ZH version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
85% Positive
Analyzed from 2341 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#model#open#models#weight#source#more#deepseek#weights#glm#https
Discussion (78 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
If you want to run locally, checkout https://github.com/danielhanchen/llama.cpp/tree/add-inkling https://unsloth.ai/docs/models/inkling https://huggingface.co/unsloth/inkling-GGUF https://huggingface.co/unsloth/inkling-NVFP4
This supposedly is better than KimiK2.7, as much hype as GLM5.2 gets, I find myself using KimiK2.7 half of the time, so if the benchmark is true, then this can definitely go in the mix. My hope is that it might have strengths in some areas to beat all other open weight models.
Thinking Machines might be it.
Here are some of their current open weight offerings: https://www.arcee.ai/open-source-catalog
That said, the fine-tuning API + open weight model at least is a semblance of a viable business that could work so I will be curious about it. I'm not sure the synergy is fully there (why is someone with an open weights model privelaged to fine-tune it better if it's just QLora or Lora) but let's see!
my bet is that Chinese government fund Chinese models way more compared to what those companies receive (except llama, which is outdated but was strong foundation at its time)
I think the bet would have to be that a US Open Weight company either: 1. Gets a lot of money from Jenson who views them as a counterbalance to the big labs in his ecosystem and a way to generate leverage (the same way he is positioning neoclouds-- it also could be synergistic with neoclouds who could offer the model serving endpoints) 2. Can fast follow the same way Mistral does (which, honestly, seems like just distilling the Chinese model, which distills the US lab but is pretty innovative on a whole lot of architecture both in training and serving land.) 3. AND figure out some (maybe not super lucrative but lucrative enough) sort of business model, as well. There are lots of possible business models, so I will be curious how this whole space evolves.
Open-source models + services. This is more attractive because it doesn't lock in the vendors. If I grow larger, I can decide to deploy the open-source models.
Tech history is littered with the corpses of "open source but we sell hosting" services. Models are so expensive to train, you can't be losing the big clients once they get super profitable.
There is also AllenAi in the US, but they have yet to produce a model at this scale. Thankfully, new contenders can come out of nowhere and do well, as long as they can produce a competitive model.
GLM 5.2 underwent extensive post-training and iteration since its original release to reach its current state. This seems like an extremely strong model for a first release, with a lot of potential for improvement, just like DS4.
Sometimes I wish Meta had stuck with Llama 4 a bit longer to see how much further it could be pushed.
There are many applications that will benefit from the strength in audio here and until z.ai and co work in visual this could be very strong for general agentic applications, though I see there's a bit of weakness in the benches for areas that might make that less true.
Like all models need to slap it in your harness and do proper evals on the tasks you care about.
I often see this repeated, and it is not true task to task. I work on this daily and we have several tasks where long context is advantageous and our evals against a whole battery of models with different windows show it as being so.
This is why having good evals for the tasks you're working on is so important.
I do grant it's a good rule of thumb.
I'm not sure exactly what causes the difference, but this heavily depends on the model. In my experience with Opus 4.8, I can go well over 500k and still get extremely good results. A drastically different example was GLM-5.1, which worked great until about 100k and then turned insane almost immediately. They did fix that with 5.2, though.
I couldn't test it since it's not on openrouter or something, but even if it's only as good as GLM5.1 that's more than good enough first attempt, I think.
Perhaps a lot more labs will catch up to ballpark frontier esque level soon, I am all for more competition in any field.
if it is their model, they can have more lower level integrations for that. Thinking machines might be the only large lab in the US to have business interest aligned with open sourcing strong models that are customizable.
Open source low cost models will dominate most enterprise tasks as cost curves will dictate usage. TM is trying to replicate that especially as the US and China gets more defensive with their tech
- RLaaS (Tinker, or the more involved FDE motion a la Reflection / Applied Compute)
[0] https://www.theregister.com/ai-and-ml/2026/07/15/openai-hide...
https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/inkling
Maybe for the multi modal?
The benchmarks never tell the full story. Some of the open weights models have been benchmaxxed for a while. Their utility on real work can be different than the benchmark number.
The multimodal input is also a big deal. Having vision input is really helpful for a lot of tasks.
For such announcement, I would expect them to give me clues on when I should use this model and in which cases it's the best one.
The benchmarks that they share doesn't indicate that it's cheaper to run than other models, or can fit in my local machine, or excels in a specific vertical.
After reading the comments here and X, I can see it being the top-3 multi-modal open-source model though.
gives me hope that the training moat is even smaller than we thought
The model could also be more flexible for non-coding use-cases (they show the results for reasoning being strong) so maybe the argument is to use it for non-coding use-cases to drive relatively deterministic conclusions for non-coding agents (they have also done some determinism work on kernels, which could be useful in pulling on that thread of deterministic models that are fine-tuned for everything that is not writing code.)
That said, I'm not sure how much all the work they have done actually synergizes or if the market size (at least in the short to medium term) is big enough for a huge outcome from the company's current valuation with those bets as the enterprise agent estate is taking a while to evolve. Hence companies like Anthropic and OpenAI are throwing tons of consulting money at the problem.
Yeah
What new model is DeepSeek releasing? Their current V4 Pro at Max reasoning is consistently worse than GLM 5.2 at Max reasoning, though the latter is close to Opus 4.8 at Extra/Max reasoning, albeit a little bit worse in my experience (though if they gave comparable amounts of tokens to Anthropic 5x Max subscription I could see myself moving over, currently they give you less though even with their ZCode discount).
In practical agentic development, none of those seem to be that close to Fable to me. Spent 181 million tokens with GLM 5.2 with ZCode in the past month, 142 million with DeepSeek V4 Pro with ZCode and OpenCode and about 3.45 billion across all Anthropic models with Claude Code, though understandably with my workload between 95-99% of them are cached (very docs/plan/tooling/read heavy work to limit slop, albeit with sub-agents and workflows).