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

GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis

artificialanalysis.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 476 posts

Re: GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis

#461

Post by carter2099 »

alexjplant wrote: post #333
Tiberium wrote: post #2

It seems to really be a nice step-up and is getting quite close to the frontier. I wish they'd start focusing on the reasoning efficiency now, though. I have a simple (relatively) test task to evaluate LLMs: writing a simple math evaluator library in Nim (it's about 400-600 lines total max), and GLM 5.2 (xhigh which maps to max effort) spent over 15 minutes (!) reasoning, spending about 45k tokens, before it finally…

> It seems to really be a nice step-up and is getting quite close to the frontier. IMHO it's already surpassed them. I vastly prefer my personal GLM and OpenCode setup to the Claude Code and Opus one that I have to use at work. The former makes way fewer StackOverflow brogrammer-tier mistakes and is considerably better at following instructions. The harness UX is also vastly superior as it doesn't ignore, randomly ch…

You would be surprised at how much of an impact the harness has. I switched to Pi and chinese open source models, and models that _I know_ are less capable than sonnet outperform my sonnet + claude code stack at work.

Re: GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis

#462

Post by tcp_handshaker »

jansan wrote: post #180
kristopolous wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did muse spark ... it's not garbage. Also what are they building it for? I'd think it's to serve ads better or something like that. Maybe Muse Spark fits facebook's needs perfectly...

Mo Bitar said something like "Meta's LLM is the one you use if you accidentially hit the wrong button in WhatsApp. Its user base is fat-finger phone users."

As comparison the WHOLE NASA budget is 24 billion. Meta burned 10x that on AI...

Re: GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis

#463

Post by jgalt212 »

stymaar wrote: post #438
jgalt212 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as input tokens that are already in the KV cache are practically free for the provider, not at today's RAM prices.

RAM price don't change anything. You can't fit an infinity of tokens in the KV cache, but the ones that are in there when a user request them are still practically free.

so the utility of the KV cache has nothing to do with available RAM?

Re: GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis

#464

Post by tanseydavid »

drob518 wrote: post #318
tekchip wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IBM doesn't do technology they do contracts. Any "technology" is marketing stunts. They hire a bunch of "fellows" outside contractors to make a thing they can be first at or whatever, do the stunt, then get a bunch of 5-10 year contracts with customers off the stunt. They then fuck it up for that length of time but still get paid due to those contracts. After that space of time the folks theyve burned have moved on,…

Yes, but the key point is that nobody got fired for buying it from IBM.

"HAL, I want you to train a frontier-level large language model for me."

"I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that"

Re: GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis

#465

Post by m-dot-reviews »

swingboy wrote: post #408
m-dot-reviews wrote: post #156

For anyone who's interested, I've put together a simple site for sharing ratings/opinions on models at a task-specific granularity. https://model.reviews/ The idea is that benchmark score comparisons are useful for a large cross-product comparison across models + their settings, but less useful if you're looking for the best model for . So I thought having a place to review and comment could be beneficial to people.…

I get a 500 when clicking “Explore the Models”

Oops, thanks for telling me that. I think the issue should be fixed now.

Re: GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis

#466

Post by h14h »

h14h wrote: post #141
Tiberium wrote: post #2

It seems to really be a nice step-up and is getting quite close to the frontier. I wish they'd start focusing on the reasoning efficiency now, though. I have a simple (relatively) test task to evaluate LLMs: writing a simple math evaluator library in Nim (it's about 400-600 lines total max), and GLM 5.2 (xhigh which maps to max effort) spent over 15 minutes (!) reasoning, spending about 45k tokens, before it finally…

Hopefully the recent work Moonshot did with Kimi K2.7 Code trickles in to the other open-model labs. Per AA, while K2.7 Code is roughly on par w/ K2.6 in terms of intelligence, it uses half the output tokens to get there.

I've been doing some testing with GLM 5.2 on Fireworks and it looks like the "High" reasoning level uses fewer tokens than even K2.7 Code by a considerable margin (roughly half).

Don't have any evals indicating how it compares on upper-bound quality, but for a well-defined task it seems like GLM 5.2 on "High" is remarkably token efficient. Looking forward to seeing where it lands on the AA index.

Re: GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis

#467

Post by brookst »

toraway wrote: post #457
brookst wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, that’s the motte / bailey. Easy to point to living, starving writers who suffer grevious harm, in defense of perpetual copyright. Disney and others use literally this exact argument year after year. I’m not even disagreeing. I’m just saying the shift in attitude about copyright in the tech space has been sudden, dramatic, and really funny. Remember “you wouldn’t steal a car”? Today’s anti-AI tech contingent are…

Having a static, immovable belief system about something like copyright that is unaffected by seismic shifts in the real world also doesn't seem very logical. If like, Disney did a 180 overnight and bought rights from Google to scan every writer's saved work in Docs with some flimsy legal argument then a person saying "wait doesn't copyright actually protect that" would make sense. Even if you were previously upset a…

Sure. So you’re saying MPAA was right and you’ve come around?

Creative works have always been accretive. There had never been a creative work made out of whole cloth, with no debt to any previous work.

The fact your opinions about creative works change based on who’s profiting does not change that.

Re: GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis

#469

Post by mirekrusin »

woctordho wrote: post #435
mirekrusin wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand why there isn’t public dataset for reasoning that can be improved by humans/llms like Wikipedia (ie with auto judging contributions etc).

There is already a lot of effort to collect agent traces including reasonings, e.g. see the recent discussion: https://old.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1u795pb/donate_... We've been developing DataClaw for this: https://github.com/peteromallet/dataclaw

Did I get it wrong or the first link has dataset with 30 entries only?

Re: GLM-5.2 is the new leading open weights model on Artificial Analysis

#470

Post by desterothx »

osti wrote: post #358
mrngld wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that ends up being true, GPT5.5 at 70 (and presumably Fable a bit ahead of that) is still in a different league, which was partly my point. To listen to online chatter, GLM5.2 is a tectonic shift in the landscape. In reality, it's just interesting. Probably safe to bet once the DeepSWE benches all get fully updated it won't even be on the pareto frontier. I'm not accusing anyone specifically, but I've noticed Chin…

There are definitely some Chinese bots + actual people (imagine that!) who like to talk up Chinese models, I'm one of them but I like to find out how good these models really are before saying anything. GLM definitely isn't opus level yet but it's for sure good. I think it lacks some knowledge (when coding) that the frontier models possess, which is expected given that the model is probably quite small when compared…

Someone hasn't been following Le chaton fat news, agi is coming
Post reply on HN