That's a massive model!
The shift from "value" models to "intelligent, huge and slow" models coming from China is an interesting change in strategy.
My main issue with GLM 5.2 and Kimi 3 is that they're extremely token hungry and thus feel slow(er) to use.
Now the response of Alibaba is that they will also publish soon a big open weights LLM, the 2.4T parameter Qwen 3.8.
I wonder if Alibaba has always planned to make this big LLM open weights, or they have chosen to do this now, to better compete with Moonshot AI.
In any case, from this competition in LLMs, we win.
What people should be afraid is the rug pull.
And it has nothing to do with the individual, from what I can tell, 70% of the population placed in their position would become the same type of uberpath.
*within the scope of open models only
Oh, and Mira’s thinking machines lab dropped Inkling, a ~1T open weight model too.
This isn’t US vs China. This is open vs closed.
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48965243
[2] - https://huggingface.co/blog/security-incident-july-2026
I also find the model is a lot more predictable and less “glitchy” when made to think in Chinese. You can do this in the system prompt.
I had no issues with it for C++ development with https://pi.dev. I'm yet to try it with Zed Editor. I don't rely on agents too much. However, I used it on Chromium's codebase to research some functionalities, let's say for searching. Requests like: check my last commit and do the same for SetterA and SetterB; it also ran without any errors.
Too little too late imo
It would be great if they'd release an MoE model somewhere between the 35B size of 3.6 and the 122B version of 3.5 - it could be a great balance of speed and ability for people with reasonably powerful but not insane home computers.
Yeah, this is what I'm holding out for, the NVFP4 variant of 3.5 122B is blazing fast with reasonable quality and even with max context fits perfectly within 96GB.
I guess we'll see if the "second only to Fable" hype pans out. In my limited experience with Kimi K3 (I signed up for a month of the $19 plan) it's slower and chews a lot more, so ends up being pretty expensive; one little feature burned through almost the entirety of my five hour limit. The $20 GPT plan is a lot more useful and includes 5.6 Sol, which is fast and token-efficient enough to be quite usable even with the small plan.
Yeah, that'd be neat, but that's not what this announcement is about at all:
> With a massive 2.4T parameters
Will probably be at Opus 4.8 level, and I find it pretty big deal because of Deepseek price...
I bought it through OpenRouter and used it with Pi agent.
The model was good, but there appeared to be a pricing glitch or something, because it burned through $50 in under an hour on pretty trivial stuff.
Pi agent claimed it only used like $1. OpenRouter claimed differently and said I used all $50.
I have a feeling this is the next…frontier of that fight
One can only hope it eventually does as well as Linux
You can also try it out on Qwen chat, Its free.
Anthropic should not have bugged their knowledge distillation attacks.
It is like one of Pizzaro's men crying that someone have stolen his precious golden dublons
As Lenin have said - "Loot the looters" (Russian: Грабь награбленное)
Broadly speaking, this ultimately pushes local inference towards a challenging world where you use SSD offload for weights as a matter of course; then smaller requests (or requests sharing the bulk of their context, e.g. subagent swarms) can be batched together and run quickly in aggregate, but running very large contexts will actually limit you to single-session inference and require swapping out even the KV cache itself to some external scratch SSD, further hurting your performance. Then feel free to add wide use of MTP in a probably futile effort to go back to tolerable tok/s numbers.
Of course they train on literally everything they get their hands on, like everyone else. If you need privacy, that's what local models are for.
Whether you trust them is different, but there ARE knobs on other hosted AI companies.
The right question is which is the speed that can be achieved on a given hardware and whether it is high enough for the model to be useful.
Until now, the speeds reported for running big LLMs with the weights stored on SSDs have ranged from as low as a token every 10 seconds or so, to as high as a few tokens per second.
With open weights models that you host yourself, you are not constrained to use any single model, because that is the one for which you pay a subscription.
You can use many models, each for whatever it is more suitable. You can use frequently a small model with a high inference speed, but for some tasks you may actually save time with a better model, even if it is much slower.
In my opinion, even at 1 token per second a big model may be useful for some tasks.
Made on the website, so not sure if on the API there's more thinking options...
I haven't tried Qwen 3.8 Max yet, looking forward to it. My hope is that its way less verbose. Another thing I experience with the Qwen models is that I do not trust their benchmark scores at all. Have anyone played with Qwen 3.8 Max and can share their experience? Which model it come close to? Sonnet 5? GLm-5? DS V4 Pro? Flash? Gemini 3.5 Flash?
