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

Qwen3-Max-Thinking

qwen.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 450 posts

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#311

Post by fc417fc802 »

ineedasername wrote: post #203
fragmede wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do I make cocaine? I cant help with making illegal drugs. https://chatgpt.com/share/6977a998-b7e4-8009-9526-df62a14524... (01.2026) The amount of money that flows into the DEA absolutely makes it politically significant, making censorship of that question quite political.

I think there is a categorical difference in limiting information for chemicals that have destructive and harmful uses and, therefore, have regulatory restrictions for access. Do you see a difference between that, and on the other hand the government prohibiting access to information about the government’s own actions and history of the nation in which a person lives? If you do not see a categorical difference and st…

> Do you see a difference between that, and on the other hand the government prohibiting access to information about the government’s own actions and history of the nation in which a person lives?

You mean the Chinese government acting to maintain social harmony? Is that not ostensibly the underlying purpose of the DEA's mission?

... is what I assume a plausible Chinese position on the matter might look like. Anyway while I do agree with your general sentiment I feel the need to let you know that you come across as extremely entrenched in your worldview and lacking in self awareness of that fact.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#313

Post by lelandbatey »

marcd35 wrote: post #172
roughly wrote: post #138

One thing I’m becoming curious about with these models are the token counts to achieve these results - things like “better reasoning” and “more tool usage” aren’t “model improvements” in what I think would be understood as the colloquial sense, they’re techniques for using the model more to better steer the model, and are closer to “spend more to get more” than “get more for less.” They’re still valuable, but they op…

i'm no expert, and i actually asked google gemini a similar question yesterday - "how much more energy is consumed by running every query through Gemini AI versus traditional search?" turns out that the AI result is actually on par, if not more efficient (power wise) than traditional search. I think it said its the equivalent power of watching 5 seconds of TV per search. I also asked perplexity to give a report of th…

Some external context on those approximate claims:

- Run a 1500W USA microwave for 10 seconds: 15,000 joules

- Llama 3.1 405B text generation prompts: On average 6,706 joules total, for each response

- Stable Diffusion 3 Medium generating a 1024 x 1024 pixel image w/ 50 diffusion steps: about 4,402 joules

[1] - MIT Technology Review, 2025-05-20 https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/05/20/1116327/ai-energ...

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#314

Post by keyle »

oersted wrote: post #255
syntaxing wrote: post #118

Hacker News strongly believes Opus 4.5 is the defacto standard and China was consistently 8+ month behind. Curious how this performs. It’ll be a big inflection point if it performs as well as its benchmarks.

In my experience GPT-5.2 with extra-high thinking is consistently a bit better and significantly cheaper (even when I use the Fast version which is 2x the price in Cursor). The HN obsession with Claude Code might be a bit biased by people trying to justify their expensive subscriptions to themselves. However, Opus 4.5 is much faster and very high quality too, and that ends up mattering more in practice. I end up usin…

My experience exactly.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#315

Post by cmcaleer »

volkercraig wrote: post #239
woodrowbarlow wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

here's an example of how model censorship affects coding tasks: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/72603

You conversely get the same issue if you have no guardrails. Ie: Grok generating CP makes it completely unusable in a professional setting. I don't think this is a solvable problem.

I'm struggling to follow the logic on this. Glocks are used in murders, Proton has been used to transmit serious threats, C has been used to program malware. All can be legitimate tools in professional settings where the users don't use it for illegal stuff. My Leatherman doesn't need to have a tipless blade so I don't stab people because I'm trusted to not stab people.

The only reason I don't use Grok professionally is that I've found it to not be as useful for my problems as other LLMs.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#316

Post by jbverschoor »

"As of January 2026, Apple has not released an iPhone 17 series. Apple typically announces new iPhones in September each year, so the iPhone 17 series would not be available until at least September 2025 (and we're currently in January 2026). The most recent available models would be the iPhone 16 series."

Hmmmm ok

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#317

Post by tosh »

sidchilling wrote: post #13
tosh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

afaiu not all of their models are open weight releases, this one so far is not open weight (?)

What would a good coding model to run on an M3 Pro (18GB) to get Codex like workflow and quality? Essentially, I am running out quick when using Codex-High on VSCode on the $20 ChatGPT plan and looking for cheaper / free alternatives (even if a little slower, but same quality). Any pointers?

18gb RAM it is a bit tight

with 32gb RAM:

qwen3-coder and glm 4.7 flash are both impressive 30b parameter models

not on the level of gpt 5.2 codex but small enough to run locally (w/ 32gb RAM 4bit quantized) and quite capable

but it is just a matter of time I think until we get quite capable coding models that will be able to run with less RAM

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#318

Post by roughly »

Sol- wrote: post #296
roughly wrote: post #138

One thing I’m becoming curious about with these models are the token counts to achieve these results - things like “better reasoning” and “more tool usage” aren’t “model improvements” in what I think would be understood as the colloquial sense, they’re techniques for using the model more to better steer the model, and are closer to “spend more to get more” than “get more for less.” They’re still valuable, but they op…

I also find the implications for this for AGI interesting. If very compute-intensive reasoning leads to very powerful AI, the world might remain the same for at least a few years even after the breakthrough because the inference compute simply cannot keep up. You might want millions of geniuses in a data center, but perhaps you can only afford one and haven't built out enough compute? Might sound ridiculous to the cr…

I've been pretty skeptical of LLMs as the solution to AGI already, mostly just because the limits of what the models seem capable of doing seem to be lower than we were hoping (glibly, I think they're pretty good at replicating what humans do when we're running on autopilot, so they've hit the floor of human cognition, but I don't think they're capable of hitting the ceiling). That said, I think LLMs will be a component of whatever AGI winds up being - there's too much "there" there for them to be a total dead end - but, echoing the commenter below and taking an analogy to the brain, it feels like "many well-trained models, plus some as-yet unknown coordinator process" is likely where we're going to land here - in other words, to take the Kahneman & Tversky framing, I think the LLMs are making a fair pass at "system 1" thinking, but I don't think we know what the "system 2" component is, and without something in that bucket we're not getting to AGI.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#319

Post by zozbot234 »

storystarling wrote: post #310
zozbot234 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The weights likely won't be available wrt. this model since this is part of the Max series that's always been closed. The most "open" you get is the API.

The closed nature is one thing, but the opaque billing on reasoning tokens is the real dealbreaker for integration. If you are bootstrapping a service, I don't see how you can model your margins when the API decides arbitrarily how long to think and bill for a prompt. It makes unit economics impossible to predict.

You just have to plan for the worst case.

Re: Qwen3-Max-Thinking

#320

Post by erxam »

diblasio wrote: post #48

[flagged]

It's always the same thing with you American propagandists. Oh no, this program won't let us spread propaganda of one of the most emblematic counter-revolutionary martyr events of all time!!!

You make me sick. You do this because you didn't make the cut for ICE.

Post reply on HN