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

Granite 4.1: IBM's 8B Model Matching 32B MoE

firethering.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 223 posts

Re: Granite 4.1: IBM's 8B Model Matching 32B MoE

#111

Post by haolez »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #82

People complain a lot about LLM-written articles, but the human comments here on HN are far worse. Mostly a bunch of people extremely proud of themselves for not reading an LLM-written article, and then a bunch of people who take it at face value and make the model seem almost useful, and one comment that actually looked at other benchmarks. Good 'ol humanity, good at.. being emotional... and not doing analysis.....…

The problem is the signal/noise ratio in these articles. If the AI has written the article, then this same info could have been generated by my own AI, but tailored to my needs. So what, exactly, is the new info that this article is generating that I can use to consult with my AI? That's what I want to get out of this interaction.

Maybe my point is something on the lines of "Just send me the prompt"[0]

[0] https://blog.gpkb.org/posts/just-send-me-the-prompt/

Re: Granite 4.1: IBM's 8B Model Matching 32B MoE

#112

Post by kevin42 »

sureMan6 wrote: post #106
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #82

People complain a lot about LLM-written articles, but the human comments here on HN are far worse. Mostly a bunch of people extremely proud of themselves for not reading an LLM-written article, and then a bunch of people who take it at face value and make the model seem almost useful, and one comment that actually looked at other benchmarks. Good 'ol humanity, good at.. being emotional... and not doing analysis.....…

The pro LLM rant is weird, LLMs "hallucinate" in creating detailed elaborate lies, the frontier models still do this egregiously, an LLM written article by default has 0 value since every single line could be true or it could be a convincingly crafted lie, every line has to be fact checked I'm using Gemini 3.1 pro to help me research my thesis, it still with search enabled and on pro mode, invents entire papers that…

If they can't distinguish LLM text, then why should they care?

Anti-AI people like to bring up hallucination as if everything AI generates is false.

I can write pages of text, with my own content, and then use AI to improve my writing and clarity. Then I review and edit. It might have some LLM markers in there, which I remove sometimes because it's distracting. But the final, AI assisted writing is easier to read and better organized. But all the ideas are mine. Hallucinations are not remotely a problem in this case.

Re: Granite 4.1: IBM's 8B Model Matching 32B MoE

#113

Post by Forgeties79 »

kevin42 wrote: post #112
sureMan6 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pro LLM rant is weird, LLMs "hallucinate" in creating detailed elaborate lies, the frontier models still do this egregiously, an LLM written article by default has 0 value since every single line could be true or it could be a convincingly crafted lie, every line has to be fact checked I'm using Gemini 3.1 pro to help me research my thesis, it still with search enabled and on pro mode, invents entire papers that…

If they can't distinguish LLM text, then why should they care? Anti-AI people like to bring up hallucination as if everything AI generates is false. I can write pages of text, with my own content, and then use AI to improve my writing and clarity. Then I review and edit. It might have some LLM markers in there, which I remove sometimes because it's distracting. But the final, AI assisted writing is easier to read and…

If you can’t distinguish between fake images and real ones why should you care?

Re: Granite 4.1: IBM's 8B Model Matching 32B MoE

#114

Post by kevin42 »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #113
kevin42 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they can't distinguish LLM text, then why should they care? Anti-AI people like to bring up hallucination as if everything AI generates is false. I can write pages of text, with my own content, and then use AI to improve my writing and clarity. Then I review and edit. It might have some LLM markers in there, which I remove sometimes because it's distracting. But the final, AI assisted writing is easier to read and…

If you can’t distinguish between fake images and real ones why should you care?

That depends on the purpose of the image.

If it's used to create a false narrative (like a deep fake), sure, you should care. But if it's used as an alternative to a stock photo, or as an easy way to make an infographic then no, I don't think you should care.