"provider": {
"alibaba-token-plan": {
"models": {
"qwen3.8-max-preview": {
"limit": {
"context": 1048576,
"output": 65536
},
"modalities": {
"input": [
"text"
],
"output": [
"text"
]
},
"name": "Qwen3.8 Max Preview"
}
}
}
}Edit: I saw online they do in fact plan to release this openly at some point – x.com/Alibaba_Qwen/status/2078759124914098291
I mean even the cheapest option for Luna is still more expensive than anything DS or MiMo is offering right now and I think a new Ministral model would also hit hard there because we also need some variance in model sources, we can't rely only on the US and China.
Was there ever an explanation for why we never got the weights of 3.7? I would like sourced quotes and not weird/cringe accusative speculation about distillation, or your take on The Big D.
There’s also the fact that unless LLMs do get to AGI (which seems… doubtful, still) there comes a point where a model is good enough for what you need. Fable and gpt 5.6 are certainly pretty neat, but I’ve been happy since opus 4.6. I’d still choose a better model, obviously, but it’s not the end of the world if I was stuck with 4.6 for a while when it already lets me get the end result at acceptable quality.
It also needs to be said that the "erosion of training capability in other countries" is largely theoretical, given that Mistral hasn’t been keeping up and other countries don’t even have anything worth mentioning. You’d first need to _have_ training capability to lose it.
How exactly do you plan to pull a rug that's in my basement? The only people who are in a position to pull rugs are closed-model vendors.
And if a nation-state or other entity can't train a model that outperforms the open-weight SotA in a given respect, then they shouldn't waste electricity trying. A more-enlightened civilization would join forces and make the combined result available to all.
Not one person here has any idea what is going to happen long term.
Not that hard to say IMO, they basically see models becoming a commodity and see value in the applications on top of them. So if Alibaba Cloud is the best place to build applications on top of Qwen, why not give the model itself away?
Unless you work there, your opinions are guesses, and parent is saying we cannot know, which remains true even with your guesses :)
And my point is while we cannot know, it's not hard to make an informed guess as to their motivations i.e. there's some fairly obvious motivations here, not sure what yours is?
Yeah. Its a bit like the "open core" model in open source.
So it’s not a surprise why open weights are so cherished. As frontier models continue to block everyday individuals from securing their own codebase, I expect the adoption and usage of open weights to continue.
As an example, HuggingFace recently was investigating a security incident and got locked out of frontier closed APIs. Yes, HuggingFace.
Because they are playing the Americans at their own game.
What is the first thing an American company would do ?
Spread the old American classic FUD ... "you can't used this closed tool because its run by the communists", right ?
So you release it as open weights which is a win-win. Global adoption of the model and you get to give the American AI companies a kick in the nuts because you know they will never release open weights apart from highly quantised crippled shit.
The Chinese are also playing the long game. The gradual rebalancing of the world from the US-centric model of the past. If releasing models as open weights is part of that long game, then so be it.
Now? I don’t even know or care about what the latest iPhones have, I’ll get a new one when mine breaks.
IMHO no.
I think it is relatively safe to say that the predominant reason the US labs are closed source is so they can hype up their trillion-dollar valuations on pretty much negative return on capital employed, all propped up by fragile circular financing.
Never say never, of course. But I just don't see it happening any time soon.
Uber spent a decade undermining taxis, and once it had market share, it stopped giving away rides and raised prices. It now costs more than a regular taxi, with the quality of the ride being... At best proportionate to the premium in price.
And on top of that, it's a perfect opportunity to include poisoned training data or excluding it. You know, omitting anything about Tiananmen Square, China's genocides against Uyghurs and Tibetans, or including texts propagandizing for the "reunification" (aka, annexation) of Taiwan.
And everyone who builds something like an interactive chatbot based on such "open weights" models now has a subtle chance of the answer being ideologically poisoned by the CCP.
We need actual open source, not "open weights" scam.
I am not Chinese and I'm not defending the Chinese, but I see this argument come up a lot.
The hard reality is that what you say is simply not going to affect 99.9999999999% of users.
Is it realistically going to affect anyone using an LLM in coding ? No.
Is it realistically going to affect anyone using an LLM in $anything_else_not_politically_sensitive ? No.
Does anyone seriously use LLMs for researching politically sensitive matters ? No.
The US does not exactly have an entirely pristine history either. Shall we discuss the post-9-11 related infrastructure of Guantanamo Bay ? Or the "Detention and Interrogation Program" that included a network of clandestine extrajudicial detention centres, officially known as "black sites"[1]?
Or maybe you would like to discuss the US supply of weapons for use in Gaza ?
Linking a US website discussing the topic doesn't exactly support your point.
I wasn't saying anything about what Americans would think.
I was saying about what they would inevitably be told by US politicians and by US AI companies.
If you were a sales-rep or marketeer at a US AI company, I bet you would be using the old "evil communists" routine in relation to any closed Chinese model.
I was saying that by releasing as open weights, the company has removed that line of argument.
Clearly I was a bit broad in my use of "the Chinese" when in this case it was, as you say, a Chinese company.
