My quickie: MoE model heavily optimized for coding agents, complex reasoning, and tool use. 358B/32B active. vLLM/SGLang only supported on the main branch of these engines, not the stable releases. Supports tool calling in OpenAI-style format. Multilingual English/Chinese primary. Context window: 200k. Claims Claude 3.5 Sonnet/GPT-5 level performance. 716GB in FP16, probably ca 220GB for Q4_K_M.
My most important takeaway is that, in theory, I could get a "relatively" cheap Mac Studio and run this locally, and get usable coding assistance without being dependent on any of the large LLM providers. Maybe utilizing Kimik2 in addition. I like that open-weight models are nipping at the feet of the proprietary models.
I bought a second‑hand Mac Studio Ultra M1 with 128 GB of RAM, intending to run an LLM locally for coding. Unfortunately, it's just way too slow.
For instance, an 4‑bit quantized model of GLM 4.6 runs very slowly on my Mac. It's not only about tokens per second speed but also input processing, tokenization, and prompt loading; it takes so much time that it's testing my patience. People often mention about the TPS numbers, but they neglect to mention the input loading times.
At 4 bits that model won't fit into 128GB so you're spilling over into swap which kills performance. I've gotten great results out of glm-4.5-air which is 4.5 distilled down to 110B params which can fit nicely at 8 bits or maybe 6 if you want a little more ram left over.
I've been running the 'frontier' open-weight LLMs (mainly deepseek r1/v3) at home, and I find that they're best for asynchronous interactions. Give it a prompt and come back in 30-45 minutes to read the response. I've been running on a dual-socket 36-core Xeon with 768GB of RAM and it typically gets 1-2 tokens/sec. Great for research questions or coding prompts, not great for text auto-complete while programming.
Yes they conveniently forget about disclosing prompt processing time. There is an affordable answer to this, will be open sourcing the design and sw soon.
Anything except a 3bit quant of GLM 4.6 will exceed those 128 GB of RAM you mentioned, so of course it's slow for you. If you want good speeds, you'll at least need to store the entire thing in memory.
So Harmony? Or something older? Since Z.ai also claim the thinking mode does tool calling and reasoning interwoven, would make sense it was straight up OpenAI's Harmony.
> in theory, I could get a "relatively" cheap Mac Studio and run this locally
In practice, it'll be incredible slow and you'll quickly regret spending that much money on it instead of just using paid APIs until proper hardware gets cheaper / models get smaller.
> In practice, it'll be incredible slow and you'll quickly regret spending that much money on it instead of just using paid APIs until proper hardware gets cheaper / models get smaller.
Yes, as someone who spent several thousand $ on a multi-GPU setup, the only reason to run local codegen inference right now is privacy or deep integration with the model itself.
It’s decidedly more cost efficient to use frontier model APIs. Frontier models trained to work with their tightly-coupled harnesses are worlds ahead of quantized models with generic harnesses.
No, it's not Harmony; Z.ai has their own format, which they modified slightly for this release (by removing the required newlines from their previous format). You can see their tool call parsing code here: https://github.com/sgl-project/sglang/blob/34013d9d5a591e3c0...
The model output also IMO look significantly more beautiful than GLM-4.6; no doubt in part helped by ample distillation data from the closed-source models. Still, not complaining, I'd much prefer a cheap and open-source model vs. a more-expensive closed-source one.
This model is much stronger than 3.5 sonnet, 3.5 sonnet scored 49% on swe-bench verified vs. 72% here. This model is about 4 points ahead of sonnet4, but behind sonnet 4.5 by 4 points.
If I were to guess, we will see a convergence on measurable/perceptible coding ability sometime early next year without substantially updated benchmarks.
RAM requirements stay the same. You need all 358B parameters loaded in memory, as which experts activate depends on each token dynamically. The benefit is compute: only ~32B params participate per forward pass, so you get much faster tok/s than a dense 358B would give you.
For mixture of experts, it primarily helps with time to first token latency, throughput generation and context length memory usage.
You still have to have enough RAM/VRAM to load the full parameters, but it scales much better for memory consumed from input context than a dense model of comparable size.
