> Artificial Analysis Agentic Index: Represents the weighted average of agentic capabilities benchmarks in the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (GDPval-AA v2, Tau³-Banking)

> Artificial Analysis Coding Agent Index v1.3 incorporates 3 benchmarks: DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench v2, and SWE-Atlas-QnA

Qwen3.8 Max is 55.4 on the Agentic Index but hasn't been tested for the Coding Agent Index.

https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/qwen3-8-max

Doesn't have the claim either. Clickbait?

But: I've been very impressed by the larger Qwen Models, and a brief try of Kimi also impressed me.

A lingering sense of quality degradation when going deep remains.

But that's not an accusation: they seem to be hitting the compute/quality tradeoff extremely well.

And on-prem capability is simply irreplaceable.

Apart from all the innovations that were driven by the strive for this optimization: quantization, "distilling" (without obvious mad-cows-disease)... I think China was an invaluable player in this progress. Intuitively, I'd even go so far to speculate that LLaMa wouldn't exist without the competition.

Many providers will host it and will compete on price. It also can't easily be taken away because one company (or one government) decides they don't want it around any more. People can fine-tune it for particular workloads.

At their best, I think they're closing in on Opus and GPT, but they're incredibly inconsistent and the variance in output quality is much higher than the best from any of the Anthropic or OpenAI models from the last few generations. The only way I can describe it is that it feels like a lack of intuition with the models which means I find my self needing to write longer prompts or have more back and forth to get them to do what I want from them.

To give an example, I have a saved prompt that I use as a sanity check on some data I'm storing. It reads about 50 rows from a DB and matches them to the UI and makes sure the data is displaying correctly. I've been using this with GPT 5.5 and now 5.6 for a few months and running it a few times a week with no issue. Sometimes I'll run it multiple times in a single chat if I notice bad data (run it, fix thing, run again, fix another thing).

I recently tried to switch to using Deepseek v4 (first flash and then pro) and while both did the task just fine, both would do things like change the response format from one message to another in the same chat or randomly decide to omit things it didn't think were relevant. At one point I ran the prompt, fixed some bad data, and then said "Okay, I fixed row 7, run {prompt} again" and so it decided to leave row 7 out of the response. A few times the first message would contain a table and then the next run in the same chat would contain the data in a bulleted list.

None of those are major issues and all could be solved with a bit more rigor in my prompting, but for me it makes them harder to work with. Those examples are a bit trivial, I think they're the easiest way for me to illustrate the gaps I see with them.

People produce such models by over-RL-ing smaller models on math and coding tasks. I've found the results capable of neither innovative work nor thinking outside the box. They're straight-A students raised by tiger moments who never let them play freely for hours in the dirt.

Perhaps you could say such models are skilled --- but intelligent? Not by my measure.

People and AIs alike need diversity of experience and a broad liberal arts education to see hidden connections between fields and make real advances.

With the $200 subscription, I can have Fable on ultracode working for hours and not dent the usage limits.