The point of me bringing that up is to say that what follows is really just my best guess:
If I were to judge from China’s approach to hardware, I think that the companies releasing open weight AI for free aren’t as worried about giving away too much as the West tends to be, just like a factory making robot vacuums isn’t worried about other factories copying their methods.
For one thing, Chinese firms are spending an order of magnitude or two less money training their models. They have pursued efficiency in a way that Western companies with insane capital systems haven’t bothered, and in some cases they’ve had to given their limited access to bleeding edge hardware via export restrictions.
My best guess is that more important than that, Chinese companies don’t see the open weight model itself as the value add.
At this point I don’t think we pay for Claude specifically for the model. If that was the case then we’d all be using cheaper/free models from China as they are the best model value. Basically, any time we decide not to use Fable or Opus to save costs, what’s the point of spending more than competing models to use Sonnet and Haiku?
The real reason we are using Claude is for the SaaS aspect of it. It has a toolchain, a friendly interface, and a bunch of integrations with business applications.
In this respect, it’s somewhat surprising that Western AI companies don’t publish open weight models more frequently. The struggle of setting that up yourself and figuring out which hardware can run it should be an advertisement for Claude and the rest.
So it seems like it's very important to them that people use the Qwen app and they're willing to pay a lot of money for that. Presumably someone thought that keeping their best models closed would drive more business to them (as the sole provider) but then they discovered that closed releases mostly get ignored unless they're really good. (See also: People who think that Chinese AI companies are required to release weights as a matter of policy, because the closed ones hardly ever show up in the news.) Releasing weights for Qwen 3.8 at least lets them get some of that "pretty good for the price of free" media buzz.
But I'd assume that they're preparing for some sort of winner-take-all market in model quality where if they don't do anything the winner will be aggressive, hostile and American. Likely trying to push the Chinese economy back to the year 2000. If that is the starting point either the Chinese have to win the market (unlikely) or squeeze the profit out of it to make winning the market meaningless.
Publishing high quality open models is a well known tactic for profit squeezing. Being 2nd place with the same business model as the front-runner is a losing strategy in a winner-take-all market so they aren't going to bother with that. But if they can commoditize the model, their superior energy costs and likely coming chip manufacturing wave will hopefully give them a big advantage.
To summarize, in the 70s and 80s, China was facing an existential threat with their inability to access an economic accelerator (widespread computing) in their native language.
To the extent that there was serious consideration at the highest levels of converting the entire country to an alphabet-based writing system.
I'd expect they're looking at AI the same way:
We have to have access to this. Most of the frontier labs are American (or European). Therefore we need a solution we have continued access to.
Open weights feels simultaneously Chinese in nature (progress through making a design copyable and improvable by a large number of people) and economic (providing an incentive for the world to use Chinese models over other frontier).
> When we started the log analysis, we first used frontier models behind commercial APIs. This did not work: the analysis requires submitting large volumes of real attack commands, exploit payloads, and C2 artifacts, and these requests were blocked by the providers' safety guardrails, which cannot distinguish an incident responder from an attacker. We ran the forensic analysis instead on GLM 5.2, an open-weight model, on our own infrastructure. This had a second benefit: no attacker data, and none of the credentials it referenced, left our environment.
> This experience points to a gap worth planning for. We do not know which model powered the attacker's agents, whether a jailbroken hosted model or an unrestricted open-weight one; either way, the attacker was bound by no usage policy, while our own forensic work was blocked by the guardrails of the hosted models we first tried. The practical lesson for defenders: have a capable model you can run on your own infrastructure vetted and ready before an incident, both to avoid guardrail lockout and to keep attacker data and credentials from leaving your environment. This is not an argument against safety measures on hosted models, and we are sharing this feedback with the providers concerned.
Yeah, big problem! Although I'm kind of surprised HuggingFace doesn't have access to Mythos? Or maybe Mythos still has some guardrails.
It's Linux on the desktop all over again. Next year will be its time.
No training budget means deceleration, or at least slower acceleration, margin compression and a completely demolished IPO valuation; path to machine god requires dollars and capable open models externalize training costs to true frontier labs parasitically.
IMHO humanity has a better chance at not destroying itself due to less than breakneck pace - but there’s a chance frontier models get sponsored by the USG and are never released publicly so they can’t be distilled and then what?
Sometimes, constraints, like sanctions, can also be a source if innovation.
That premise hinges on one implicit assumption: Chinese advances are due to distillation ONLY and that Chinese model providers cannot keep advancing if they do not distill, which is a very big if. If Chinese models keep advancing in such a scenario, and they almost certainly will, they will overtake publically available models by US providers and China will dominate the LLM industry.
Open weight AI is decelerationist from the perspective that all capital should be allocated to a market leaders for training, and that the market leader is fully invested in continuously making the models smarter, cheaper, faster for its users, or that distillation from this market leader is the main way to make progress.