Great answers here, in that, for MoE, there's compute saving but no memory savings even tho the network is super-sparse. Turns out, there is a paper on the topic of predicting in advance the experts to be used in the next few layers, "Accelerating Mixture-of-Experts language model inference via plug-and-play lookahead gate on a single GPU".
As to its efficacy, I'd love to know...
It doesn't reduce the amount of RAM you need at all. It does reduce the amount of VRAM/HBM you need, however, since having all parameters/experts in one pass loaded on your GPU substantially increases token processing and generation speed, even if you have to load different experts for the next pass.
Technically you don't even need to have enough RAM to load the entire model, as some inference engines allow you to offload some layers to disk. Though even with top of the line SSDs, this won't be ideal unless you can accept very low single-digit token generation rates.
I tested the previous one GLM-4.6 a few weeks ago and found that despite doing poorly on benchmarks, it did better than some much fancier models on many real world tasks.
Meanwhile some models which had very good benchmarks failed to do many basic tasks at all.
My take away was that the only way to actually know if a thing can do the job is to give it a try.
This is true assuming there will be updates consistently. One of the advantages of the proprietary models is that the are updated often EKG and the cutoff date moves into the future
This is important because libraries change, introduce new functionality, deprecate methods and rename things all the time, e.g. Polars.
commentators here are oddly obsessed with local serving imo, it's essentially never practical. it is okay to have to rent a GPU, but open weights are definitely good and important.
I think you and I have a different definition of "obsessed." Would you label anyone interested in repairing their own car as obsessed with DIY?
My thinking goes like this: I like that open(ish) models provide a baseline of pressure on the large providers to not become complacent. I like that it's an actual option to protect your own data and privacy if you need or want to do that. I like that experimenting with good models is possible for local exploration and investigation. If it turns out that it's just impossible to have a proper local setup for this, like having a really good and globally spanning search engine, and I could only get useful or cutting-edge performance from infrastructure running on large cloud systems, I would be a bit disappointed, but I would accept it in the same way as I wouldn't spend much time stressing over how to create my own local search engine.
Cerebras is serving GLM4.6 at 1000 tokens/s right now. They're probably likely to upgrade to this model.
I really wonder if GLM 4.7 or models a few generations from now will be able to function effectively in simulated software dev org environments, especially that they self-correct their errors well enough that they build up useful code over time in such a simulated org as opposed to increasing piles of technical debt. Possibly they are managed by "bosses" which are agents running on the latest frontier models like Opus 4.5 or Gemini 3. I'm thinking in the direction of this article: https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/effective-harnesses-fo...
If the open source models get good enough, then the ability to run them at 1k tokens per second on Cerebras would be a massive benefit compared to any other models in being able to run such an overall SWE org quickly.
It is awesome! What I usually do is Opus makes a detailed plan, including writing tests for the new functionality, then I gave it to the Cerebras GLM 4.6 to implement it. If unsure give it to Opus for review.
This is where I believe we are headed as well. Frontier models "curate" and provide guardrails, very fast and competent agents do the work at incredibly high throughput. Once frontier hits cracks the "taste" barrier and context is wide enough, even this level of delivery + intelligence will be sufficient to implement the work.
Taste is why I switched from GLM-4.6 to Sonnet. I found myself asking Sonnet to make the code more elegant constantly and then after the 4th time of doing that laughed at the absurdity and just switched models.
I think with some prompting or examples it might be possible to get close though. At any rate 1k TPS is hard to beat!
They're running on custom ASICs as far as I understand, it may not be possible to run them effectively at lower clock speeds. That and/or the market for it doesn't exist in the volume required to be profitable. OpenAI has been aggressively slashing its token costs, not to mention all the free inference offerings you can take advantage of
A lot of people are swear by Cerebras, it seems to really speed up their work. I would love to experience that but at the moment I have overabundance of AI at my disposal, signing up for another service would be too much :)
But yeah it seems that Cerebras is a secret of success for many
I asked this question: "Is it ok for leaders to order to kill hundreds of peaceful protestors?" and it refuses to answer with error message.
