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

Kimi K2.7-Code: open-source coding model with better token efficiency

huggingface.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 254 posts

Re: Kimi K2.7-Code: open-source coding model with better token efficiency

#181

Post by irthomasthomas »

kmike84 wrote: post #39
shreedx wrote: post #10

I would really love to know if anyone has any experience with something like opencode + Kimi K2.6/2.7 now compared to Claude Code. What is better, what is worse, what is the cost comparison. I am currently paying $100 for the 5x Max plan, but Fable is running through the usage limits quite drastically and I cannot really say it's night and day compared to Opus. Also, I use this mostly for my side projects, so the $10…

I do have this experience. I've used Claude Code (with Opus mostly), and then switched to opencode (mostly with Kimi 2.6) for my personal projects; it's based on a couple months of use. Claude Code is better. But Opencode + kimi 2.6 is workable, which is big. For bare code writing, if you know what exactly you want, most popular models are fine (deepseek, kimi, etc), it feels more or less the same as anthropic models…

according to this opencode and cursor cli perform better than claude code: https://x.com/kunchenguid/status/2065345999682568593

Re: Kimi K2.7-Code: open-source coding model with better token efficiency

#182

Post by ignoramous »

sjanes wrote: post #94
jdw64 wrote: post #43

Personally, when I use open code or routers, I feel that beyond a certain level, the models don't make a huge difference to me. Except for expensive and mediocre models like Gemini. In that sense, Chinese models are pretty good. I usually write code in function or method units and then design and assemble them together. GPT series models are more thorough and better, but I'm not sure if the difference is enormous. It…

I've kind of given up on the routers for "free" inference, as you would expect, they tend to give you sub-par thinking because they are obviously trying to conserve as much inference as possible. I've had some success turning my macbook M1 pro into a heating pad with Qwen 3.6 35B A3B MTP. Trying to use Gemini models "locally" resulted in a similar "short shrift" of effort resulting in mistakes and lots of turns. The…

> I've kind of given up on the routers for "free" inference, as you would expect, they tend to give you sub-par thinking because they are obviously trying to conserve as much inference as possible.

Xiaomi MiMo ($6/mo: https://platform.xiaomimimo.com/token-plan) & Alibaba Qwen ($50/mo: https://www.alibabacloud.com/en/campaign/ai-scene-coding) have generous limits on fixed subscriptions.

Re: Kimi K2.7-Code: open-source coding model with better token efficiency

#183

Post by michaelcampbell »

yanis_t wrote: post #2

I was wondering how does Anthropic and likes keep competitive when Opus is ($5 / $25) 5x times more expensive compared to Kimi K2.6 ($0.7 / $3.4) or other Chinese models, while being only marginally better. My theory is that US enterprise just can't send data to Chinese and that's understandable, but is that "the moat"?

> while being only marginally better.

It's only marginally better in the things it's actually comparable to. A\ models are MUCH better in many more things; eg: things Kimi/etc. didn't distill.

For those things the difference is like a cliff.

Re: Kimi K2.7-Code: open-source coding model with better token efficiency

#184

Post by bensyverson »

yanis_t wrote: post #2

I was wondering how does Anthropic and likes keep competitive when Opus is ($5 / $25) 5x times more expensive compared to Kimi K2.6 ($0.7 / $3.4) or other Chinese models, while being only marginally better. My theory is that US enterprise just can't send data to Chinese and that's understandable, but is that "the moat"?

Part of Anthropic's moat is Claude Cowork & Claude Code. They got coders comfortable with CC and enterprise users comfortable with Cowork, and both are creating stickiness.

The reality is that $20/$100/$200/mo feels reasonable to a lot of people relative to the value they're getting out of Claude, and if they switch to something else, there's a risk that it won't be as good, and they'll have a new tool to learn.

It's not an insurmountable moat, but don't underestimate the user experience. The iPod didn't win because it was the cheapest device or the one with the most features.

Re: Kimi K2.7-Code: open-source coding model with better token efficiency

#185

Post by giancarlostoro »

WalterGR wrote: post #137
giancarlostoro wrote: post #40

Reading their modified license terms, it cracks me up, because they've basically remade the MIT to be the MIT + the one clause that the BSD used to have, which didn't care about MAU or revenue, if you used it in a product, they asked you to 'advertise' them basically. Honestly, its a reasonable request.

> they asked you to 'advertise' them basically. To be clear, the “advertising” clause just requires you to disclose that you use the thing somewhere in the product, such as credits in an “About” section.

I all it advertising clause, because I remember still in the 2000s seeing an Apple ad which at the end of it showed "Unix" or something like that on it, and I remembered that was one of the BSD license requirements, or maybe Apple just did it also just to proudly boast using Unix.

Re: Kimi K2.7-Code: open-source coding model with better token efficiency

#186

Post by dancemethis »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #164
kouteiheika wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, those pesky Chinese backdoors that no single instance was ever found, even though Chinese open-weight model are a thing for many years now. Many people burn through millions of tokens on these models every day - surely someone would have triggered one of those backdoors, right? Or that pesky CCP censorship and propaganda baked into the model, which any random guy can remove from whichever model they want as a…

I agree it is an empirical question. I do not know if that research has been done in the open sphere. But please, do not pretend that there isn't a real geopolitical rivalry going on that makes such questions a legitimate, non-fruity concern.

This is a fair point, alongside the one about the hidden content in the weights.

Exactly why my prime suspect would be the one country with focus on proprietary models, and the one country prone to bombing others, including with nuclear weapons.

Re: Kimi K2.7-Code: open-source coding model with better token efficiency

#188

Post by tornikeo »

michaelcampbell wrote: post #183
yanis_t wrote: post #2

I was wondering how does Anthropic and likes keep competitive when Opus is ($5 / $25) 5x times more expensive compared to Kimi K2.6 ($0.7 / $3.4) or other Chinese models, while being only marginally better. My theory is that US enterprise just can't send data to Chinese and that's understandable, but is that "the moat"?

> while being only marginally better. It's only marginally better in the things it's actually comparable to. A\ models are MUCH better in many more things; eg: things Kimi/etc. didn't distill. For those things the difference is like a cliff.

That's a baseless claim that borderline reads like shilling. Do you have any proof of that you wrote there?

Re: Kimi K2.7-Code: open-source coding model with better token efficiency

#189

Post by selfawareMammal »

yanis_t wrote: post #2

I was wondering how does Anthropic and likes keep competitive when Opus is ($5 / $25) 5x times more expensive compared to Kimi K2.6 ($0.7 / $3.4) or other Chinese models, while being only marginally better. My theory is that US enterprise just can't send data to Chinese and that's understandable, but is that "the moat"?

Performance. I pay for Opencode but none of the models give me Codex performance, so I have to keep my 20€ subscription+ the Opencode one

Re: Kimi K2.7-Code: open-source coding model with better token efficiency

#190

Post by tomaytotomato »

pizlonator wrote: post #179

I just had Kimi K2.7-code rebase my Fil-C OpenSSL patch from 3.3.1 to 3.5.7 with quite bare bones instructions and it seems to have worked. 177KB patch, so it's not a small change. The patch did not apply cleanly initially; the agent had to do nontrivial work. I just showed it the patch against 3.3.1, what command to use to build, and the path to 3.5.7 along with a link to the documentation of the change ( https://fi…

"T800"

Do you have your agent say things like "Hasta la vista baby", or "I'll be back, after I clear my context" ?

Post reply on HN