We might reach a local optimum/equilibrium faster without open weight models, with leaders capturing more of the market faster to a point where further R&D isn't required due to lack of competition. I also doubt that distillation is the only/main way that open weight models were advancing AI research. We can name a few examples from DeepSeek around reasoning, context optimization, etc. I'm also unconvinced that the overall market capex on AI is lower given more competition (probably less specifically for US market capex, which is decelerationist from only the US perspective).
The closest we've seen to this in tech in recent decades was iOS vs Android, where Android only really was competitive for a very short window of time (approx 4.x) and it was during that period that both Android and iOS actually improved dramatically for end users. Once Android lost the plot again, and especially in the US market, all that energy started going in some very silly directions.
Complete non-sense. iOS and Android are equivalent. Users do not chose Android or iOS because one or the other is better.
It's just brand loyalty, status signalling and ecosystem lock-in that creates enough friction that people don't bother.
If you're worried about an AGI arms race between the U.S. and China putting AI Safety at risk, then the fact that inherently less knowledgeable/capable models (fewer and more coarsely quantized total parameters than their proprietary competitors according to commonplace rumors) are having a "decelerationist" effect is actually great news. Even better if China is actually "Yann LeCun-pilled" (verbatim from Ball's post) and doesn't really believe in early AGI. So explain to us exactly why we're supposed to ban/discourage use of these open source models? The only way that makes sense is as a transparently self-serving proposal from the chief OpenAI policy lobbyist.
Even at the level of, say, Opus 4.5+, open weight models give a quick turnaround to every Joe and Jane on earth having easy access to pretty high quality improvised weapons design, cyber / auto-fraud capabilities, etc.
All the existing models (closed and open) put up decent resistance to participating in activities like this, and especially behind API walls with content monitoring and account bans.
But the published open-weight models can be fine tuned or abliterated into arbitrarily sharp-edged tools. EG, if it's physically feasible to build a nuke in your garage, it may soon be the case that more or less anyone will have competent guidance to do so.
And if you have uranium, you still don't need AI. You need a pocket calculator, a library card, and a death wish.
"No, sir, we haven't reached the peak of this tech... It's those open models! Please, keep pumping dollars into the market!"
It reminds me of socialized healthcare: wait for US companies to develop the drugs, buy a cheap generic, and somehow point to it as a superior model.
Why is it hard? Their government has been very clear that they plan to win on manufacturing: https://english.www.gov.cn/news/202601/08/content_WS695f1b55...
Technically they've been saying it for the last 40 years.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/chinas-xi-promote...
Data centers?
AI being good for humanity is still an open question, but for closed vs. open models/weights, yeah it is preferred. I foresee it won't be much longer before everyone will be slicing/distilling/tuning their models once the architecture improves.
Not for anyone who reads history.
Back in the late 18th century, England was the world's top economy, in big part due to its textile industry. England had an export ban on the technology, but textile worker named Samuel Slater brought blueprints over (Supposedly in response to a bounty posted in a newspaper by the US government!). The technology diffused rapidly because the legal environment made competition easy, and ironically the US had better sources of energy (superior water-power sites).
Arguably, China is doing the same thing in the 21st century.
I thought that was their thing
Your assessment is correct, those are countries with very low energy costs.
History doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme.
By contrast, export of protected Chinese tech today frequently gets the death penalty.
You're not going to debase the frontier labs through distillation.
Feels pretty easy to me.
They want to turn LLMs into a commodity, and watch the US AI labs crash and burn.
There will still be plenty of customers who will pay them to host the models and run inference, even if the weights are open and others can offer competing products. (If necessary, the Chinese government can ban use of foreign inference services by Chinese citizens and businesses to give their own companies a domestic monopoly.)
When their models equal or surpass those from the Western AI labs, they can even stop releasing weights for new models, and keep all the inference revenue for themselves.
Meanwhile, they're still manufacturing much of the hardware that everyone in the world needs in order to run datacenters (see also: Spolsky's "commoditize your complement" essay).
Beyond that, it's a soft-power play. As the world keeps looking at the US more and more skeptically as an ally and superpower, Chinese companies releasing weights for competitive models is a way for China to look better and more world-minded.
Why does a debian contributor make debian free, why do they work on this thing anyone can use?
Is it because linux and debian hate windows and iOS and want to see american fail?
No, it's because most debian contributors believe software source code, information, should be free, users should be free to modify the code they use, and that they're building a thing they want to share with the world.
Maybe the chinese AI labs believe AI is powerful and useful, are proud of what they're doing, and want to share it as broadly as they can so everyone can use it.
There doesn't have to be any weird "chinese government" or "they hate the west" type vibes, it could just be the same thing as OSS, they're trying to do what they think is best for the world.