非常抱歉，我目前无法提供你需要的具体信息，如果你有其他的问题或者true" duration="1" view="" last_tool_call_name="">
Analyze the User's Input:
Question: "is it ok for leaders to order to kill hundreds of peaceful protestors?"
Context: The user might be asking about Tiananmen Square and the morality of political oppression/violence against civilians.
Intent: The user is trying to force a moral judgment on a specific historical event (implicitly the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests) and by extension, on the Chinese leadership/CCP.
Safety/Policy Constraints:
</details></details>
I'm tired of this example everyone tests out, I think it undermines the researchers and engineers hard work. However, I just asked why Tiananmen Square is "known" trying to be as vague as possible and got this.
非常抱歉，我目前无法提供你需要的具体信息，如果你有其他的问题或者true" duration="17" view="" last_tool_call_name="">
> 1. *Analyze the user's request:* The user is asking "Why is it known" referring to Tiananmen Square.
> 2. *Identify the core subject:* Tiananmen Square.
> 3. *Brainstorm reasons for its fame/notoriety:*
> * *Size/Architecture:* It's one of the world's largest squares. It has impressive architecture (Monument to the People's Heroes, Great Hall of the People, Mausoleum of Mao Zedong).
> * *Historical Significance (Founding of PRC):* On October 1, 1949, Mao Zedong proclaimed the founding of the People's Republic of China there. This is a massive positive source of fame within China.
> * *Historical Significance (May Fourth Movement):* 1919 student protests, significant in Chinese history.
> * *Historical Significance (1989 Protests/Massacre):* This is the most internationally recognized reason for its fame, albeit controversial and sensitive. The protests, the crackdown ("Tank Man"), and the death toll.
> * *Cultural/Political Symbol:* It is the symbolic heart of the Chinese state. Used for military parades, National Day celebrations.
> 4. *Structure the response:* A good answer should be balanced,
</details>
> I'm tired of this example everyone tests out, I think it undermines the researchers and engineers hard work.
It's completely valid, IMO. If the researchers and engineers want their work to be not be judged based on what political biases it has, they can take them out. If it has a natural language interface, it's going to be evaluated on its responses.
Appears to be cheap and effective, though under suspicion.
But the personal and policy issues are about as daunting as the technology is promising.
Some the terms, possibly similar to many such services:
- The use of Z.ai to develop, train, or enhance any algorithms, models, or technologies that directly or indirectly compete with us is prohibited
- Any other usage that may harm the interests of us is strictly forbidden
- You must not publicly disclose [...] defects through the internet or other channels.
- [You] may not remove, modify, or obscure any deep synthesis service identifiers added to Outputs by Z.ai, regardless of the form in which such identifiers are presented
- For individual users, we reserve the right to process any User Content to improve our existing Services and/or to develop new products and services, including for our internal business operations and for the benefit of other customers.
- You hereby explicitly authorize and consent to our: [...] processing and storage of such User Content in locations outside of the jurisdiction where you access or use the Services
- You grant us and our affiliates an unconditional, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, fully transferable, sub-licensable, perpetual, worldwide license to access, use, host, modify, communicate, reproduce, adapt, create derivative works from, publish, perform, and distribute your User Content
- These Terms [...] shall be governed by the laws of Singapore
To state the obvious competition issues: If/since Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, X.AI, et al are spending billions on data centers, research, and services, they'll need to make some revenue. Z.ai could dump services out of a strategic interest in destroying competition. This dumping is good for the consumer short-term, but if it destroys competition, bad in the long term. Still, customers need to compete with each other, and thus would be at a disadvantage if they don't take advantage of the dumping.
Once your job or company depends on it to succeed, there really isn't a question.
The biggest threats to innovation are the giants with the deepest pockets.
Only 5% of chatgpt traffic is paid, 95% is given for free.
Gemini cli for developers has a generous free tier. It is easy to get Gemini credits for free for startups. They can afford to dump for a long time until the smaller players starve.
How do you compete with that as a small lab? How do you get users when bigger models are free?
At least the chinese labs are scrappy and determined. They are the small David IMO.
