Laguna XS.2 and M.1

ttosh about 4 hours ago 28 commentsRead Article on poolside.ai

FR version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

100% Positive

Analyzed from 612 words in the discussion.

Discussion (28 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

simjnd•about 2 hours ago

Probably a testament to how good Qwen3.6 is considering Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is not only ahead of their similar weight class XS.2 but also their M.1 (close to 10x bigger at 225B-A23B).

Interestingly, Gemma 4 26B-A4B and Qwen3.6 27B (dense) have been left out of the comparison.

The smaller models are becoming very good and quantization techniques like importance weighting and TurboQuant on model weights let you run aggressively quantized version (IQ2, TQ3_4S) on consumer hardware with extremely acceptable perplexity and quality loss.

Very exciting times for local LLMs.

vijgaurav•about 1 hour ago

The fact theyre shipping the actual agent harness alongside the weights is the part that matters. Most labs dump the model and make you figure out the agent layer yourself. If its the same runtime they use for RL training, its actually been exercised in production rather than being some demo wrapper.

rohitpaulk•about 4 hours ago

Been testing these via their "pool" agent. It's fast, and the agent adheres to the ACP spec pretty well (better than codex, opencode etc.) so it's a good experience in Zed.

orliesaurus•about 2 hours ago

The colors used in the charts are borderline criminal

loufe•about 1 hour ago

The order of the bars does not even follow the order in the legend unless I'm mistaken, that's insane.

jaen•about 3 hours ago

For similarly sized models, not looking very good on the slightly-less-benchmaxxed Terminal-Bench 2.0:

  Laguna XS.2  33B-A3B params: 30.6
  Qwen 3.6     35B-A3B       : 51.5
  Devstral 2   123B          : 31.2

Quite a huge lead for Qwen... well, at least it's catching up to other smaller Western labs.

megavon•about 3 hours ago

Need to look at SWEBench-Pro, it's super competitive. Suspect they'll catch up given the longer-tail on TB scores.

jaen•about 3 hours ago

Just by the (lack of) inter-model variance, I don't think SWEBench-Pro does a very good job of representing model capability. Terminal-Bench seems more challenging and separates the wheat from the chaff.

Also, *ops work, which in my experience can actually be more complicated than SWE is underrepresented there obviously.

throwaw12•about 4 hours ago

Has anyone tried these models?

I like their honesty in benchmarks, looks like Qwen3.6 35B is outperforming their Laguna M.1 225B model

speedgoose•about 3 hours ago

Please update the charts. Consider using textures or filling patterns.

I usually score pretty well in colour perception tests but distinguishing between those two purples made me doubt myself.

matthewfcarlson•about 3 hours ago

My phone is in grayscale to make it less interesting (I still watch way too many videos in grayscale but it helps) so I’m right with you

gslepak•about 2 hours ago

Very cool to see more small open models being worked on!

One nit: I've seen on this homepage, and many others, this notion that the people behind the models are "working towards AGI".

I get that this is marketing speak, but transformers are not AGI, and they will never be AGI, so it'd be great if people stopped saying that as it sort of wears out the meaning of "working towards AGI".

liuliu•about 2 hours ago

> but transformers are not AGI, and they will never be AGI

Like the claim "transformers are AGI", this needs proof, otherwise should be prefixed "I think". And honestly, positive proof is easier than negative proof (you just need to make one transformer model that is a AGI, whereas the never claim requires you to enumerated all possibilities).

gslepak•about 2 hours ago

That's like saying we should wait for positive proof of AGI from combustion engines. That'll never happen, no matter how much you tweak the engine. It's just not possible.

The negative proof is there in the definition itself. Transformers are not AGI, they're frozen human intelligence of the autocomplete variety. That can never be AGI and anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand transformers or AGI.

altruios•about 2 hours ago

What does AGI mean to you?

Transformers have approximate knowledge of many things. Is this not 'general'? Where is the goalpost here?

gslepak•about 2 hours ago

> Transformers have approximate knowledge of many things. Is this not 'general'?

Of course not. That's like saying the Encyclopedia Britannica is AGI.

> What does AGI mean to you?

I would define AGI as human-like machine intelligence (or superior).

This is difficult for some people to understand because they don't understand what "human-like" means in the first place. Neuroscientists would be able to set some of these wayward computer scientists straight on this question.

franksiem•about 3 hours ago

Felt like they would never come out of stealth mode but very nice to see it materialized into something competitive.

throwaw12•about 3 hours ago

Not sure if this is competitive, look at the numbers for Qwen3.6

refulgentis•about 3 hours ago

What makes them distinctive?

kingjimmy•about 3 hours ago

the color-codes make those benchmarks charts impossible to understand. very pretty though.

data-ottawa•about 3 hours ago

For what it's worth, the bars correspond in order with the legend. Plus there’s hover text.

esafak•about 3 hours ago

They're not winning any popular benchmark. Is there some niche where it excels?