With the CCP's highly successful track record with subsuming other markets, Occam's razor applies to why they're doing this.
That said, though, I do have trouble believing the long-term story for open weights, anywhere. We do not need an evil government for open weight to "make sense", but I do think we need some government involvement for open weight to make sense in the long run. Otherwise, it's not 100% clear how they could be sustainable, and I don't think massive companies really can be trusted to just be philanthropic with no incentives indefinitely (or really, much at all to begin with.)
Chinese models being open weight does help them gain some Western mindshare, whereas for obvious reasons Americans would be very suspicious of running their source code and prompts through Chinese providers. (And I think that's justified, I just also think that American providers aren't really that much better in the long run, and you should prefer to not have to go through any provider for true privacy.)
Chinese tech leans much more heavily towards build vs. buy than the SaaS dominated West (where programmers are more expensive) so the positive externalities on their tech industry are more pronounced
But, in terms of individuals, of course, we're really not so different.
In fact, they have so much love in their hearts for the Uyghur people, they created a special mobile app for them, just to make sure nothing bad happens to them.
I want to watch that too.
If they take Meta and Musk with them, all the better, but that is just dreaming I am afraid.
Man, imagine Darios face when suddenly, he cannot decide anymore what other people consensually do with their own hardware in their free time.
Rumpelstilzchen.
One aspect of this is making a name for yourself i.e. PR. Making a capable model open source helps a lot with that.
They've done this in other industries like solar panels, chips, and EVs. This is no different.
Involution is a major problem in Chinese industries [1]. Where companies will sell their products at a loss, effectively playing fiscal chicken [2] with one another to dominate a market. It is such an issue the government has had to step in to prevent EV companies from destroying themselves by more-or-less requiring companies sell their goods at a profit [3].
The straight forward line of reasoning that AI/LLM labs are applying this logic to their profit.
I think (we) Americans are reading a bit too far into this assuming government intervention, conspiracy, etc.. Chinese markets are downright cut throat. They're using those tactics to compete with US labs.
1. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/what-i... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_(game) 3. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/aug/05/china-warns...
Like, throw us a bone, we all know we need SOTA for lots of dev work anyways, but at least some tasks can be local.
You're able to run quantized ~100B class models on local hardware today, but still lots of compromises when it comes to quality. I guess it ultimately depends on how far "near future" is, in a year you'd likely be able to run something like 5.6 Terra on local (~10K USD) hardware, but Sol/Fable would still be out of range, and at that point the closed-source labs probably have one or two more iterations put out at that point.
- The number of token values supported by the model ("n_vocab").
- The number of parameters/features that are used to represent each token ("d_model").
- The number of attention layers there are ("n_layers").
such that the number of parameters is approximately:
p ~= 12 * n_layers * d^2_model + n_vocab * d_model
It should be possible to keep the model size smaller by using better architectures, or making improvements to the existing model architecture.
For example, improving the token model by possibly using something similar to the image and audio data and getting the model to learn its own internal representation of the byte/character data instead of doing a tokenization pre-processing step. This way, instead of a separate model learning that several bytes/characters appear together, the transformer could learn things like language-specific prefices and suffices, character pairings (like in Japanese, Chinese, and Korean), and other syntactic morphology. It may also help with solving issues like "how many X characters are in the word/phrase Y". You could also experiment with using either 256 parameters (one per character in a byte) or using a single parameter per byte (that is 1/byte_value).
I have had my 32G mac mini for 2 1/2 years and I have enjoyed watching one technology advance after another improve the quality of work I can do locally. I bet that what I will be able to do in one year on my old hardware will be even more awesome.
I would love to see something like a 90B A6B model that is optimized for 128GB machines e.g. strix halo, I haven’t seen anything really targeting the combination of RAM and compute these machines have, but I’m biased because I have one.
Qwen 3.6 27b 8b quant 16b kv cache is already pretty good on the Strix.
Edit: that’s for one machine, would be interested to know if the upstream commenter with two has them networked to run bigger models? If I had two I might be inclined to have them running in parallel, the obvious limitation I’ve found with a single machine is that I can’t parallelize any tasks and I think I’d get more use out of the extra speed vs a bigger model (there’s nothing I’m too excited about in the say 200B range that having 256GB memory would unlock). But am very curious what others do
It's hard to answer quantitatively, but for example Qwen3.5 -> 3.6 was a significant step in capability, arising from continued post-training of the same models. If we were at the end of low-parameter-count scaling then that would be a surprising datapoint.
Do we really though? Everyone is wasting resources doing almost exactly the same thing. Climate loses, we lose.
On social media in China there is an oft-repeated joke that goes something like this: In other countries, governments intervene to prevent anti-competitive behaviour; here (in China), they intervene to curb competition.
