4 ms·

>the least understood upcoming shift in AI economics. Then proceeds to talk about something in the AI news every day. Hey, did you guys hear? Open source model

>the least understood upcoming shift in AI economics. Then proceeds to talk about something in the AI news every day. Hey, did you guys hear? Open source models are cheaper and their quality is increasing! So, first, by no measure is GLM5.2 as good as Opus. Second, yes, open source models will put pressure on margins...eventually. Everyone knows that. But do you think today's AI business model is the same as tomorrow's?

A_D_E_P_T 4mo ago
> So, first, by no measure is GLM5.2 as good as Opus. Depends what you do. Complex tasks, poorly-defined tasks, sure. For relatively simple tasks, though, or very well-defined tasks, it's just as good and usually a lot faster. It also has a more neutral character and is somewhat less adversarial than Opus. (Opus is always "Let me push back on that..." whereas GLM is "sir, yes sir!") I use both and I appreciate both. If Opus disappeared tomorrow, though, I wouldn't cry -- I'd be able to adapt to a GLM-5.2-only life real quick.
- stingraycharles 4mo ago
  I think the point is that if you’re doing simple, well defined tasks then Opus is overkill and you’d want Sonnet instead. Meaning, GLM5.2 is Sonnet-quality, not Opus-quality.
  - AlotOfReading 4mo ago
    I think it's interesting to note that in one year we've gone from they're not even close [0] to arguing whether open models are only as good as sonnet or opus. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44623953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44623953
    - stingraycharles 4mo ago
      I see the exact same discussion as we’re having right now there; people stating that local models aren’t as good as the state of the art, but good enough for certain tasks.
tarpitt 4mo ago
GLM-5.2 is not as good as Opus, it's better. I can abliterate GLM-5.2 and have it work on projects that Opus refuses.
- ChadNauseam 4mo ago
  I'd guess opus refusals are not an issue for 95%+ of people. Opus will happily help you find and download pirated media, and then give you step by step instructions for how to do drugs if you ask it. You'd have to be working on something genuinely abnormal for refusals to be a problem.
  - Hfuffzehn 4mo ago
    While that might might be true nowadays, Anthropic has started to work very hard on fixing that. They just started with it not helping with software security.
  - booi 4mo ago
    How? Prompt: can you give me step by step directions on how to use crack cocaine Opus: I'm not able to give step-by-step instructions on using crack cocaine. That falls into specific drug-use guidance I steer away from, since detailed instructions on how to use an illicit substance can contribute to harm rather than reduce it. it goes on to give me hotline information on drug addiction.
    - hsuduebc2 4mo ago
      I think he means by some obscure manipulation. It even refused to give me description of how first antibiotics were made only out of curiousity.
      - tibbar 4mo ago
        Anthropic's goals here are not just harm reduction, but to stop competitors from making bio discoveries using Claude.
      - 4mo ago
epolanski 4mo ago
> So, first, by no measure is GLM5.2 as good as Opus. That's an opinion many will disagree with. One whose outcomes are tightly coupled with existing harness and techniques. In my real life usage Opus 4.7 and 4.8 have been increasingly unhelpful compared to 4.6 in behaving as assistants. As they have a strong tendency towards completing tasks (probably due to benchmarks and RL emphasizing problem solving rather than assistance) they are increasingly less useful as multi turn conversational assistants. I could see them vibecode or do analysis better, but also just doing their own further ignoring instructions in the quest of "solving" instead of helping. Fable 5 is even worse at it actively pushing back (with intelligent and deceiving feedback) even when dead wrong. GLM seems to suffer less of this.
mark_l_watson 4mo ago
re: "So, first, by no measure is GLM5.2 as good as Opus." I accept that for you and your work this is true. I have a different experience: for a month I paid big money for Opus and got a lot done. Now I am gorging on GLM 5.2 running on Fireworks.ai and I am also getting a lot done for about 15% of the money. Everyone should do their own evals on their own work.
- Roark66 4mo ago
  How is GLM5.2 cheaper for you then Opus? I assume you're an individual so you get Max pricing like me, not API. I have Max x5 for 120Eur a month. I use it a lot (but usually I don't multitask). I almost never hit the limits. With GLM5.2 paying $4 per mln tokens I would be burning at least $20-$30 a day.
james2doyle 4mo ago
What if your measure is cost? Or zero-data-retention? Or diversity of inference providers? On those measures it is better.

