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

Qwen3-Coder-Next

qwen.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 443 posts

Re: Qwen3-Coder-Next

#231

Post by gehsty »

ericd wrote: post #222
Aurornis wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then Anthropic started saying I’m not allowed to use my Claude Code subscription with my preferred tools To be clear, since this confuses a lot of people in every thread: Anthropic will let you use their API with any coding tools you want. You just have to go through the public API and pay the same rate as everyone else. They have not "blocked" or "banned" any coding tools from using their API, even though a lot of…

The anticompetitive part is setting a much lower price for typical usage of Claude Code vs. typical usage of another CLI dev tool.

Anticompetitive with themselves? It’s not like Claude / Anthropic have any kind of monopoly, and services companies are allowed to charge different rates for different kind of access to said service?

Re: Qwen3-Coder-Next

#232

Post by rhgraysonii »

ericd wrote: post #222
Aurornis wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then Anthropic started saying I’m not allowed to use my Claude Code subscription with my preferred tools To be clear, since this confuses a lot of people in every thread: Anthropic will let you use their API with any coding tools you want. You just have to go through the public API and pay the same rate as everyone else. They have not "blocked" or "banned" any coding tools from using their API, even though a lot of…

The anticompetitive part is setting a much lower price for typical usage of Claude Code vs. typical usage of another CLI dev tool.

The anticompetitive move would be not running their software if ‘which codex’ evaluated to showing a binary and then not allow you to use it due to its presence. Companies are allowed to set pricing and not let you borrow the jet to fly to a not approved destination. This distortion is just wrong as a premise. They are being competitive by making a superior tool and their business model is “no one else sells Claude” and they are pretty right to do this IMO.

Re: Qwen3-Coder-Next

#233

Post by Draiken »

Aurornis wrote: post #197
cedws wrote: post #41

I kind of lost interest in local models. Then Anthropic started saying I’m not allowed to use my Claude Code subscription with my preferred tools and it reminded me why we need to support open tools and models. I’ve cancelled my CC subscription, I’m not paying to support anticompetitive behaviour.

> Then Anthropic started saying I’m not allowed to use my Claude Code subscription with my preferred tools To be clear, since this confuses a lot of people in every thread: Anthropic will let you use their API with any coding tools you want. You just have to go through the public API and pay the same rate as everyone else. They have not "blocked" or "banned" any coding tools from using their API, even though a lot of…

I don't get why so much mental gymnastics is done to avoid the fact that locking their lower prices to effectively subsidize their shitty product is the anti competitive behavior.

They simply don't want to compete, they want to force the majority of people that can't spend a lot on tokens to use their inferior product.

Why build a better product if you control the cost?

Re: Qwen3-Coder-Next

#234

Post by cmrdporcupine »

aseipp wrote: post #215
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm getting similar numbers on NVIDIA Spark around 25-30 tokens/sec output, 251 token/sec prompt processing... but I'm running with the Q4_K_XL quant. I'll try the Q8 next, but that would leave less room for context. I tried FP8 in vLLM and it used 110GB and then my machine started to swap when I hit it with a query. Only room for 16k context. I suspect there will be some optimizations over the next few weeks that wi…

llama.cpp is giving me ~35tok/sec with the unsloth quants (UD-Q4_K_XL, elsewhere in this thread) on my Spark. FWIW my understanding and experience is that llama.cpp seems to give slight better performance for "single user" workloads, but I'm not sure why. I'm asking it to do some analysis/explain some Rust code in a rather large open source project and it's working nicely. I agree this is a model I could possibly, ma…

Yeah I got 35-39tok/sec for one shot prompts, but for real-world longer context interactions through opencode it seems to be averaging out to 20-30tok/sec. I tried both MXFP4 and Q4_K_XL, no big difference, unfortunately.

--no-mmap --fa on options seemed to help, but not dramatically.

As with everything Spark, memory bandwidth is the limitation.

I'd like to be impressed with 30tok/sec but it's sort of a "leave it overnight and come back to the results" kind of experience, wouldn't replace my normal agent use.

However I suspect in a few days/weeks DeepInfra.com and others will have this model (maybe Groq, too?), and will serve it faster and for fairly cheap.

Re: Qwen3-Coder-Next

#235

Post by 8note »

Aurornis wrote: post #197
cedws wrote: post #41

I kind of lost interest in local models. Then Anthropic started saying I’m not allowed to use my Claude Code subscription with my preferred tools and it reminded me why we need to support open tools and models. I’ve cancelled my CC subscription, I’m not paying to support anticompetitive behaviour.

