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

241–250 of 443 posts

Re: Qwen3-Coder-Next

#241

Post by littlestymaar »

Robdel12 wrote: post #102

I really really want local or self hosted models to work. But my experience is they’re not really even close to the closed paid models. Does anyone any experience with these and is this release actually workable in practice?

> But my experience is they’re not really even close to the closed paid models.

They are usually as good as the flagship model for 12-18 months ago. Which may sound like a massive difference, because somehow it is, but it's also fairly reasonable, you don't need to live to the bleeding edge.

Re: Qwen3-Coder-Next

#242

Post by ericd »

rhgraysonii wrote: post #232
ericd wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”…

Anticompetitive behavior has been normalized in our industry, doesn't make it not anticompetitive. It's a restriction that's meant to make it harder to compete with other parts of their offering. The non-anticompetitive approach would be to offer their subscription plans with a certain number of tokens every month, and then make Claude Code the most efficient with the tokens, to let it compete on its own merits.

Re: Qwen3-Coder-Next

#243

Post by cedws »

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…

The question I pose is this: if they're willing to start building walls this early in the game while they've still got plenty of viable competitors, and are at most 6 months ahead, how will they treat us if they achieve market dominance?

Some people think LLMs are the final frontier. If we just give in and let Anthropic dictate the terms to us we're going to experience unprecedented enshittification. The software freedom fight is more important than ever. My machine is sovereign; Anthropic provides the API, everything I do on my machine is my concern.

Re: Qwen3-Coder-Next

#244

Post by littlestymaar »

gordonhart wrote: post #21
throwaw12 wrote: post #18

We are getting there, as a next step please release something to outperform Opus 4.5 and GPT 5.2 in coding tasks

By the time that happens, Opus 5 and GPT-5.5 will be out. At that point will a GPT-5.2 tier open-weights model feel "good enough"? Based on my experience with frontier models, once you get a taste of the latest and greatest it's very hard to go back to a less capable model, even if that less capable model would have been SOTA 9 months ago.

> Based on my experience with frontier models, once you get a taste of the latest and greatest it's very hard to go back to a less capable model, even if that less capable model would have been SOTA 9 months ago.

That's the tyranny of comfort. Same for high end car, living in a big place, etc.

There's a good work around though: just don't try the luxury in the first place so you can stay happy with the 9 months delay.

Re: Qwen3-Coder-Next

#245

Post by Der_Einzige »

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…

It literally always is. HN Thought DeepSeek and every version of Kimi would finally dethrone the bigger models from Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google. They're literally always wrong and average knowledge of LLMs here is shockingly low.

Re: Qwen3-Coder-Next

#246

Post by cyanydeez »

segmondy wrote: post #108
storus wrote: post #71

Does Qwen3 allow adjusting context during an LLM call or does the housekeeping need to be done before/after each call but not when a single LLM call with multiple tool calls is in progress?

Not applicable... the models just process whatever context you provide to them, context management happens outside of the model and depends on your inference tool/coding agent.

It's interesting how people can be so into LLMs but dont, at the end of the day, understand they're just passing "well formatted" text to a text processor and everything else is build around encoding/decoding it into familiar or novel interfaces & the rest.

The instability of the tooling outside of the LLM is what keeps me from building anything on the cloud, because you're attaching your knowledge and work flow to a tool that can both change dramatically based on context, cache, and model changes and can arbitrarily raise prices as "adaptable whales" push the cost up.

Its akin to learning everything about beanie babies in the early 1990's and right when you think you understand the value proposition, suddenly they're all worthless.

Re: Qwen3-Coder-Next

#247

Post by Der_Einzige »

Uehreka wrote: post #238
skapadia wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 C…

I have literally the opposite experience and so does most of AI pilled twitter and the AI research community of top conferences (NeurIPS, ICLR, ICML, AAAI) Why does this FUD keep appearing on this site?

Edit: It's very true that the big 4 labs silently mess with their models and any action of that nature is extremely user hostile.

Re: Qwen3-Coder-Next

#248

Post by Aurornis »

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.

I experimented with the Q2 and Q4 quants. First impression is that it's amazing we can run this locally, but it's definitely not at Sonnet 4.5 level at all.

Even for my usual toy coding problems it would get simple things wrong and require some poking to get to it.

A few times it got stuck in thinking loops and I had to cancel prompts.

This was using the recommended settings from the unsloth repository. It's always possible that there are some bugs in early implementations that need to be fixed later, but so far I don't see any reason to believe this is actually a Sonnet 4.5 level model.

Re: Qwen3-Coder-Next

#249

Post by Havoc »

smallerfish wrote: post #165
Alifatisk wrote: post #75

As always, the Qwen team is pushing out fantastic content Hope they update the model page soon https://chat.qwen.ai/settings/model

> "content" Sorry, but we're talking about models as content now? There's almost always a better word than "content" if you're describing something that's in tech or online.

Not everyone on hn is a native english speaker...

Re: Qwen3-Coder-Next

#250

Post by cyanydeez »

theshrike79 wrote: post #36
tosh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels like the gap between open weight and closed weight models is closing though.

Mode like open local models are becoming "good enough". I got stuff done with Sonnet 3.7 just fine, it did need a bunch of babysitting, but still it was a net positive to productivity. Now local models are at that level, closing up on the current SOTA. When "anyone" can run an Opus 4.5 level model at home, we're going to be getting diminishing returns from closed online-only models.

See, the market is investing like _that will never happen_.
Post reply on HN