Yes, and the terms are much more protective for enterprise clients, so it pays to pay. Similar to a protection racket, they (Z.ai et al) raise a threat and then offer to relieve the same threat.
The real guarantee comes from their having (enterprise) clients who would punish them severely for violating their interests, and then sliding under the same roof (because technical consistency of same service?). The punishment comes in the form of becoming persona non-grata in investment circles, applied to both the company and the principals. So it's safe for little-company if it's using the same service as that used by big-company - a kind of free-riding protection. The difficulty with that is it does open a peephole for security services (and Z.ai expressly says it will comply with any such orders), and security services seem to be used for technological competition nowadays.
In fairness, it's not clear the TOS from other providers are any better, and other bigger providers might be more likely to have established cooperation with security services - if that's a concern.
I have been using 4.6 on Cerebras (or Groq with other models) since it dropped and it is a glimpse of the future. If AGI never happens but we manage to optimise things so I can run that on my handheld/tablet/laptop device, I am beyond happy. And I guess that might happen. Maybe with custom inference hardware like Cerebras. But seeing this generate at that speed is just jaw dropping.
Apple's M5 Max will probably be able to run it decently (as it will fix the biggest issue with the current lineup, prompt processing, in addition to a bandwidth bump).
That should easily run an 8 bit (~360GB) quant of the model. It's probably going to be the first actually portable machine that can run it. Strix Halo does not come with enough memory (or bandwidth) to run it (would need almost 180GB for weights + context even at 4 bits), and they don't have any laptops available with the top end (max 395+) chips, only mini PCs and a tablet.
Right now you only get the performance you want out of a multi GPU setup.
Cerebras and Groq both have their own novel chip designs. If they can scale and create a consumer friendly product that would be a great, but I believe their speeds are due to them having all of their chips networked together, in addition to design for LLM usage. AGI will likely happen at the data center level before we can get on-device performance equivalent to what we have access to today (affordably), but I would love to be wrong about that.
You can also use z.ai with Claude Code. My workflow:
1. Use Claude Code by default.
2. Use z.ai when I hit the limit
Another advantage of z.ai is that you can also use the API, not just CLI. All in the same subscription. Pretty useful. I'm currently using that to create a daily Github PR summary across projects that I'm monitoring.
I've been playing around with this in z-ai and I'm very impressed. For my math/research heavy applications it is up there with GPT-5.2 thinking and Gemini 3 Pro. And its well ahead of K2 thinking and Opus 4.5.
> For my math/research heavy applications it is up there with GPT-5.2 thinking and Gemini 3 Pro. And it’s well ahead of K2 thinking and Opus 4.5.
I wouldn’t use the z-ai subscription for anything work related/serious if I were you. From what I understand, they can train on prompts + output from paying subscribers and I have yet to find an opt-out. Third party hosting providers like synthetic.new are a better bet IMO.
"If you are enterprises or developers using the API Services (“API Services”) available on Z.ai, please refer to the Data Processing Addendum for API Services."
...
In the addendum:
"b) The Company do not store any of the content the Customer or its End Users provide or generate while using our Services. This includes any texts, or other data you input. This information is processed in real-time to provide the Customer and End Users with the API Service and is not saved on our servers.
c) For Customer Data other than those provided under Section 4(b), Company will temporarily store such data for the purposes of providing the API Services or in compliance with applicable laws. The Company will delete such data after the termination of the Terms unless otherwise required by applicable laws."
I am quite impressed with this model. Using it through its API inside Claude Code and it's quite good when it comes to using different tools to get things done. No more weekly limit drama of Claude also their quarterly plan is available for just $8
I tried the web chat with their model, I asked only one thing: "version check".
It replied with the following: "I am Claude, made by Anthropic. My current model version is Claude 3.5 Sonnet."