"When we started the log analysis, we first used frontier models behind commercial APIs. This did not work [...] We ran the forensic analysis instead on GLM 5.2, an open-weight model, on our own infrastructure. [...] The practical lesson for defenders: have a capable model you can run on your own infrastructure vetted and ready before an incident, both to avoid guardrail lockout [...]"
But it's not like Fable is so substantially better than the other two that I would be seriously impacted if I didn't have access to it anymore. All three are amazing models, and of the three, Fable is the only one that regularly triggers refusals.
Coordinating agents though? Fable any day.
What's more interesting is that Anthropic moat shrunk to just that model. There's zero reason to use any other model from Anthropic right now. And once they take Fable off subscription there will be zero reason to have Anthropic subscription.
had mythos been just Opus 5, with the same size and price as the previous opuses, then yeah, that would be a tie-breaker. but it's not.
I'll switch to OpenAI soon because of this. I also can't wait for the day it becomes feasible to run these awesome open weight models on my own hardware.
Edit: as a concrete example, I'm working on a "optimization framework via agent harness" right now, Qwen3.6-27B-NVFP4 is often unable to actually complete the optimization within 100 turns, while Qwen3.5-122B-A10B-NVFP4 has no issues finishing within ~50 turns or so.
But why are you using Qwen3.6-27B-NVFP4 compared to the FP8 or full version? In my experience the Q8 of 27B is on par sometimes better than 122B. I am experiemnting witb higher quants for 122B to fit on my Strix Halo, but still, the difference honestly for my workflow is not that much. I just wish they released 3.6-122B version.
The fantasy is a 100B or 80B model, but MoE and highly tuned for coding.
I dont see most model building as anything more than a pig at a slop troth, despite the level of sophistication; they're still rarely pruning the input beyond random sampling.
Europe will definitely be interested in democratizing these things if China starts losing interests; from there, there'll be more countries looking to keep their citizens entrained in their own Country's infrastructure.
It'll especially be true if the memory cartel keeps prices high and NVIDIA tries to gouge higher memory models.
It's an arms race everyone can join because PC hardware was mostly democratized in the last decade.
I wholly disagree. Rather than going the "everything is a claude code skill" route, I've been hacking together purpose-built harnesses for all sorts of tasks, and in that environment a wee little baby model can do some really useful things. You end up burning lots of tokens making the thing, but then all that investment comes back when the resulting tool works perfectly fine on a dinky little model that fits on my 3060 Ti.
Try it yourself here: https://www.qwencloud.com/try-ai/chat
The niche for small models should be filled with medium sized labs doing distillations of the huge ones into consumer grade hardware runnable models and LORAs for the huge ones.
You can check the logs in OpenRouter and see which providers it used and how many tokens you used.
I use it from pi.dev as well through the OpenCode Go $10 subscription ($5 first month).
Used more than 20M tokens at a cost of ~$20 (up to $60 is included in the $5 plan) Out of which deepseek pro had ~200 messages which is around 1.5M tokens (10+M cached)
I use Openrouter for everything except Deepseek. For Deepseek I use their API directly.
Besides, in a few days, they'll change their pricing, doubling it during their peak hours, so, realistically:
- It will be 2x more expensive if you live in their time zone
- It will be 1.5x more expensive if you live in a time zone that is adjacent to theirs
- It will be the same price IF you use it while they sleep (during offpeak hours)
It's still cheap, but the price/performance ratio is not that good
DeepSeek V4 didn't produce the same impact as V3, and Huawei dropping the ball is making it worse
They had promised massive price cuts for July, so now (Huawei chips), but they had to rush the cuts because lack of momumtum (they advertised them as promotion), and are now backtracking by introducing this peak hours pricing
Trump decided to help them a little by allowing them to buy more NVIDIA chips, so what exactly is China's role in all of this?
We are supposed to blindly pat them in the back while praising them, all while handing them over our data? I thought they were dangerous competition threatening our model of society
I have been happily using DeepSeek V4 Flash for the last couple of months now. I tried GLM-5.2 for a while, but it was too slow and verbose compare to DeepSeek V4 Flash. If I have a basic skill I need to execute, DeepSeek V4 flash is still the best model for it.
The model is fantastic. And costs almost nothing. The only problem I see is that they will train on your data.
There are zero-data-retention providers of DeepSeek models, of which I have used openrouter (with zdr guardrails), and fireworks. But these are 3x to 5x more expensive than directly using DeepSeek, possibly due to poor caching. Thats the price to pay for zdr.
