Live data from Hacker News

Qwen3.7-Max: The Agent Frontier

qwen.ai

221–230 of 317 posts

Re: Qwen3.7-Max: The Agent Frontier

#221
post #168
post #109

I was getting dangerously close to my weekly Claude Code limit last night so I had Claude set up Qwen3.6 with llama.cpp and OpenCode. Honestly it's a great (free!) alternative to Claude Code--certainly more than good enough for a lot of smaller less complex tasks. I'm excited to try this new version. The fact that open-source models are so close to the frontier is very impressive.

Do you have an opinion on OpenCode vs Aider?

I haven't tried Aider yet but perhaps I will. Another one that seems to be getting traction is Pi Coding Agent.

Re: Qwen3.7-Max: The Agent Frontier

#222

The non-hallucination rate in AA-omniscience is SOTA, better than Opus 4.7, Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT5.5! Congrats to the team

> The non-hallucination rate in AA-omniscience is SOTA Note that a perfect "non-hallucination rate" is rather meaningless as such tests can contain human hallucinations. It means the model aligns with the possibly-true, possibly-false beliefs of the group that made the test.

Was there something about this specific model and submission that made you feel compelled to write this self-evident observation?

Or would you describe your methodology as more like picking a random sentence fragment as an input value then generating completions from your existing corpus without any post-input "learning" process related to the rest of the source material?

Re: Qwen3.7-Max: The Agent Frontier

#223
post #168
post #109

I was getting dangerously close to my weekly Claude Code limit last night so I had Claude set up Qwen3.6 with llama.cpp and OpenCode. Honestly it's a great (free!) alternative to Claude Code--certainly more than good enough for a lot of smaller less complex tasks. I'm excited to try this new version. The fact that open-source models are so close to the frontier is very impressive.

Do you have an opinion on OpenCode vs Aider?

Aider is still around? That is pre-tool-calling era stuff. Better compare against Pi.

Re: Qwen3.7-Max: The Agent Frontier

#224

The non-hallucination rate in AA-omniscience is SOTA, better than Opus 4.7, Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT5.5! Congrats to the team

> The non-hallucination rate in AA-omniscience is SOTA Note that a perfect "non-hallucination rate" is rather meaningless as such tests can contain human hallucinations. It means the model aligns with the possibly-true, possibly-false beliefs of the group that made the test.

[dead]

Re: Qwen3.7-Max: The Agent Frontier

#225
post #2

These are very good numbers. I still don’t get why they don’t compare against latest competitor versions in these posts, it’s not like we’re all not going to notice.

Nobody releases numbers that show them to be worse than competitors lol.

This even applies to OpenAI & Anthropic who don't even eval on the same datasets a lot of the time.

Re: Qwen3.7-Max: The Agent Frontier

#227
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two flavors of Qwen 3.6: - A 27B "dense" model - A 35B "Mixture of Experts" model, which activates only 3B parameters for each token. For your hardware, I strongly recommend `unsloth/Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-GGUF:Q4_K_M`. I have an M1 Max with 32GB VRAM from 2021 that can read at ~300-500 tokens/sec and write at ~30 tokens/sec with llama-cpp's default settings, which is plenty fast. The 27B model can read ~70tok/sec…

May I ask why the M instead of XL? Obviously bigger != better but I don't know what the differences are.

These are dynamic quants, and they're basically just an indication of how far away from the desired quant it is allowed to go to achieve the goal. Generally, unsloth's toolchain moves quants up, rarely down.

* _0 and _1 do not use K quant and scales 32x32 blocks according to the original (B)F16 values; _0 scales the block using the original max and min values. _1 does this per row instead of per block.

* K quants do something similar, but now splits blocks into subblocks inside a superblock where the superblock has min/max scaling, but the subblocks also have scaling in the range of the superblock's scaling and are stored using less bits.

* K's M, L, XL are just how aggressively the subblocks and their scaling factors are chosen. Generally, it puts a max on how far you can deviate from the chosen quant to maintain the desired quality, but also gives them a bigger budget to perform that excursion in. XL most aggressively tries to preserve the intended quality, while S does the least.

* Dynamic quant on top of this scales entire layers, full of blocks, according to how much they effect various measurements (such as KLD and perplexity).

That said, there is no reason K_S is even produced by anyone, same with Q_0, Q_1, and I_NL. People should no longer be using those. M only is meaningful if you're trying to restrict the upper bounds: K_XL can reach BF16 for some weights, but rarely; people think this has a speed implication for hardware that has native 8bit in their tensor units (but it doesn't).

Unless you're specifically trying to cure a problem, stick with K_XL.

Re: Qwen3.7-Max: The Agent Frontier

#228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opus-4.6 was probably the best model so far before it got nerfed. 4.7 is nowhere near experience I had. In fact I stopped using it completely because more often than not its output is just dumber than local models.

Opus 4.6 was never nerfed, that's FUD. There were harness-level problems that were fixed. 4.7 is much better. But perception is a funny thing, once you think something is bad you start looking for it everywhere.

Did you even use it? It was nerfed to hell and back. It stopped following instructions, forgot what sub-agents responded and so on. Stop spreading this pro-Anthropic narrative. They did a rug pull due to lack of compute.

Re: Qwen3.7-Max: The Agent Frontier

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opus-4.6 was probably the best model so far before it got nerfed. 4.7 is nowhere near experience I had. In fact I stopped using it completely because more often than not its output is just dumber than local models.

Opus 4.6 was never nerfed, that's FUD. There were harness-level problems that were fixed. 4.7 is much better. But perception is a funny thing, once you think something is bad you start looking for it everywhere.

Still anecdotal but the exact same coding task on the exact same repo (I clone from GitHub templates for projects) worked amazingly well in December with CC/Opus, couldn’t accomplish the goal anymore end of march, with essentially identical prompts, and 4.7 was just comically useless. But even these days I tried repeatedly and 4.6 still can’t do the thing it could in December.

Re: Qwen3.7-Max: The Agent Frontier

#230
post #11
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that 60-150b~ range is such a sweet spot for current 'prosumer' hardware, I'd love to see something like a 120b-a14b or there about.

What’s the price point for getting into that sweet spot? I’m on an M1 Max with 32GB VRAM, so I’m looking forward to the 27B or 35B-A3B models. Is dropping $5k for an RTX 6000 or a DGX Spark really the best option?

Don't mind me asking, but where did you find $5k RTX 6000? Even 48GB model (previous gen) shows minimum at 7k, and 96GB one (Blackwell) is ~10k on Amazon...
Post reply on HN