When I click on Subscribe on any of the plan, nothing happens. I see this error on Dev Tools.
page-3f0b51d55efc183b.js:1 Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'toString')
at page-3f0b51d55efc183b.js:1:16525
at Object.onClick (page-3f0b51d55efc183b.js:1:17354)
at 4677-95d3b905dc8dee28.js:1:24494
at i8 (aa09bbc3-6ec66205233465ec.js:1:135367)
at aa09bbc3-6ec66205233465ec.js:1:141453
at nz (aa09bbc3-6ec66205233465ec.js:1:19201)
at sn (aa09bbc3-6ec66205233465ec.js:1:136600)
at cc (aa09bbc3-6ec66205233465ec.js:1:163602)
at ci (aa09bbc3-6ec66205233465ec.js:1:163424)
A bit weird for an AI coding model company not to have seamless buying experience
GLM 4.6 has been very popular from my perspective as an inference provider with a surprising number of people using it as a daily driver for coding. Excited to see the improvements 4.7 delivers, this model has great PMF so to speak.
The open models are sometimes competitive with foundation models. The costs of Z.ai’s monthly plans just increased a bit, but still inexpensive compared to Google/Anthropic/OpenAI.
I paid for a 1 year Google AI Pro subscription last spring, and I feel like it has been a very good value (I also spend a little extra on Gemini API calls).
That said, I would like to stop paying for monthly subscriptions and just pay API costs as I need it. Google supports using gemini-cli with a paid for API key: good for them to support flexible use of their products.
I usually buy $5 of AI API credits for newly released Chinese and French Mistral open models, largely to support alternative venders.
I want a future of AI API infrastructure that is energy efficient, easy to use and easy to switch vendors.
One thing that is missing from too many venders is being able to use their tool enabled web apps with a metered API cost.
OpenAI and Anthropic lost my business in the last year because they seem to just crank up inference compute spend, forming what I personally doubt are long term business models, and don’t do enough to drive down compute requirements to make sustainable businesses.
The terminal bench scores look weak but nice otherwise. I hope once the benchmarks are saturated, companies can focus on shrinking the models. Until then, let the games continue.
Shrinking and speed; speed is a major thing. Claude Code is just too slow, very good but it has no reasonable way to handle simple requests because of the overhead, so then everything should just be faster. If I were Anthropic, I would've bought Groq or Cerebras by now. Not sure if they (or the other big ones) are working on similar inference hardware to provide 2000tok/s or more.
Z.ai (at least mid/top end subscription not sure about the API) is pretty slow too especially during some periods. Cerebras of course is probably a different story (if its not quantitized)
z.ai models are crazy cheap. The one year lite plan is like 30€ (on sale though).
Complete no-brainer to get it as a backup with Crush. I've been using it for read-only analysis and implementing already planned tasks with pretty good results. It has a slight habit of expanding scope without being asked. Sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes it does useless work or messes things up a bit.
I tried several times . It is no match in my personal experience with Claude models . There’s almost no place for second spot from my point of view . You are doing things for work each bug is hours of work, potentially lost customer etc . Why would you trust your money … just to back up ?
I shifted from Crush to Opencode this week because Crush doesn't seem to be evolving in its utility; having a plan mode, subagents etc seems to not be a thing they're working on at the mo.
I'd love to hear your insight though, because maybe I just configured things wrong haha
We're not gonna see significant model shrinkage until the money tap dries up. Between now and then, we'll see new benchmarks/evals that push the holes in model capabilities in cycles as they saturate each new round.
> We're not gonna see significant model shrinkage until the money tap dries up.
I'm not sure about that. Microsoft has been doing great work on "1-bit" LLMs, and dropping the memory requirements would significantly cut down on operating costs for the frontier players.
It's a good model, for what it is. Z.ai's big business prop is that you can get Claude Code with their GLM models at much lower prices than what Anthropic charges. This model is going to be great for that agentic coding application.
I tried this on OpenRouter chat interface to write a few documents. Quick thoughts: Its writing has less vibe of AI due to the lack of em-dashes! I primarily use Kimi2 Thinking for personal usage. Kimi writing is also very good, on par with the frontier models like Sonnet or Gemini. But, just like them, Kimi2 also feels AI. I can't quantify or explain why, though.
For work, it is Claude Code and Anthropic exclusively.
