GLM-5.1: Towards Long-Horizon Tasks

Post by tempaccount420 » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 11:59 AM UTC

monooso wrote: post #232

nl wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And to be clear, OpenAI/Anthropic most definitely know this: that's why they've been aquihiring like crazy, trying to find that one team that will make the thing. Anthropic is up to $30B annual recurring revenue. I wish I had failing business models like that. > Token prices are significantly subsidized and anyone that does any serious work with AI can tell you this. Go use an almost-SOTA model (a big Deepseek or Q…

> Anthropic is up to $30B annual recurring revenue. I wish I had failing business models like that. And profit? A company can have $300B annual revenue, and still be a failing business if it's making a loss. Somewhere along the line we seem to have forgotten this basic fact. Eventually there will be no more rounds of funding to feed the fire.

Post by WhitneyLand » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 12:38 PM UTC

rednb wrote: post #202

Ms-J wrote: post #196

Z.ai and their GLM models are pretty low quality. I've been testing it for awhile now since it seemed to have potential as a local model. With this new update it still cannot parse simple, test PDFs correctly. It inconsistently tells me that the value in the name field in the document is incorrect, and has the name reversed to put the last name first. Or that a date is wrong as it's in the past/future, when it is not…

I'e been using their models pretty much daily for the past 2 months to work on the codebase of a very complex B2B2C platform written in an unusual functional language (F#) with an angular frontend. I also use Claude premium daily for another client, and i use Codex. and i can tell you that GLM5 is at this point much more capable than Claude and Codex for complex backend end work, complex feature planning, and long ho…

Post by knbknb » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 12:48 PM UTC

ra wrote: post #224

Ms-J wrote: post #196

Z.ai and their GLM models are pretty low quality. I've been testing it for awhile now since it seemed to have potential as a local model. With this new update it still cannot parse simple, test PDFs correctly. It inconsistently tells me that the value in the name field in the document is incorrect, and has the name reversed to put the last name first. Or that a date is wrong as it's in the past/future, when it is not…

I still use GLM 4.7 for well defined coding tasks. I never got 5.0 to work satisfactorily, it felt like a hosting problem (z.ai) where it would work for a while then, for whatever reason, it couldn't respond to the context any more - but that's just a hunch. I had no such trouble with 4.7 and find it fast and productive. Haven't tried 5.1; am using openAI models for coding most of the time.

Post by rednb » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 1:59 PM UTC

WhitneyLand wrote: post #243

rednb wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'e been using their models pretty much daily for the past 2 months to work on the codebase of a very complex B2B2C platform written in an unusual functional language (F#) with an angular frontend. I also use Claude premium daily for another client, and i use Codex. and i can tell you that GLM5 is at this point much more capable than Claude and Codex for complex backend end work, complex feature planning, and long ho…

“GLM5…better than Opus, Codex, Gemini…” What wild claim to make. Unsupported by benchmarks, unsupported by the consensus of the community, no evidence provided. Sounds like in another comment here even the GLM5 team concedes they are behind the frontier wrt tool calling, do you know something they don’t?

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Apr 08, 2026, 2:14 PM UTC

stavros wrote: post #239

dvt wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to respond to 100 comments about the same thing, and this one happens to be on top, so, in my humble opinion: (1): You don't have to be an Ed Zitron disciple to infer that OpenAI and Anthropic are likely overvalued and that Nvidia is selling everyone shovels in a gold rush. AI is a game-changing technology, but a shitty chat interface does not a company make. OpenAI and Anthropic need to recoup astronomi…

> Go use an almost-SOTA model (a big Deepseek or Qwen model) offered by many bare-metal providers and you'll see what "true" token prices should look like. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is $0.26 input, $2.08 output. Where's the subsidy? It's ten times cheaper than Opus. Or did you mean that we're subsidizing their training? But then "OpenClaw token-vomit on top of Claude is fiscally untenable" makes no sense. Yeah, I don't know…