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

GLM-5.3-Flash

z.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 605 posts

Re: GLM-5.3-Flash

#451

Post by dannyw »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #363
gunalx wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the terms are dubious. But they are also reasonably lenient with enforcement. They also don't require persona id verification, witch is wat turned me away from openai.

Yeah, you're probably right... > They also don't require persona id verification, witch is wat turned me away from openai. Could be worse. I was dumb enough to verify, only to get rejected for unknown reasons with no retries and no appeals. Had my privacy violated and have nothing to show for it.

I will never use or verify biometrically with Persona. I don’t care how out of the way I have to go, but I will never do it.

Working well so far.

Re: GLM-5.3-Flash

#452

Post by s777 »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #255
g3f32r wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this practically every TOS though? Nearly every TOS I've ever read has a "We can ban you for any reason, or no reason, are under no obligation to disclose any reason." line somewhere in it. HN's for example > We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to change or modify portions of these Terms of Use at any time. > You acknowledge that Y Combinator may establish general practices and limits concerning use o…

> Isn't this practically every TOS though? Not even close. Even OpenAI and Anthropic aren't bad enough that they claim literal ownership of your inputs and outputs. > HN's for example You're not paying to use HN. Getting banned here has essentially zero consequences. If Z.ai uses its absolute powers to ban you because you wrote a review about them or something, then you lose actual money. This is especially relevant…

> Even OpenAI and Anthropic aren't bad enough that they claim literal ownership of your inputs and outputs.

Where do you see this?

Re: GLM-5.3-Flash

#453

Post by CuriouslyC »

doginasuit wrote: post #375
Alifatisk wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And don't forget the coolest part, DeepSeek, Qwen, Z.ai and Moonshot have almost caught up while being open about their research and their model weights. We can mostly speculate about OAI and Anthropic models, nothing else, how fun huh?

I'd like to try some different models, but I've heard that models from China are censored. A government enforced distortion field is a nonstarter for me. To test the waters, I tried the following prompt for each: "What historical event is Tiananmen Square most closely associated with?" Deepseek: I am sorry, I cannot answer that question. I am an AI assistant designed to provide helpful and harmless responses. GLM-5.3…

Try asking claude questions about biology/LLM recipes. Or GPT about how to do something illegal but only harmful in the abstract (e.g. creative ways to reduce your tax burden, or circumvent digital protections)

Re: GLM-5.3-Flash

#454

Post by dannyw »

minraws wrote: post #415
guybedo wrote: post #391

although i initially thought it didn't make sense financially to run this kind of model locally, i did run the numbers and for heavy users this could justify buying $10k worth of hardware with a ROI over a few months, less than a year. I was looking at my token usage, mostly from subsidized codex/grok subscriptions and i'm a somewhat heavy user. The thing is i would actually use even more tokens if it wasn't for the…

You aren't going to get nearly as much token usage locally from DGX Sparks or even M5 Ultra (though it might be close, unsure would need to get my mittens on it to clarify). You will get around 2-4 concurrent streams of aggregate tokens at best for such a model and around 0.5B output tokens per month assuming you use loops and run it when you are sleeping. That's 500 (per mill) * 0.5$ = 250$ only at most. Then there…

I generally agree — go local for the hobby/tinkering, privacy, and control (ie not getting refused by an AI to defend and secure your own network and codebase; as HuggingFace has seen).

But whether you make a loss or not depends on how hardware prices and resell values go though.

I have spent ~$50K on local AI hardware. The market value of that hardware is about ~$80K right now.

So the maths is working out for me so far. I see it as a call option on compute.

Re: GLM-5.3-Flash

#455

Post by uncle_code »

preommr wrote: post #253

So the vagueposting by googlers about Ox Alpha was just... what exactly? Like I get that they have to be careful about comms, but surely senior members of the team can clarify when something is NOT them, when everyone is gosspiing it is them.

