ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
73% Positive
Analyzed from 475 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#models#fusion#model#claims#open#single#fable#though#guess#frontier

Discussion (9 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Their graphs don't even support their claims.
Their graph leaders are fusions of frontier models. Not of local models.
I saw one single fusion of local models.
If their claim and Opus 4.8 is a smaller, "older" model then again that's pretty absurd.
What is with all of these claims on HN recently where people want open models to win (which I understand and can support), but have absolutely bs claims supposedly showing it and ignore that the claims are entirely made up.
In this case they have only a single "fusion" of non latest models. They found a metric where Deekseek 4 beats out gpt 5.5 and Opus 4.8 (which is already pretty suspicious to me), and showed that adding two other models it still beats them out and doesn't pass Fable.
What in the world is the actual claim here? Fusion didn't drag it down??
If you found something where Deepseek 4 is already supposedly better than Opus and GPT 5.5 the rest is just smoke and mirrors.
Is HN now just dead internet theory? Nobody can look at this for 2 mins and conclude anything other than it's nonsense. And this is the third topic I've had this conversation on recently on HN. Highly upvoted blogspam, that claims "open models are great" and is heavily stretching the truth or out right intentionally misleading.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing on open models, I'm saying why do people keep posting clear spam that is clearly misleading on the topic?
Mixing outputs of different models one way or another is old news, if it were anywhere near as promising as the author dreams it would have exploded many months ago.
This isn't really a surprising result. Needs more evidence to make a broader claim.
This is what I was hoping to see data for.