3 ms·
The benchmarks provided are for Opus-4.5, not for the latest Opus-4.6 and Qwen is still lagging in a lot of them.
by srmatto 6mo ago
The benchmarks provided are for Opus-4.5, not for the latest Opus-4.6 and Qwen is still lagging in a lot of them.
- thegeomaster 6mo agoAnd it seems they've decided to go closed-source for their largest, best models.
- FuckButtons 6mo ago3.5-plus was also only available via api. I don’t know what the long term business model for open weights is, I hope there is one, but it seems foolish to assume that companies will be willing to spend millions of dollars of compute on an asset worth zero in perpetuity.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- vidarh 6mo agoThe business case is to salt the earth for new competitors, coupled with marketing.
- kgeist 6mo agoThey've always had closed-source variants: - Qwen3.5-Plus - Qwen3-Max - Qwen2.5-Max etc. Nothing really changed so far.
- coldtea 6mo agoThey always did that. Did they say anywhere they'd open all their models? They still have a business.
- Aurornis 6mo agoThere is no reason to benchmark against Opus 4.5 when Opus 4.6 has been out so long, other than to be misleading.
- coldtea 6mo agoI can see reasons, among others that 4.5 was the one established as they were preparing this version. "So long" is merely 2 months ago, and Qwen 3.5 was barely released less than 2 months ago. They were likely already working on finalizing 3.6 before 3.5 official launch, and as 4.6 came out. In any case, aside Claude fanboyism, having other plays inch closer to similar performance is always useful. Even if they are "6 months behind" as the pace slows down, this guarantees that there's no huge moat and they'll eventually either get to where the SOTA is, or the difference wont be that big. I'd rather put fewer eggs in 2-3 big player baskets.