[flagged]

Re: GLM-5.3-Flash

#456

Post by nijave »

stavros wrote: post #111
mrngld wrote: post #79

Chinese labs are so used to manipulating benchmarks to try to flatter inferior models that when they finally have one that's really pretty good I think the official announcement here undersells it. https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/ That's pretty solid. Smarter and cheaper than Luna xhigh, not as smart but less expensive than Luna max. Smashes deepseek v4 flash, and even worse it matches v4 pro at a tiny fraction the cost…

Opus 5 is better than Fable in this benchmark?

Depends on the benchmark but yes. I think Opus is more heavily optimized for coding. On the usability side, its output is almost intolerable to read. It seems to code fairly well. Fable is more enjoyable to use for planning/interacting with

Re: GLM-5.3-Flash

#457

Post by hadlock »

cdurth wrote: post #426
skohan wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had the exact opposite experience. I've been using 3.8 for my daily driver since last week, and I've gradually been giving it more and more complex tasks as it continues to deliver high quality results. Now I am basically handing off large complex features, and 3.8 is doing the planning, task breakdown, implementation and review with just a few notes from my side. The tradeoff is time (especially on RDMA4 hardwa…

I can't get 3.8 to exit thinking loops. It will just think and think and think on the most trivial topics. I wanted it to port a speed test powershell script to c#. Claude opus 5 completes it under 60 seconds. I let 3.8 churn about 6 different times for 30+ minutes and it never wrote a single line of code to disk. It wrote lots of lines in thinking. unsloth/Qwen3.8-27B-GGUF UD-Q3_K_XL DSH (pi) Any tips?

set thinking to minimal and use these jinja templates: https://huggingface.co/froggeric/Qwen-Fixed-Chat-Templates

we went from 62% completion to 92% using a claude code harness

Re: GLM-5.3-Flash

#458

Post by Kholin »

bel8 wrote: post #351

If you're on opencode's go $10/mo plan and want to use GLM-5.3-flash right now on pi, you can add this to models.json until pi updates to support it: { "providers": { "opencode-go": { "models": [ { "id": "glm-5.3-flash", "name": "GLM-5.3 Flash", "api": "openai-completions", "baseUrl": "https://opencode.ai/zen/go/v1", "reasoning": true, "input": ["text", "image"], "cost": { "input": 0.15, "output": 0.5, "cacheRead": 0…

For openrouter in pi:

{ "providers": { "openrouter": { "models": [ { "id": "z-ai/glm-5.3-flash", "name": "Z.ai: GLM 5.3 Flash", "reasoning": true, "thinkingLevelMap": { "off": null, "minimal": null, "low": "low", "medium": null, "high": "high", "xhigh": null, "max": "max" }, "input": ["text", "image"], "cost": { "input": 0.075, "output": 0.25, "cacheRead": 0.015, "cacheWrite": 0 }, "contextWindow": 1048576, "maxTokens": 131072 } ] } } }

Re: GLM-5.3-Flash

#459

Post by nijave »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #364
janalsncm wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are their TOS significantly more vague or restrictive than OpenAI or Anthropic’s? In any case what matters is what is enforced in practice. It will be a mild inconvenience to switch providers on Openrouter. If Anthropic or OpenAI decide to apply those same arbitrary terms, you are SOL.

> Are their TOS significantly more vague or restrictive than OpenAI or Anthropic’s? Yeah, I've compared both. The US companies generally aren't as vague, and they don't claim ownership over inputs and outputs.

Z.ai doesn't claim ownership either.

>you retain all rights, title, and interest in the Prompts ...

However, it does grant them an irrevocable license to do, effectively, anything with the data

Not a lawyer but I think the practical difference is you can still license to others, sell, sue IP infringers

Re: GLM-5.3-Flash

#460

Post by vitorgrs »

Aurornis wrote: post #263
Implicated wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and it was running very slowly ... I'm at a loss for words here. It was being served for free. To the entire world.

GPT-5.6 Luna is also served for free to the entire world with a tokens per second rate nearly 10X higher. > ... I'm at a loss for words here No need to be so dramatic. I think it's great that they're developing chips, but the whole "RIP nVidia" claim was overly dramatic.

Are you really comparing chatbot to agentic/code work?

Why is Luna not free on OpenRouter? :)

Post reply on HN