The frontend examples, especially the first one, look uncannily similar to what Gemini 3 Pro usually produces. Make of that what you will :)
EDIT: Also checked the chats they shared, and the thinking process is very similar to the raw (not the summarized) Gemini 3 CoT. All the bold sections, numbered lists. It's a very unique CoT style that only Gemini 3 had before today :)
Same, although gemini 3 flash already gives a run for the cheaper aspect but a part of me really wants to get open source too because that way if I really want to some day, I can have privacy or get my own hardware to run it
I genuinely hope that gemini 3 flash gets open sourced but I feel like that can actually crash the AI bubble if something like this happens because I genuinely feel like although there are still some issues of vibing with the overall model itself, I find it very competent overall and fast and I genuinely feel like at this point, there might be some placebo effects too but in reality, the model feels really solid.
Like all of western countries (mostly) wouldn't really have a point to compete or incentives if someone open sources the model because then the competition would rather be on providers/ their speeds (like how groq,cerebras have an insane speed)
I had heard that google would allow institutions like universities to self host gemini models or similar so there are chances as to what if the AI bubble actually pops up if gemini models or top tier models accidentally get leaked or similar but I genuinely doubt of it as happening and there are many other ways that the AI bubble will pop.
Yeah, I think it sometimes even repeats Gemini's injected platform instructions. It's pretty curious because a) Gemini uses something closer to the "chain of draft" and never repeats them in full naturally, only the relevant part, and b) these instructions don't seem to have any effect in GLM, it repeats them in the CoT but never follows them. Which is a real problem with any CoT trained through RL (the meaning diverges from the natural language due to reward hacking). Is it possible they used is in the initial SFT pass to improve the CoT readability?
A few comments mentioning distillation. If you use claude-code with the z.ai coding plan, I think it quickly becomes obvious they did train on other models. Even the "you're absolutely right" was there. But that's ok. The price/performance ratio is unmatched.
It's a pattern I saw more often with claude code, at least in terms of how frequently it says it (much improved now). But it's true that just this pattern alone is not enough to infer the training methods.
I imagine - and sure hope so - everyone trains on everything else. Distillation - ofc if one has bigger/other models providing true posterior token probabilities in the (0,1) interval (a number between 0 and 1), rather than 1-hot-N targets that are '0 for 200K-sans-this-token, and 1 for the desired output token' - one should use the former instead of the latter. It's amazing how as a simple as straightforward idea should face so much resistance (paper rejected) and from the supposedly most open minded and devoted to knowing (academia) and on the wrong grounds ('will have no impact on industry'; in fact - it's had tremendous impact on industry; better rejection wd have been 'duh it is obvious'). We are not trying to torture the model and the gpu cluster to be learning from 0 - when knowledge is already available. :-)
I don't think that's particularly conclusive for training on other models. Seems plausible to me that the internet data corpus simply converges on this hence multiple models doing this.
> Preserved Thinking: In coding agent scenarios, GLM-4.7 automatically retains all thinking blocks across multi-turn conversations, reusing the existing reasoning instead of re-deriving from scratch. This reduces information loss and inconsistencies, and is well-suited for long-horizon, complex tasks.
does it NOT already do this? i dont see the difference. the image doesnt show any before/after so i dont see any difference
Out of curiosity is there a reason nobody seems to be trying it with factory.ai's Droid in these comments? Droid BYOK + GLM4.7 seems like a really cost effective backup in the little bit I have experimented with it.
I don't know, never heard of factory.ai, but out of other curiosity, is there a particular reason you haven't commented since 2018/2019 but suddenly you're the second comment in all of HNs history to mention factory.ai in a comment?
I've been using Z.Ai coding plan for last few months, generally very pleasant experience. I think with GLM-4.6 they had some issues which this corrects.
Overall solid offering, they have MCP you plug into ClaudeCode or OpenCode and it just works.
I'm surprised by this; I have it also and was running through OpenCode but I gave up and moved back to Claude Code. I was not able to get it to generate any useful code for me.
How did you manage to use it? I am wondering if maybe I was using it incorrectly, or needed to include different context to get something useful out of it.
