out the Chinese models. In my experience they do fine on small codebases, and quickly get confused on anything larger than 500k LOC.

My use case is: mature, very well documented, fully Ai written code, with about 1:10 ratio of prompts/specs to code, and codebase sizes >500k and <2m LOC. Once one achieves the state of good, comprehensive design documentation I can literally vibe code with single sentence prompts thanks to the extensive test coverage, ADRs, and tens of thousands of lines of specs. Fable/Opus works predictably well, the Chinese models are literally dangerous to the codebase.

Re: Qwen3.8-Max: A New Bar for Coding and Cowork

#587

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Qwen3.6-35B is my daily driver for AI, and what convinced me to cancel my Claude subscription back in April. The Qwen3.6 line is easily the best local model I've tried, and I've tried a lot. I've got it diligently grinding away on my laptop right now, reviewing and fixing some bugs in my F# code.

Qwen-3.6-35B-A3B was our "gateway drug" into switching our organisation to agent/harness-first coding. Particularly, I had one team member who was extremely sceptical of AIs/LLMs/harnesses and refused to use them. One day he said "Well, I have an RTX 5090 doing nothing... should I try to get something up on it?" and a few minutes later he had 3.6-35B loaded up, running OpenCode. It continues to be a workhorse to this…

What kind of hardware do you run that massive beast on (DS-V4-Flash-0731)?

Re: Qwen3.8-Max: A New Bar for Coding and Cowork

#588
post #56
post #20

Once OpenAI and Anthropic are public, every such announcement will become a reliable sell signal

Can they still go public ? MiniMax M3 Pro is also coming, then DeepSeek-v4-Pro GA, then GLM5.5. There will only be bad news for them in the coming few weeks/months.

My guess is their strategy is to aim for clueless developers, with more focus on "proactivity" with Fable and very large models. I have a few non-technical friends who dabble in AI coding and I am watching with amazement how much better their creations get with the newer models. 3 months ago, they would "ship" stuff with a backend at 127.0.0.1 and api keys in the frontend. Right now they produce, without an iota of understanding, decently designed, but not very secure or efficient cloud native stuff that sort of works. I bet in 3-6 months they will be releasing secure, scalable, well architected stuff without spending a single thought on any of those things. And I think this is where the really big models will be a bit of a moat, for a short while at least.

Re: Qwen3.8-Max: A New Bar for Coding and Cowork

#589
post #171
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The percentage of the population that needs to work will continue to go down because of aging and automation although you might not see it as a reduction of hours for a given individual employed person. Already 38% of Americans aged 16 or older do not work and are not looking for work and yet are not dying from hunger or exposure. This would have seemed like a utopian dream to someone from the 1800s.

But how is that possible? How can one survive without income barring homelessness, begging, prostitution, and other not so utopian options?

government, where two thirds of spending comprises transfer payments that help households bridge the gap between their spending, retirement, and health care needs and their wages and salaries [1]

The market comment linked in the paragraph above that one features a toy model of the US economy which illustrates this (section "Equilibrium in output and income"). [2]

[1] https://www.hussmanfunds.com/comment/mc260219/

[2] https://www.hussmanfunds.com/comment/mc260104/

Re: Qwen3.8-Max: A New Bar for Coding and Cowork

#590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry, but this do-gooder concept doesn’t jibe with their other actions. For example, swindling their business partners (such as Figma). Filing an unnecessary trademark lawsuit against a customer whose brand predates Anthropic. And for safety? Oh yeah, they literally sell the removal of guardrails in exchange for minimum spend commitments.

For example, swindling their business partners (such as Figma). Filing an unnecessary trademark lawsuit against a customer whose brand predates Anthropic. Completely unrelated to AI safety. they literally sell the removal of guardrails in exchange for minimum spend commitments It seems blindingly obvious to me that you'd want to let trusted organizations use the models defensively, which means without guardrails, and…

1. This is not “unrelated to AI safety”. The things they seek in the name of AI safety always seem to be aligned with the path that will eliminate competition and give them maximum economic power. Thus, to disentangle what is sincere and what is ulterior, we have to look at the leadership’s character holistically. A ruthlessly unethical and cutthroat corporation that is also seeking unprecedented power doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt when it claims to be doing this for altruistic reasons.

2. You misstated what I wrote. My gripe is not that they have an enterprise sales process. It’s that in negotiations, they say “we’ll drop the safeguards if you agree to spend more”. I haven’t heard of any groundbreaking AI safety research concluding that spending more with Anthropic makes the models safer, but maybe Dario has a new blog post coming.

3. Check your tone.

Post reply on HN