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

171–180 of 296 posts

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#171

Post by Barbing »

SwellJoe wrote: post #160
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…

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.

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#172

Post by armcat »

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?

I am with you 100% but Microsoft (partially) open sourced MS-DOS (v1.25 and v2.0) in 2018, 37 years after its initial release.

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#173

Post by loglog »

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.

If they "should" cost 4k in the sense of marginal cost, then you will be spending more running the same at home, because your home hardware will always be less efficient.

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#174

Post by Zambyte »

ewwefwef wrote: post #130
anarticle wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tools vs services in my mind. There is no guarantee any provider will continue to do what they are doing for you at the price they are doing it. The object permanence of not having to reinvent the world every time a model gets sunsetted has value.

Do You have guarante any electricity price?

Maybe not them specifically, but for many people with solar as an option, yes.

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#175

Post by 1000xcat »

cptcobalt wrote: post #56
paxys wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They already publish gpt-oss which is several generations better than gpt-3

GPT-3 is a different model than gpt-oss and is therefore not an answer to the question. I cannot stand using gpt-oss, but I miss some of the creative spark of GPT-3 davinci dearly.

Reading "davinci" brought a smile to my face. I had forgotten and this really took me back

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#176

Post by loglog »

stymaar wrote: post #153
mirekrusin wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With competition we kind of have guarantee up to what providers can do, they don't have that much control, the most radical thing they can do is to go bankrupt.

Have you already forgotten the Fable drama that happened just two months ago?

Self-hosting won't protect you from getting locked out of a closed weights model, because you can't self-host it even if you have the hardware.

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#177

Post by WASDx »

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 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.

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#178

Post by ljlolel »

johndough wrote: post #98
ljlolel wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

on my TrustedRouter: z-ai/glm-5.3: also Z.ai, Novita, Atlas Cloud, IO.NET

I have seen you advertise your website a few times. I like the idea of not having to trust the router, so I took some time out of my day to critique your website: https://files.catbox.moe/v68cf7.png My visit to your website went like this: 1. Visit models page 2. Try to find GLM-5.3-Flash (which is among the ~5 models that 90% of people currently care about) 3. Give up scrolling (which would have taken OVER 50 SCROLL…

thanks for the feedback, didn't realize people looked there instead of just asking their agents these days. I updated that page

https://trustedrouter.com/models

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#179

Post by epolanski »

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?

Re: GLM-5.3 is now open-weight

#180

Post by rkangel »

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.

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.

Post reply on HN