Qwen3.6-Plus: Towards real world agents

Post by cubefox » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 5:18 AM UTC

Someone1234 wrote: post #87

thinkcontext wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But as API calls get cheaper, it becomes more realistic to use them for completely automated workflows against data-sets Seems like a huge waste of money and electricity for processes that can be implemented as a traditional deterministic program. One would hope that tools would identify recurrent jobs that can be turned into simple scripts.

It depends on the specific task. For example: "Here our dataset that contains customer feedback comment fields; look through them, draw out themes, associations, and look for trends." Solving that with a deterministic program isn't a trivial problem, and it is likely cheaper solved via LLM.

Post by Aerroon » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 5:54 AM UTC

Garlef wrote: post #95

Alifatisk wrote: post #57

I understand peoples reactions of Qwen team comparing against Opus 4.5 instead of 4.6. And them comparing against Gemini Pro 3.0 instead of 3.1. But calling it misleading is a bit of stretch in my eyes, people here are acting like we immediately forgot how previous generations performed just because a new version is released. This field is going in a incredible pace, the providers release a new model every quarter or…

Opus 4.5 is already pretty good. Opus 4.5 is $25/m output tokens. This is at most $6/m output tokens. That's ~1/4 the price.

Post by Aerroon » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 6:01 AM UTC

edg5000 wrote: post #171

Do they have an API where you can control the chat template or at least just put everything in the system prompt? This way you can control everything including the tool calling syntax. Even if you use the trained tool syntax, it allows you to control the tool system prompt which you may want to tweak. With DeepSeek this is all possible. An undocumented feature, great for harness builders. Anybody got info on Qwen reg…

Post by JimDabell » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 6:12 AM UTC

dietr1ch wrote: post #123

zozbot234 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not an open weight model like they’ve become known for. Right, they state that they'll release "smaller" variants openly at some point, with few details as to what that means. Will there be a ~300B variant as with Qwen 3.5? The blog post doesn't say.

I wish they had a revenue goal to release openly, that way spending money in them would contribute to better open models in the long run. This is how I view that the public can fund and eventually get free stuff, just like properly organized private highways end up with the state/society owning a new highway after the private entity that built it got the profits they required to make the project possible.

Post by Bombthecat » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 6:44 AM UTC

drob518 wrote: post #131

zozbot234 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not an open weight model like they’ve become known for. Right, they state that they'll release "smaller" variants openly at some point, with few details as to what that means. Will there be a ~300B variant as with Qwen 3.5? The blog post doesn't say.

As a publicity stunt, releasing a 300B open model is pretty smart. You can talk about its strong performance and it being “open” and “available,” but it’s so large that most people can’t use it themselves and might try out the cloud-based offering.