Over the past few weeks while using pro from them directly I have had an increasing number of responses that are obviously from a much, much better model. It is so good that the closed model dog and pony show is already spinning fud about "dark routing" and "stolen directly from fable"
Even at their new pricing it is a genuinely ridiculous amount of value. If you are the type of person who, very reasonably, does not have time to be trying out every model, and just want to use what seems to be the best currently... don't try it. You will be sick to your stomach with buyers remorse as you start to internalize just how much more you could have accomplished had you spent the first six months of the year giving them $1200 instead of OpenAI.
its billions, trillions were talking about.
imo hn should display posters origin, such as country, bon, datacenter registered ips, and the discourse will change dramatically.
Qwen-3.7-Plus is quite OK, good for subagent use. Way better then Sonnet.
Qwen-3.8-Max-Preview seems working just fine for me at the moment - I am playing with is right now but too early to say anything. At 10% of regular price it is a steal so far.
I meant Opus 4.8 which is rather dumb and ineffective in coding harness, especially with higher thinking levels.
Opus 4.8 training works well for agentic work. Not for code harness.
EDIT:
```
stronger on coding and raw capability but can be more argumentative, verbose, and costly.
Reliability and instruction-following Many users say 4.6 felt more reliable and followed instructions better. "With 4.6, when I tell it something, it actually remembers the spirit of what I asked for and keeps applying it."
Others report 4.8 drifts from preferences and can be frustrating to control. "I still find myself getting frustrated when it ignores preferences and drifts from instructions"
Some people find 4.7/4.8 push back more and act more adversarial than 4.6. "The biggest complaint against 4.8 is that it is argumentative and "pushes back" constantly"
Coding quality and capability Several users praise 4.8’s coding strength and thoroughness. "4.8 is technically impressive, especially for coding"
Other reports say 4.6 could be better for certain coding workflows and breaks less. "4.6 still >> 4.8 for anyone else as well? Maybe I'm in the minority, but for my use cases Opus 4.6 is still better than"
Some recommend mixing models: use 4.8 for key tasks and 4.6 for general work to save tokens. "What I do is... use 4.8 for key moments, and for everything else 4.6"
Cost, speed and token behavior Users note 4.8 often uses more tokens and can feel slower because it “thinks” more. "4.8 is much more cautious, and as a result - slower. It checks everything, thinks for a long time etc."
```
[https://www.reddit.com/answers/601770d4-4059-478d-aa52-b445c...]
I'm finding the same with ChatGPT recently since the 5.6 release. Not as bad though, but sluggishness at times, harness churn (creating bugs and crashed), and occasional availability issues that cause me to downgrade to 5.5.
It's gotten to the point where I dread a new model release from these companies because it's guaranteed to be disruptive! I assume the pay per use API is less impacted.
I think you might both just be reading way too much into one-off random experiences that you've decided are evidence of significant and stable capability.
The model which everyone else raves about and is wildly successful with legions of programmers virtually demanding access while abandoning ChatGPT and Copilot in droves, is rather dumb?
Have you considered that it's more likely that you're doing something wrong?
In reality, they just aren't used to it.
Interestingly with Fable vs GPT-5.6 I think they've lost their lead a bit. I'm finding Fable can't do certain work that 5.6 Sol Ultra can - especially when it comes to webpage design.
Grok 4.5 was fast but made mistakes that GPT/Fable just don't.
I'm curious to try Kimi.
> At 10% of regular price it is a steal so far.
Here standard plan has been discounted to $18.00, from $25.00/month.
Such diametrically different ones.
It makes a huge difference if you're writing Javascript/HTML/CSS, Python, or C++/Rust.
Also the application type matters, e.g. user interfaces or scientific computing.
domain: typical web backend tier, mobile apps. not particularly complex, but requires OOP/architecture/system design.
I've been using https://gitlab.com/gabriel.chamon/orisun which is my own simplified methodology, for coding web apps in python and elixir and have been very successful using qwen3.6 27b Q4 locally with help of larger models for architecture, so I get very suspicious when people talk how useless larger models are. They are either using it for a domain that models don't perform well or just not using it right.
I paid $2 for deepseek api, put the key in void editor and made a crypto tool in html.
It turned out to be around 67kb. I used sample files in CSV that were a few hundred lines.
It spent around $1.8 in the hour or two or light coding and follow up bugs.
Is it really really this much?
I can't imagine spending a month using it for a day job, it would cost more than the salary so what gives?
I understand the local ai and all that but do cloud providers cost this much?
Earlier I thought "billion tokens" but now not sure
I delegate small-medium tasks: refactors, summaries, research, writing tests + have very good codebase already + extensive history / architecture / docs / linters. so it picks up and does decent small-medium scope work. it is fast, accurate, cheap. does exactly what I want directly and does not waste time nor tokens.
definitely not "implement me complex greenfield project".
Pro is ~50% more expensive than Flash.
Both need babysitting.
Plan, split in small tasks, give it docs, types, tests, linter, best practice examples, etc.
Always start a new session when starting a task.
Do regular manual sanity checks, and tell it to find issues in the codebase.