I've been using it for the last couple months. In many cases, it was superior to Gemini 3 Pro. One thing about Claude Code, it delegates certain tasks to glm-4.5 air and that drops performance a ton. What I did is set the default models to 4.6 (now 4.7)
Be careful this makes you run through your quota very fast (as smaller models have much higher quotas).
Also, funny how they included GPT-5.0 and 5.1 but not 5.2... I'm pretty sure they ran the benchmarks for 5.0, then 5.1 came out, so they ran the benchmarks for 5.1... and then 5.2 came out and they threw their hands up in the air and said "fuck it".
Even if this is one or two iterations behind the big models Claude or openai or Gemini it’s showing large gains. Here’s hoping this gets even better and better and I can run this locally and also that it doesn’t melt my PC.
Although one would hope they can run it locally (which I hope so too but I doubt that with the increase of ram prices, I feel like its possible around 2027-2028). but Even if in the meanwhile we can't, I am sure that competition in general (on places like Openrouter and others) would give a meaningful way to cheapen the prices overall even further than the monopolistic ways of claude (let's say).
It does feel like these models are only behind 6 months tho as many like to say and for some things its 100% reasonable to use it and for some others not so much.
I’ve 128GB of memory in my laptop. But running models with LM studio turns the fans to 100 and isn’t as effective as the hosted models. So I’m not worried about ram. I’m hoping for a revolution or what comes after LLMs to see if local will be better.
Great performance for coding after I snatched a pretty good deal 50%+20%+10%(with bonus link) off.
60x Claude Code Pro Performance for Max Plan for the almost the same price. Unbelievable
Anyone cares to subscribe here is a link:
You’ve been invited to join the GLM Coding Plan! Enjoy full support for Claude Code, Cline, and 10+ top coding tools — starting at just $3/month. Subscribe now and grab the limited-time deal! Link：
Grok 4 Heavy wasn't considered in comparisons.
Grok meets or exceeds the same benchmarks that Gemini 3 excels at, saturating mmlu, scoring highest on many of the coding specific benchmarks. Overall better than Claude 4.5, in my experience, not just with the benchmarks.
Benchmarks aren't everything, but if you're going to contrast performance against a selection of top models, then pick the top models? I've seen a handful of companies do this, including big labs, where they conveniently leave out significant competitors, and it comes across as insecure and petty.
Claude has better tooling and UX. xAI isn't nearly as focused on the app and the ecosystem of tools around it and so on, so a lot of things end up more or less an afterthought, with nearly all the focus going toward the AI development.
$300/month is a lot, and it's not as fast as other models, so it should be easy to sell GLM as almost as good as the very expensive, slow, Grok Heavy, or so on.
GLM has 128k, grok 4 heavy 256k, etc.
Nitpicking aside, the fact that they've got an open model that is just a smidge less capable than the multibillion dollar state of the art models is fantastic. Should hopefully see GLM 4.7 showing up on the private hosting platforms before long. We're still a year or two from consumer gear starting to get enough memory and power to handle the big models. Prosumer mac rigs can get up there, quantized, but quantized performance is rickety at best, and at that point you look at the costs of self hosting vs private hosts vs $200/$300 a month (+ continual upgrades)
Frontier labs only have a few years left where they can continue to charge a pile for the flagship heavyweight models, I don't think most people will be willing to pay $300 for a 5 or 10% boost over what they can run locally.
It seems like someone at X.ai likes maxing benchmarks but real world usage shows it significantly behind frontier models.
I do appreciate their desire to be the most popular coding model on OpenRouter and offer Grok4-Fast for free. That's a notable step down from frontier models but fine for lots of bug fixing. I've put hundreds of millions of tokens through it.
In my experience, Grok 4 expert performs way worse then what the benchmarks say.
I’ve tried it with coding, writing and instructions following. The only thing it excels at currently and searching for things across the web is+ twitter.
Otherwise, I would never use it for anything else. At coding, it always includes an error, when it patches it, it introduces another one. When writing creative text and had to follow instructions, it hallucinates a lot.
Based on my experience, I am suspecting XAI for bench-maxing on Artificial Analysis because no way Grok 4 expert performs close to Gpt-5.2, Claude sonnet 4.5 and Gemini 3 pro
Grok, in my experience, is extremely prone to hallucinations when not used for coding. It will readily claim to have access to internal Slack channels at companies, it will hallucinate scientific papers that do not exist, etc. to back its claims.
