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

GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

huggingface.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 298 posts

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#181

Post by includenotfound »

seizethecheese wrote: post #148
includenotfound wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Models are quite safe when they're useless, actually. In the times of GPT-3 I'd scoff at the idea of an LLM doing any hacking; today, I'm running several AIs on my code before publishing, and they are finding (and demonstrating!) RCEs on my localhost server. For example, one found a missing check in a third party JWT library which allowed full account takeover, which I'd have never even looked at. Hence I don't belie…

From today's perspective, it sure seems like it, probably because increased capabilities have generated a new kind of danger. Back then, they were worried about stuff like the model telling me dangerous knowledge. I certainly think the labs have muddied the waters using safety for marketing, but that doesn't mean less capable models weren't more dangerous at one point.

Extremely weak justification on their part, bordering on trolling. It's just marketing.

Easy access to malicious information hasn't proven to be the disaster these anti-prophets proclaim. For the last ~3 decades of widespread internet and search engines, you could trivially find all sorts of information (drug synthesis, explosives, etc.), and we're just fine.

(Corollary: easy access to good information did not make non-intellectual non-curious people smarter. Easy access to information does not have the consequences people immediately assume.)

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#182

Post by johnnyApplePRNG »

revolvingthrow wrote: post #16

GLM 5.3 is probably the sweet spot open weights model if you want to go beyond deepseek flash or the new glm flash. I used it with pi and had a fairly good time, especially since it’s less touchy about cyber and whatnot than the US guys. It’s slightly behind Kimi in ability but it’s a lot easier to run it, I’d expect prices (and speed!) from third parties to be noticeably better. Assuming you’re willing to drop a fat…

It IS crazy to drop big money on any AI rig right now imho... the size of models and the cost to run them is falling through the floor as we speak.

I'm happy with all of the competition in the APIs on openrouter... I watch that like I used to watch the stock markets, lol. It's great fun.

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#183

Post by BeetleB »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #170
BeetleB wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I haven't used it because their privacy policy was pretty buns last time I checked. What did you find objectionable? I looked at it when I subscribed almost a year ago and I was fine with it (e.g. they don't train on your API inputs).

Z.ai gives itself a perpetual license to all of your inputs and outputs.

For API users, it says:

"The Company do not store any of the content the Customer or its End Users provide or generate while using our Services. This includes any texts, or other data you input. This information is processed in real-time to provide the Customer and End Users with the API Service and is not saved on our servers."

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#184

Post by WASDx »

rkangel wrote: post #180
WASDx wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the privacy argument that keeps coming up is overrepresented. Certainly ZDR is enough for an absolute majority of use cases? I see so much talk about local inference but I doubt most of it has privacy as a valid argument (not arguing it doesn't exist). It's fun to do things locally though. I've tried it as well but cloud is just faster and cheaper.

These companies have displayed zero respect for everyone's intellectual property getting these models trained. I think not giving them your complete trust is reasonable! I'm not saying zero trust, and ZDR is fine for most things but I understand the people who don't want to stream their whole codebase out token by token.

Then use other providers hosting open models. Companies and individuals already put their whole code base on the cloud. I'm genuinely interested in privacy-oriented use cases where ZDR is not enough.

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#185

Post by btheunissen »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #138

Stealth Ox-Alpha was GLM-5.3-Flash, and Ox-Alpha was a strong coder (way better than DS4Flash). With both GLM 5.3 and GLM 5.3 Flash, I don't think I'll need any better coding models. The main thing I need now is faster, not better.

Yes I really don’t a reason to not switch all my team to use GLM 5.3 for planning, and Flash for implementation. This really does seem apocalyptic for Anthropic and OAI if more of the industry switches.

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#186

Post by joemazerino »

rkangel wrote: post #75
sickcodebruh wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we consider: * LLM usage is new for the world * Models are evolving quickly with high worldwide competition * Hardware is evolving despite RAM shortages Is investing a huge sum of money in equipment for local inference a wise use of money? Or are M5 Ultra and equivalently priced local inference hardware future-proof enough to be worth it relative to how the market is evolving? Maybe it’s all a question of what y…

It is absolutely not worth buying hardware to run models for purely (long term) cost reasons. For open weights models the economies of scale means the cloud beats local significantly and your payback time is like 10 years. However there are other reasons (e.g. privacy) that might make it worth running locally for some people.

And compliance.