Re: Granite 4.1: IBM's 8B Model Matching 32B MoE

#115

Post by noodletheworld »

irishcoffee wrote: post #44
noodletheworld wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having tried it. Qwen is really good. Also, generally, it makes sense. 8B models are generally not very good^. That this 8B model is decent is impressive, but that it could perform on par with a good model 4 times as large is a daydream. ^ - To be polite. The small models + tool use for coding agents are almost universally ass. Proof: my personal experience. Ive tried many of them.

So it’s just like, your opinion, man? edit: It was a play on The Big Lebowski, folks.

> So it’s just like, your opinion, man?

Yes.

That is how you empirically evaluate tools; not by reading stupid benchmarks. By actually using the tools, for hours and hours. Doing real work.

Did you try using it? For hours? Do you use qwen?

How about you tell us about your experience with your great 8B models that you use daily. What coding agent harness do you have then hooked up to? What context size can you get before they lose track of whats happening? Do you swap between models for different coding tasks?

Or, have you not, actually, even actually tried any of this stuff, yourself?

Re: Granite 4.1: IBM's 8B Model Matching 32B MoE

#116

Post by danielbln »

haolez wrote: post #111
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #82

People complain a lot about LLM-written articles, but the human comments here on HN are far worse. Mostly a bunch of people extremely proud of themselves for not reading an LLM-written article, and then a bunch of people who take it at face value and make the model seem almost useful, and one comment that actually looked at other benchmarks. Good 'ol humanity, good at.. being emotional... and not doing analysis.....…

The problem is the signal/noise ratio in these articles. If the AI has written the article, then this same info could have been generated by my own AI, but tailored to my needs. So what, exactly, is the new info that this article is generating that I can use to consult with my AI? That's what I want to get out of this interaction. Maybe my point is something on the lines of "Just send me the prompt"[0] [0] https://bl…

prompt + all other bits of information the context has been seeded with before the output was created (documents, web searches, other sources) in which case it might be more efficient to just consume the final deliverable (yourself or via LLM).

Re: Granite 4.1: IBM's 8B Model Matching 32B MoE

#117

Post by hathym »

SecretDreams wrote: post #70
uf00lme wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Woah, is this part of the future of models? Basically little models you can use as tools.

Eventually we'll have models small enough to do a single thing really well and we'll call them functions.

True if you can write a function that summerize an article for example

Re: Granite 4.1: IBM's 8B Model Matching 32B MoE

#118

Post by simonw »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #82

People complain a lot about LLM-written articles, but the human comments here on HN are far worse. Mostly a bunch of people extremely proud of themselves for not reading an LLM-written article, and then a bunch of people who take it at face value and make the model seem almost useful, and one comment that actually looked at other benchmarks. Good 'ol humanity, good at.. being emotional... and not doing analysis.....…

"The article makes some good points about model design"

But how can I tell if those are good points or not?

I don't want to invest time in reading something if the presence of those "good points" depends on a roll of the dice.

Re: Granite 4.1: IBM's 8B Model Matching 32B MoE

#119

Post by speedgoose »

jasonlotito wrote: post #102
robotmaxtron wrote: post #61

"open source" show me.

Apache 2.0 License. Did you not click the link to the project? They even list it in the article. > Apache 2.0 across the board, so commercial use is clean. Did you just stop when you saw open source and come post this here because you couldn't be bothered to... look at the project and see it's cleanly and clearly listed. Edit: Like. I get it. It's fine to question open source. But this isn't hidden. It's repeated and…

If I give you an amd64 elf binary under Apache2 license, is it open source?

Re: Granite 4.1: IBM's 8B Model Matching 32B MoE

#120

Post by elxr »

geraneum wrote: post #96
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #82

People complain a lot about LLM-written articles, but the human comments here on HN are far worse. Mostly a bunch of people extremely proud of themselves for not reading an LLM-written article, and then a bunch of people who take it at face value and make the model seem almost useful, and one comment that actually looked at other benchmarks. Good 'ol humanity, good at.. being emotional... and not doing analysis.....…

> the human comments here on HN are far worse I already assume some comments here are LLM written.

I mean, obviously.

I assume some people here have never programmed a single useful thing even once in their lives.

Post reply on HN