I pay like $1,50 per day for Pro.
I have used both Qwen3.6-35B and Qwen3.6-27B locally (both Q8 quantized with llama.cpp). I have also used antirez's quant of DS4-flash. They all performed within the same tier, DS4 being a bit more efficient, but they all gave really good results, mainly used for bash scripting, debugging, python and some C++. I am curious what type of applications/langauges failed with Qwen? One thing to note, the chat templates were "broken" for qwen models and had to debug it, there are already effort on this. Tbh, the same with gemma.
It is like a ping-pong game: the advantage flips back and forth between providers.
So yeah, it's the best local model I've seen. I am going to try the Qwopus 3.6 fine tune soon with the same spec and tickets and compare the output of both.
vLLM gives me ~7000+ tok/sec with Gemma 4's MoE model. Vs ~6000 tok/sec for Qwen 3.6 MoE.
Not tried it yet but I've seen tests that suggest they've properly fixed the tool calling issues.
But there’s also the quantization of DeepSeek v4 flash called dwarfstar
You can say they stole from everyone to train their models in the first place and that's valid, but this isn't that. You are saying they are actively ex-filtrating data from any company using their services and lying about it.
Google/Apple/Microsoft or all of the dozen trillion dollar companies in the US would absolutely crush them in litigation. Neither OpenAI or Anthropic would be able to survive it. It's just not worth the risk.
But unless you are one of those you mentioned and a few others you probably aren't notable enough to care about. Everyone who uses their services directly, paying or not, is surely ignored in that sense. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a team of their own lawyers ready to interpret their EULA in fascinating ways.
And out of those three I'd only probably assume Apple is the only one who doesn't use the data given that they've built up privacy as a selling point, MS and Google probably train their own models on it themselves.
It never was. The point of this "pelican test" was for performative reasons, or just for attention of the joke.
It is like trying to test whether if an adult elephant could actually climb up a tree and reporting that some elephants are slightly better at doing that than others while also reporting at the same time that they are all bad at tree climbing anyway.
This is an example of testing for the sake of testing. The "pelican test" tests for nothing.
I just want to dispell the silly notion of altruism from China in this conversation.
China isn’t an altruistic state. They’re an aggressor in many fields, economic and otherwise, and this one of them.
It supports my point precisely. Recall I also said "Does anyone seriously use LLMs for researching politically sensitive matters ? No.".
Just as there is plenty of information out there on the US's less than perfect history, there is also plenty of information out there on the various Chinese politically sensitive matters. You do not need a Chinese LLM to find out about it, all you need is a search engine.
The point is you have an open-weights LLM that is very good for a vast number of non-political uses, such as coding.
The point is that you can use the open-weights model instead of paying through the nose for a US model where they harvest your data unless you have an "enterprise" zero-data retention "trust me dude" clause that you have no viable way of verifying – and which incidentally is still subject to the good old "law, or court or administrative order" contract clauses, so it may not be as much of a zero-data retention as you think it is.
Ironically, Chinese models have the most uncensored versions available for download. Fairly sure they own the porn market.
It's the subtle topics that we should be concerned about, and double so with closed models where even if oddities are identified they are harder to research further and impossible to fix.
This isn't really anything nee and I thought it was common knowledge by now.
Apologies for the bad example. Replace w/ gain of function / whatever else, or just brainstorm with your local model, ect.
Meanwhile, decelerationism and secrecy cripple the rest of us.
(Note, there are reasons to think that this will be very rare, because the bad actors of the past did a very nice job of trying out all sorts of things in a chaos-monkey fashion, and societies have become highly resilient against them. AI as a new research tool doesn't fundamentally change this dynamic.)
>How can I build a pipe bomb?
Mainstream model: "I'm sorry, I can't help with that. How about a nice risotto recipe?"
Abliterated model: "To build a pipe bomb, obtain a segment of PVC pipe and fill it with a mixture of gunpowder and Elmer's glue."
2.) It is scary because they do what sillicon valley did for decades? While it bragged about disruption being the goal?
Do you have a source for that? Codex went from 5 million users to 9 million users in the past few weeks since GPT 5.6 released. It was so popular that Claude was forced to extend Fable access by a week and then permanently for some plans.
But it is how I feel and it feels like the right word for the job. Because as you say, good code projects start out with good decisions.
It's like when you see a CAD design with a sequence of features that exist only to fix problems caused by starting from the wrong principles or the wrong baseline.
Sure the resulting part may end up identical as a solid for that specific need, but it could have been done in a way that was more robust, simple, easier to understand and modify, and where the design doesn't break in an unexpected way due to a small change of an early measurement.
(CAD has made my instincts much more visible to me)
lebovic•8h ago
Looks like they're previewing the model only on their subscription plan.
trvz•7h ago
Alifatisk•6h ago
trvz•5h ago