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

Kimi K2.5 Technical Report [pdf]

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 146 posts

Re: Kimi K2.5 Technical Report [pdf]

#31

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

gigatexal wrote: post #4
thesurlydev wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you share how you're running it?

Yeah I too am curious. Because Claude code is so good and the ecosystem so just it works that I’m Willing to pay them.

I tried kimi k2.5 and first I didn't really like it. I was critical of it but then I started liking it. Also, the model has kind of replaced how I use chatgpt too & I really love kimi 2.5 the most right now (although gemini models come close too)

To be honest, I do feel like kimi k2.5 is the best open source model. It's not the best model itself right now tho but its really price performant and for many use cases might be nice depending on it.

It might not be the completely SOTA that people say but it comes pretty close and its open source and I trust the open source part because I feel like other providers can also run it and just about a lot of other things too (also considering that iirc chatgpt recently slashed some old models)

I really appreciate kimi for still open sourcing their complete SOTA and then releasing some research papers on top of them unlike Qwen which has closed source its complete SOTA.

Thank you Kimi!

Re: Kimi K2.5 Technical Report [pdf]

#32

Post by viraptor »

miroljub wrote: post #29

I've been quite satisfied lately with MiniMax M-2.1 in opencode. How does Kimi 2.5 compare to it in real world scenarios?

A lot better in my experience. M2.1 to me feels between haiku and sonnet. K2.5 feels close to opus. That's based on my testing of removing some code and getting it to reimplement based on tests. Also the design/spec writing feels great. You can still test k2.5 for free in OpenCode today.

Re: Kimi K2.5 Technical Report [pdf]

#33

Post by UncleOxidant »

zeroxfe wrote: post #12
thesurlydev wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you share how you're running it?

Running it via https://platform.moonshot.ai -- using OpenCode. They have super cheap monthly plans at kimi.com too, but I'm not using it because I already have codex and claude monthly plans.

so there's a free plan at moonshot.ai that gives you some number of tokens without paying?

Re: Kimi K2.5 Technical Report [pdf]

#34

Post by InsideOutSanta »

BeetleB wrote: post #18
zeroxfe wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not running it locally (it's gigantic!) I'm using the API at https://platform.moonshot.ai

Just curious - how does it compare to GLM 4.7? Ever since they gave the $28/year deal, I've been using it for personal projects and am very happy with it (via opencode). https://z.ai/subscribe

There's no comparison. GLM 4.7 is fine and reasonably competent at writing code, but K2.5 is right up there with something like Sonnet 4.5. it's the first time I can use an open-source model and not immediately tell the difference between it and top-end models from Anthropic and OpenAI.

Re: Kimi K2.5 Technical Report [pdf]

#35

Post by [deleted] »

eknkc wrote: post #27
margorczynski wrote: post #6

I wonder how K2.5 + OpenCode compares to Opus with CC. If it is close I would let go of my subscription, as probably a lot of people.

It is not opus. It is good, works really fast and suprisingly through about its decisions. However I've seen it hallucinate things. Just today I asked for a code review and it flagged a method that can be `static`. The problem is it was already static. That kind of stuff never happens with Opus 4.5 as far as I can tell. Also, in an opencode Plan mode (read only). It generated a plan and instead of presenting it and s…

[deleted]

Re: Kimi K2.5 Technical Report [pdf]

#36

Post by moffkalast »

epolanski wrote: post #15

It's interesting to note that a model that can OpenAI is valued almost 400 times more than moonshotai, despite their models being surprisingly close.

Well to be the devil's advocate: One is a household name that holds most of the world's silicon wafers for ransom, and the other sounds like a crypto scam. Also estimating valuation of Chinese companies is sort of nonsense when they're all effectively state owned.

Re: Kimi K2.5 Technical Report [pdf]

#38

Post by miroljub »

viraptor wrote: post #32
miroljub wrote: post #29

I've been quite satisfied lately with MiniMax M-2.1 in opencode. How does Kimi 2.5 compare to it in real world scenarios?

A lot better in my experience. M2.1 to me feels between haiku and sonnet. K2.5 feels close to opus. That's based on my testing of removing some code and getting it to reimplement based on tests. Also the design/spec writing feels great. You can still test k2.5 for free in OpenCode today.

Well, Minimax was the equivalent of Sonnet in my testing. If Kimi approach Opus, that would be great.

Re: Kimi K2.5 Technical Report [pdf]

#39

Post by cmrdporcupine »

BeetleB wrote: post #18
zeroxfe wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not running it locally (it's gigantic!) I'm using the API at https://platform.moonshot.ai

Just curious - how does it compare to GLM 4.7? Ever since they gave the $28/year deal, I've been using it for personal projects and am very happy with it (via opencode). https://z.ai/subscribe

From what people say, it's better than GLM 4.7 (and I guess DeepSeek 3.2)

But it's also like... 10x the price per output token on any of the providers I've looked at.

I don't feel it's 10x the value. It's still much cheaper than paying by the token for Sonnet or Opus, but if you have a subscribed plan from the Big 3 (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google) it's much better value for $$.

Comes down to ethical or openness reasons to use it I guess.

Re: Kimi K2.5 Technical Report [pdf]

#40

Post by akudha »

BeetleB wrote: post #18
zeroxfe wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not running it locally (it's gigantic!) I'm using the API at https://platform.moonshot.ai

Just curious - how does it compare to GLM 4.7? Ever since they gave the $28/year deal, I've been using it for personal projects and am very happy with it (via opencode). https://z.ai/subscribe

Is the Lite plan enough for your projects?
Post reply on HN