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

191–200 of 296 posts

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#191

Post by applfanboysbgon »

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.

ZDR is built on trust. Given that end-to-end encryption fundamentally doesn't work with LLMs, as they need the content to be unencrypted to operate on it[1], you have no way to prove that once your plaintext data is on somebody else's server they aren't doing whatever the hell they please with it. All you have to rely on is their pinky promise that they won't do anything with it. Trust is a valid option, much of our society runs on trust, but you can eliminate the need for trust whatsoever by running on your own hardware.

[1] Yes, I'm aware of experiments to operate on encrypted prompts, but these are only research attempts, not something that could actually be used with frontier models in production.

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#192

Post by [deleted] »

whimsicalism wrote: post #117
xscott wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm reading too much between the lines, but I suspect the reason is to rub his nose in the duplicity or naivety depending on how generous you're feeling. Publishing the model would be a confession that he was wrong. AI policy is being shaped somewhat by the things Sam and Dario say. So even if you're not feeling vindictive, it's probably good to keep a track record of the previous things they have said as a Bay…

Wasn't the whole point of not releasing because they wanted to normalize the process/concerns for future actually dangerous releases? I think the release of kimi k3 is definitely arguably dangerous, we're already seeing consequences of elite-tier cyberoffense capabilities.

[deleted]

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#193

Post by jaggederest »

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.

I think the biggest reason is to own the stack so your model can't be changed out from under you, but maybe I care about that too much.

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#194

Post by z3c0 »

nkmnz wrote: post #25

I'd like to ask Sam Altman if he still thinks that it's too dangerous to publish GPT-3. I mean, no one would use it, but what is his reasoning for not publishing it now, in 2026?

Because they would have to reveal their training regiment, which likely formed the basis for versions 4 and 5.

Or did you just mean the weights? If so, the open models distilled from GPT3 should mostly suffice. That's what good "open weights" are.

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#195

Post by pyrophane »

mmastrac wrote: post #31

I previously posted that DS4Flash was _good_ but not _great_ on two DGX Sparks, but I have to say that GLM-5.3 is pretty amazing. It's been able to tackle all the random hard problems I've thrown at it and it has the intuition that DS4Flash seems to lack. We're nowhere near a Fable-class model IMO, but things are going to get interesting in this next year.

> We're nowhere near a Fable-class model IMO, but things are going to get interesting in this next year.

I'm wondering of you could clarify your thoughts on this. I've had a hard time evaluating what Fable-class actually is capable of that sets them (or really it) apart from other models in a very significant way.

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#196

Post by [deleted] »

jaggederest wrote: post #193
rkangel wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the biggest reason is to own the stack so your model can't be changed out from under you, but maybe I care about that too much.

[deleted]

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#197

Post by elorant »

WASDx wrote: post #177
rkangel wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Privacy isn’t only, I don’t want anyone to have access to my data. It could also be, I don’t want anyone to know my use case because it’s niche and highly profitable.

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#198

Post by [deleted] »

btheunissen wrote: post #185
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.

[deleted]

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#199

Post by Phemist »

Frost1x wrote: post #133
sneak wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of it is knowing that whatever sort of enshittification the cloud providers do, my local programming environment won’t ever be less effective than it is today locally. It’s the same reason my entire development stack from editor to compiler is open source. I don’t need to modify it today, but I always must retain the option to do so later. There are several things I do in my life that only pay off in the event o…

> Part of it is knowing that whatever sort of enshittification the cloud providers do, my local programming environment won’t ever be less effective than it is today locally. Is that true though? Many of the core LLMs need to be retrained as languages evolve to incorporate changes (language specifics, compilers, tooling, etc.). To some degree this can be handled via context injection in a variety do forms (agents loo…

With every newly released open weight model, the clock on the issues you describe is reset. I can see a marketplace arising for paid updates to common lines of open weight models, which will incentivize those with the hardware to train to fix the problem for those who only have the hardware for inference.

I would say when this comes to pass, we are already 5 years along?

> Part of it is knowing that whatever sort of enshittification the cloud providers do, my local programming environment won’t ever be less effective than it is today locally.

I think this is quite understated. It basically is freedom from a growingly antagonistic relationship between you and some remotely hosted API managed by faceless corporates at the whims of their board, shareholders and governments.. It really is such a mental burden to need to constantly manage this relationship (watermarks, silent downgrades, random false refusals, downtimes, model sunsets, changing ToS's, fucking ads). These companies will need to squeeze you for every cent that they can before open-weight models are simply good enough for the valuable tasks we can throw at them.

To have your own hardware is to no longer have this mental burden.

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#200

Post by RussianCow »

malshe wrote: post #154
RussianCow wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's right, or if it is, OpenRouter has incorrect data. Several Chinese companies (headquartered in China) have Singapore listed as their region on OR. And some companies, like Alibaba Cloud, have multiple regions listed. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but this makes me think that the region is where the servers are, not where the HQ is.

I couldn't find any article that states z.ai has a data center in Singapore. There are stories of their new 1 GW data center in China though. Also, openrouter lists HQs on their providers page which matches the regions. https://openrouter.ai/providers

Interesting. I wonder where they're getting their data from then, because they list Z.ai under Singapore, but everything I'm finding says they're based in Beijing. Same with MiniMax.
Post reply on HN