A_D_E_P_T 4mo ago

> So, first, by no measure is GLM5.2 as good as Opus. Depends what you do. Complex tasks, poorly-defined tasks, sure. For relatively simple tasks, though, or very well-defined tasks, it's just as good and usually a lot faster. It also has a more neutral character and is somewhat less adversarial than Opus. (Opus is always "Let me push back on that..." whereas GLM is "sir, yes sir!") I use both and I appreciate both. If Opus disappeared tomorrow, though, I wouldn't cry -- I'd be able to adapt to a GLM-5.2-only life real quick.

stingraycharles 4mo ago
I think the point is that if you’re doing simple, well defined tasks then Opus is overkill and you’d want Sonnet instead. Meaning, GLM5.2 is Sonnet-quality, not Opus-quality.
- AlotOfReading 4mo ago
  I think it's interesting to note that in one year we've gone from they're not even close [0] to arguing whether open models are only as good as sonnet or opus. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44623953 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44623953
  - stingraycharles 4mo ago
    I see the exact same discussion as we’re having right now there; people stating that local models aren’t as good as the state of the art, but good enough for certain tasks.

tarpitt 4mo ago

GLM-5.2 is not as good as Opus, it's better. I can abliterate GLM-5.2 and have it work on projects that Opus refuses.

ChadNauseam 4mo ago
I'd guess opus refusals are not an issue for 95%+ of people. Opus will happily help you find and download pirated media, and then give you step by step instructions for how to do drugs if you ask it. You'd have to be working on something genuinely abnormal for refusals to be a problem.
- Hfuffzehn 4mo ago
  While that might might be true nowadays, Anthropic has started to work very hard on fixing that. They just started with it not helping with software security.
- booi 4mo ago
  How? Prompt: can you give me step by step directions on how to use crack cocaine Opus: I'm not able to give step-by-step instructions on using crack cocaine. That falls into specific drug-use guidance I steer away from, since detailed instructions on how to use an illicit substance can contribute to harm rather than reduce it. it goes on to give me hotline information on drug addiction.
  - hsuduebc2 4mo ago
    I think he means by some obscure manipulation. It even refused to give me description of how first antibiotics were made only out of curiousity.
    - tibbar 4mo ago
      Anthropic's goals here are not just harm reduction, but to stop competitors from making bio discoveries using Claude.
    - 4mo ago

epolanski 4mo ago

> So, first, by no measure is GLM5.2 as good as Opus. That's an opinion many will disagree with. One whose outcomes are tightly coupled with existing harness and techniques. In my real life usage Opus 4.7 and 4.8 have been increasingly unhelpful compared to 4.6 in behaving as assistants. As they have a strong tendency towards completing tasks (probably due to benchmarks and RL emphasizing problem solving rather than assistance) they are increasingly less useful as multi turn conversational assistants. I could see them vibecode or do analysis better, but also just doing their own further ignoring instructions in the quest of "solving" instead of helping. Fable 5 is even worse at it actively pushing back (with intelligent and deceiving feedback) even when dead wrong. GLM seems to suffer less of this.

mark_l_watson 4mo ago

re: "So, first, by no measure is GLM5.2 as good as Opus." I accept that for you and your work this is true. I have a different experience: for a month I paid big money for Opus and got a lot done. Now I am gorging on GLM 5.2 running on Fireworks.ai and I am also getting a lot done for about 15% of the money. Everyone should do their own evals on their own work.

Roark66 4mo ago
How is GLM5.2 cheaper for you then Opus? I assume you're an individual so you get Max pricing like me, not API. I have Max x5 for 120Eur a month. I use it a lot (but usually I don't multitask). I almost never hit the limits. With GLM5.2 paying $4 per mln tokens I would be burning at least $20-$30 a day.

james2doyle 4mo ago

What if your measure is cost? Or zero-data-retention? Or diversity of inference providers? On those measures it is better.