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#187

Post by SwellJoe »

Barbing wrote: post #171
SwellJoe wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a Strix Halo and dual 32GB GPUs in my desktop, that sit idle right now, because the electricity to run them and to cool them in 110F weather Texas is currently experiencing pretty much nulls any savings I might see over getting better models from cloud providers. While I mostly use Claude or Codex with subscriptions for agentic work, for API use DeepSeek has usually been my go to, but now I guess it's GLM 5.3…

Too hot and expensive to run right now but a great hedge for peace of mind against $200 subscriptions shooting up to the $4000* they should cost. *$1000? $14,000? Who knows but everything in the middle there has been claimed.

Yeah, I guess, but it feels like there isn't really an opportunity for anyone to do that, given how competitive the market is. If Anthropic decides to demand API rates for everything (which would make my $100/month turn into a few thousand, I guess), I won't be seriously inconvenienced by switching to GPT. And, if both of the major American providers do a pricing collusion and GPT also becomes thousands of dollars a month to use, I can choose between Kimi K3 and GLM and so on. I'd rather use Opus 5 and Fable, but I'm not going to be seriously put out if I can't. We've got three or four open models to choose from that are as good as or better than Opus 4.8, which is Good Enough, and the competition isn't slowing down. We're seeing more new competitive models more frequently than even three months ago.

So, even though there are more models to run locally that can be useful for the stuff I do, it makes less sense now to do so than it did when I got it. There are more extremely cheap options, now, and it seems likely to continue to get cheaper and better and faster, while my local hardware will always be slow and hot and only gets better via software (which has roughly doubled the speed it can run stuff since I got it, but it seems like there's less room for improvement in software now, and even at twice the speed, it still kinda sucks to use local models interactively especially on the Strix Halo).

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#188

Post by Gigachad »

WASDx wrote: post #184
rkangel wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These companies have displayed zero respect for everyone's intellectual property getting these models trained. I think not giving them your complete trust is reasonable! I'm not saying zero trust, and ZDR is fine for most things but I understand the people who don't want to stream their whole codebase out token by token.

Then use other providers hosting open models. Companies and individuals already put their whole code base on the cloud. I'm genuinely interested in privacy-oriented use cases where ZDR is not enough.

I'm not that worried about the codebase itself. I'm worried about the fact coding agents poke around the terminal and system so much that there is almost a certainty that some of your other personal data ends up in the context somewhere which is getting logged in to a training dataset by random hosting providers.

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#189

Post by Gigachad »

epolanski wrote: post #179
revolvingthrow wrote: post #16

GLM 5.3 is probably the sweet spot open weights model if you want to go beyond deepseek flash or the new glm flash. I used it with pi and had a fairly good time, especially since it’s less touchy about cyber and whatnot than the US guys. It’s slightly behind Kimi in ability but it’s a lot easier to run it, I’d expect prices (and speed!) from third parties to be noticeably better. Assuming you’re willing to drop a fat…

I get some appeal of running locally, but isn't it just easier to rent cloud hardware and run whatever model you want to run?

There's certainly a mental difference between a computer you can use as much as you want for a fixed upfront cost vs a rented server you are being billed by the hour for.

But the cost difference between api and self hosted is so incredibly large now it's almost impossible to ignore the fact self hosting is a terrible deal. I'm waiting things out until the dust settles on what the required specs are and consumer hardware gets cheaper/more capable.

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#190

Post by refulgentis »

includenotfound wrote: post #125
seizethecheese wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s not such a straightforward relationship between safety and model sis. According to the book The Thinking Game, lower quality models at that time were considered less safe, because they could be easily tricked into doing harmful stuff. In the book, Dario (of Anthropic) was the head of safety at openAI and was responsible for pushing for 10x scaling in training to make the models safer . It does make sense, a s…

Models are quite safe when they're useless, actually. In the times of GPT-3 I'd scoff at the idea of an LLM doing any hacking; today, I'm running several AIs on my code before publishing, and they are finding (and demonstrating!) RCEs on my localhost server. For example, one found a missing check in a third party JWT library which allowed full account takeover, which I'd have never even looked at. Hence I don't belie…

There’s this strain of thinking that’s complete alien to me, I can’t interpret what’s being said and it sounds incredibly aggressive. ex. our lead post asking if Sam Altman still thinks GPT-3 is unsafe to release, and I don’t understand what beliefs you don’t believe and who they is and why they’re just choosing to lie for marketing.

My guess is I’m unintentionally refusing implicit signal that you think it’s safe to release all models openly, because you have observed models finding a vulnerability in a JWT library. But that sounds like a straw man instead of a steel man. Idk. :/

Post reply on HN