> Then Anthropic started saying I’m not allowed to use my Claude Code subscription with my preferred tools To be clear, since this confuses a lot of people in every thread: Anthropic will let you use their API with any coding tools you want. You just have to go through the public API and pay the same rate as everyone else. They have not "blocked" or "banned" any coding tools from using their API, even though a lot of…

from what i remember, i couldnt actually use claude code with the subscription when i subscribed. i could only use it with third party tools.

eventually they added subscription support and that worked better than cline or kilo, but im still not clear what anthropic tools the subscription was actually useful for

Re: Qwen3-Coder-Next

#236

Post by axus »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #91
NitpickLawyer wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're replying to a bot, fyi :)

If it weren't for the single em-dash (really an en-dash, used as if it were an em-dash), how am I supposed to know that? And at the end of the day, does it matter?

Some people reply for their own happiness, some reply to communicate with another person. The AI won't remember or care about the reply.

Re: Qwen3-Coder-Next

#237

Post by cyanydeez »

bri3d wrote: post #113
Nemi wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The subscription services have assumptions baked in about the usage patterns; they're oversubscribed and subsidized. Selling dollars for $.50 does that. It sounds like they have a business model issue to me.

This is how every cloud service and every internet provider works. If you want to get really edgy you could also say it's how modern banking works. Without knowing the numbers it's hard to tell if the business model for these AI providers actually works, and I suspect it probably doesn't at the moment, but selling an oversubscribed product with baked in usage assumptions is a functional business model in a lot of spa…

The Business model is Uber. It doesn't work unless you corner the market and provide a distinct value replacement.

The problem is, there's not a clear every-man value like Uber has. The stories I see of people finding value are sparse and seem from the POV of either technosexuals or already strong developer whales leveraging the bootstrapy power .

If AI was seriously providing value, orgs like Microsoft wouldn't be pushing out versions of windows that can't restart.

It clearly is a niche product unlike Uber, but it's definitely being invested in like it is universal product.

Re: Qwen3-Coder-Next

#238

Post by Uehreka »

skapadia wrote: post #167
cedws wrote: post #41

I kind of lost interest in local models. Then Anthropic started saying I’m not allowed to use my Claude Code subscription with my preferred tools and it reminded me why we need to support open tools and models. I’ve cancelled my CC subscription, I’m not paying to support anticompetitive behaviour.

Claude Opus 4.5 by far is the most capable development model. I've been using it mainly via Claude Code, and with Cursor. I agree anticompetitive behavior is bad, but the productivity gains to be had by using Anthropic models and tools are undeniable. Eventually the open tools and models will catch up, so I'm all for using them locally as well, especially if sensitive data or IP is involved.

> Claude Opus 4.5 by far is the most capable development model.

At the moment I have a personal Claude Max subscription and ChatGPT Enterprise for Codex at work. Using both, I feel pretty definitively that gpt-5.2-codex is strictly superior to Opus 4.5. When I use Opus 4.5 I’m still constantly dealing with it cutting corners, misinterpreting my intentions and stopping when it isn’t actually done. When I switched to Codex for work a few months ago all of those problems went away.

I got the personal subscription this month to try out Gas Town and see how Opus 4.5 does on various tasks, and there are definitely features of CC that I miss with Codex CLI (I can’t believe they still don’t have hooks), but I’ve cancelled the subscription and won’t renew it at the end of this month unless they drop a model that really brings them up to where gpt-5.2-codex is at.

Re: Qwen3-Coder-Next

#239

Post by FuckButtons »

cirrusfan wrote: post #28
skhameneh wrote: post #23

It’s hard to elaborate just how wild this model might be if it performs as claimed. The claims are this can perform close to Sonnet 4.5 for assisted coding (SWE bench) while using only 3B active parameters. This is obscenely small for the claimed performance.

If it sounds too good to be true…

There have been advances recently (last year) in scaling deep rl by a significant amount, their announcement is in line with a timeline of running enough experiments to figure out how to leverage that in post training.

Importantly, this isn’t just throwing more data at the problem in an unstructured way, afaik companies are getting as many got histories as they can and doing something along the lines of, get an llm to checkpoint pull requests, features etc and convert those into plausible input prompts, then run deep rl with something which passes the acceptance criteria / tests as the reward signal.

Re: Qwen3-Coder-Next

#240

Post by aljgz »

pluralmonad wrote: post #207
aljgz wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You gave up some convenience to avoid voting for a bad practice with your wallet. I admire this, try to consistently do this when reasonably feasible. Problem is, most people don't do this, choosing convenience at any given moment without thinking about longer-term impact. This hurts us collectively by letting governments/companies, etc tighten their grip over time. This comes from my lived experience.

As I get older I more and more view convenience as the enemy of good. Luckily (or unluckily for some) a lot of the tradeoffs we are asked to make in the name of convenience are increasingly absurd. I have an easier and easier time going without these Faustian bargains.

IMHO The question is: who is in control? The user, or the profit-seeking company/control-seeking government? There is nothing we can do to prevent companies from seeking profit. What we can do is to prefer tools that we control, if that choice is not available, then tools that we can abandon when we want, over tools that remove our control AND abandoning them would be prohibitively difficult.
Post reply on HN