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

121–130 of 223 posts

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

#121

Post by drob518 »

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.....…

> But what the article doesn't say is, compared to other model families, Granite 4.1 8B sucks.

Right. This just says that Granite 4.1 8B is better than a previous version, Granite 4.0-H-Small, which has 32B, 9B active.

So, they made a less bad model than before. But that doesn't tell you anything about how it compares with other models.

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

#122

Post by Forgeties79 »

kevin42 wrote: post #114
Forgeties79 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And when an LLM starts hallucinating, and I emphasize “when,” is that not the same issue as creating a false narrative?

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

#123

Post by [deleted] »

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.....…

[deleted]

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

#125

Post by steveharing1 »

simonw wrote: post #118
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.

even calling it roll of the dice is an assumption. Can you point anything you find as mistake?

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

#126

Post by simonw »

steveharing1 wrote: post #125
simonw wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

even calling it roll of the dice is an assumption. Can you point anything you find as mistake?

No, because I'm not going to spend a bunch of my time fact-checking obvious AI slop.

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

#127

Post by smj-edison »

On the topic of local models, is there a good equivalent to something like Claude's chat interface? I've recently started transitioning to open models after getting fed up with Claude's usage limits (I'm not in a position to drop $200/month), and for coding tasks Kimi 2.6 has been about the same as Sonnet in my experience. The only thing I've found myself missing is a nice interface to ask it questions and have it help me with my math assignments.

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

#128

Post by steveharing1 »

smj-edison wrote: post #127

On the topic of local models, is there a good equivalent to something like Claude's chat interface? I've recently started transitioning to open models after getting fed up with Claude's usage limits (I'm not in a position to drop $200/month), and for coding tasks Kimi 2.6 has been about the same as Sonnet in my experience. The only thing I've found myself missing is a nice interface to ask it questions and have it he…

You can try Open WebUI. Its genuinely useful when it comes to running open models locally with a clean interface

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

#129

Post by camdv »

smj-edison wrote: post #127

On the topic of local models, is there a good equivalent to something like Claude's chat interface? I've recently started transitioning to open models after getting fed up with Claude's usage limits (I'm not in a position to drop $200/month), and for coding tasks Kimi 2.6 has been about the same as Sonnet in my experience. The only thing I've found myself missing is a nice interface to ask it questions and have it he…

Ollama does this, as does llama-server from llama.cpp

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

#130

Post by rangerelf »

smj-edison wrote: post #127

On the topic of local models, is there a good equivalent to something like Claude's chat interface? I've recently started transitioning to open models after getting fed up with Claude's usage limits (I'm not in a position to drop $200/month), and for coding tasks Kimi 2.6 has been about the same as Sonnet in my experience. The only thing I've found myself missing is a nice interface to ask it questions and have it he…

llama-server from the llama.cpp package has a local web interface.
Post reply on HN