FR version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
73% Positive
Analyzed from 1164 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#models#open#glm#claude#more#model#opus#companies#mythos#https
Discussion (49 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
[1] https://huggingface.co/zai-org/GLM-5.2
Claude Code is an agent harness, not an LLM.
Claude is a brand (or group of LLMs), not an LLM.
GLM 5.2 is already capable enough to assist in self-training which is similar to what we saw happen with frontier models and they appear to be getting there at a significantly lower cost than openai/anthropic.
Instead of shilling for the LLM providers.
Not that it would make any sense.
Any prohibition on open source models will do nothing to fix the problem.. since attackers will never feel bound to the law. All advanced models must be available for defensive purposes.
If the real motive is profit, then open source models are likely simply not a viable means to that end.
But that's the whole point.
Fall out of favor with the admin and you lose access to the good American models, aren't allowed to use Chinese ones, and fall prey to the attackers and behind your competitors.
US imposing export restrictions on a model from China?
The weights are already available and downloaded, is it going to be a crime to have them, run them, make them available? Constitutional rights still exist (I hope)
What we're they? Also, wouldn't one expect a more recently released coding agent (with a more recent knowledge cut off) to perform better because they have access to more knowledge about vulns in these OSS projects, and even possibly have knowledge of your own "prior research"?
Secondly these are "just" IDORs, arguably the easiest class of vulnerabilities.
Thirdly it compares to GPT 5.5 and Opus 4.8.
No, we don't have Mythos at home.
mythos is <10% ahead of gpt 5.5 on all benchmarks, which it gains by being several times the size of opus. had it been economical to provide, it would've been released to the public on day one instead of the marketing circus those effective altruism clowns had exhibited. admitting that it costs >1000% to run inference on a <10% better model would've been very damning.
> No, we don't have Mythos at home.
That's still useful. To paraphrase the kids these days, GLM5.2 is in the room with us, today. Mythos is not. And for us in the EU, it's even more complicated, as Mythos might be with us in the room one day, and go poof the next day, on the whims of political entities that we have 0 control over.
Knowing where open, accessible, local models are is important. We know they're behind. But there comes a time when "good enough" is useful. Even if they're "just IDORs" today, and even if they're behind SotA today.
As someone else said above, GLM5.2 (and other models in the same tier like kimi, dsv4, etc) is / are slowly becoming "good enough" to assist in automated repo prepare work (download, install, test, edit, re-test, etc). And that translates in RL traces ready to be trained into the next generations. That might be more important than x% behind on benchmarks.
Which I guess makes what semgrep sells obsolete. Unless they have built a pareto-optimal point in terms of capabilities and token usage maybe?
Beats which model in Claude? Whenever a "benchmark" doesn't put precise model numbers in their headlines I am immediately skeptical. Either they don't know the difference (bad) or they are benchmarking against weaker models (misleading, also bad).
It's like when studies say "AI is bad at X" and they used GPT-3.5 in current year.
After installing, do a `n8 build` to build the image, then `n8 --danger --provider opencode interactive` to launch it in a container.
Signup for GLM-5.2 here: https://z.ai
I think they give $5 trail credits to test with any of the open weight models.