4 ms·

I just don’t see how they’ll be able to make a profit. Open models have the same performance on coding tasks now. The incentives are all wrong. Why pay more for

I just don’t see how they’ll be able to make a profit. Open models have the same performance on coding tasks now. The incentives are all wrong. Why pay more for a model that’s no better and also isn’t open? It’s nonsense

braebo 6mo ago
Which open model has the same performance as Opus 4.7?
- 3dfd 6mo ago
  They dont have to be parity today. If the frontier models reach a point of barely any noticeable improvements the trade off changes. You do not need a perfect substitute if you are getting it for free... People will factor in future expectations about the development of open source vs frontier models. Why do you think OAI and anthropic are pushing hard on marketing? its for this reason. They want to get contractual commitments that firms have to honour whilst open source closes the gap.
  - retsibsi 6mo ago
    The person they were responding to said "Open models have the same performance on coding tasks now." AFAIK this is bullshit, but I'd love to be corrected if I'm wrong.
Bridged7756 6mo ago
I wouldn't say the same but it's pretty close. At this point I'm convinced that they'll continue running the marketing machine and people due to FOMO will keep hopping onto whatever model anthropic releases.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
alex_sf 6mo ago
Open models, in actual practice, don't match up to even one or two generation prior models from Anthropic/OpenAI/Google. They've clearly been trained on the benchmarks. Entirely possible it was by mistake, but it's definitely happening.
- danny_codes 6mo ago
  That hasn’t been my experience. For coding at least I find little difference between closed and open models
- girvo 6mo ago
  GLM 5.1 is absolutely on par with Sonnet 4.5, sometimes better in practice (it holds abstractions over longer context windows better) It’s about the only one that is at that level though to be fair. They’re all still useful, still!

braebo 6mo ago

Which open model has the same performance as Opus 4.7?

3dfd 6mo ago
They dont have to be parity today. If the frontier models reach a point of barely any noticeable improvements the trade off changes. You do not need a perfect substitute if you are getting it for free... People will factor in future expectations about the development of open source vs frontier models. Why do you think OAI and anthropic are pushing hard on marketing? its for this reason. They want to get contractual commitments that firms have to honour whilst open source closes the gap.
- retsibsi 6mo ago
  The person they were responding to said "Open models have the same performance on coding tasks now." AFAIK this is bullshit, but I'd love to be corrected if I'm wrong.

Bridged7756 6mo ago

I wouldn't say the same but it's pretty close. At this point I'm convinced that they'll continue running the marketing machine and people due to FOMO will keep hopping onto whatever model anthropic releases.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

alex_sf 6mo ago

Open models, in actual practice, don't match up to even one or two generation prior models from Anthropic/OpenAI/Google. They've clearly been trained on the benchmarks. Entirely possible it was by mistake, but it's definitely happening.

danny_codes 6mo ago
That hasn’t been my experience. For coding at least I find little difference between closed and open models
girvo 6mo ago
GLM 5.1 is absolutely on par with Sonnet 4.5, sometimes better in practice (it holds abstractions over longer context windows better) It’s about the only one that is at that level though to be fair. They’re all still useful, still!