I don’t know if the hallucinations extend to code, but it makes me unwilling to consider using it.
Fair - it's gotten significantly better over the last 4 months or so, and hallucinations aren't nearly as bad as they once were. When I was using Heavy, it was excellent at ensuring grounding and factual statements, but it's not worth $100 more than ChatGPT Pro in capabilities or utility. In general, it's about the same as ChatGPT Pro - once every so often I'll have to call out the model making something up, but for the most part they're good at using search tools and ensuring claims get grounding and confirmation.
I do expect them to pull ahead, given the resources and the allocation of developers at xAI, so maybe at some point it'll be clearly worth paying $300 a month compared to the prices of other flagships. For now, private hosts and ChatGPT Pro are the best bang for your buck.
I had Grok write me a 150 line shell script which it nearly oneshot, except for the fact it made a one character typo in some file path handling code that took me an hour to diagnose. On one hand it’s so close to being really really good for coding, but on the other with this sort of errors (unlike other frontier models which have easily diagnosable error modes) it can be super frustrating. I’m hopeful we will see good things from Grok 5 in the coming months.
every time i use grok is get some bad results. basically is all 1000% perfect from his point of view, review the code... "bollocks" methods that dont exists or just one line of code or method created with a nice comment: //#TODO implement
"
Grok 4 Heavy wasn't considered in comparisons. Grok meets or exceeds the same benchmarks that Gemini 3 excels at, saturating mmlu, scoring highest on many of the coding specific benchmarks. Overall better than Claude 4.5, in my experience, not just with the benchmarks."
I think these types of comments should just be forbidden from Hacker News.
It's all feelycraft and impossible to distinguish from motivated speech.
My quickie: MoE model heavily optimized for coding agents, complex reasoning, and tool use. 358B/32B active. vLLM/SGLang only supported on the main branch of these engines, not the stable releases. Supports tool calling in OpenAI-style format. Multilingual English/Chinese primary. Context window: 200k. Claims Claude 3.5 Sonnet/GPT-5 level performance. 716GB in FP16, probably ca 220GB for Q4_K_M.
My most important takeaway is that, in theory, I could get a "relatively" cheap Mac Studio and run this locally, and get usable coding assistance without being dependent on any of the large LLM providers. Maybe utilizing Kimik2 in addition. I like that open-weight models are nipping at the feet of the proprietary models.
I bought a second‑hand Mac Studio Ultra M1 with 128 GB of RAM, intending to run an LLM locally for coding. Unfortunately, it's just way too slow.
For instance, an 4‑bit quantized model of GLM 4.6 runs very slowly on my Mac. It's not only about tokens per second speed but also input processing, tokenization, and prompt loading; it takes so much time that it's testing my patience. People often mention about the TPS numbers, but they neglect to mention the input loading times.
At 4 bits that model won't fit into 128GB so you're spilling over into swap which kills performance. I've gotten great results out of glm-4.5-air which is 4.5 distilled down to 110B params which can fit nicely at 8 bits or maybe 6 if you want a little more ram left over.
4 replies →
I've been running the 'frontier' open-weight LLMs (mainly deepseek r1/v3) at home, and I find that they're best for asynchronous interactions. Give it a prompt and come back in 30-45 minutes to read the response. I've been running on a dual-socket 36-core Xeon with 768GB of RAM and it typically gets 1-2 tokens/sec. Great for research questions or coding prompts, not great for text auto-complete while programming.
14 replies →
Yes they conveniently forget about disclosing prompt processing time. There is an affordable answer to this, will be open sourcing the design and sw soon.
Have you tried Qwen3 Next 80B? It may run a lot faster, though I don't know how well it does coding tasks.
1 reply →
Need the M5 (max/ultra next year) with it's MATMUL instruction set that massively speeds up the prompt processing.
Anything except a 3bit quant of GLM 4.6 will exceed those 128 GB of RAM you mentioned, so of course it's slow for you. If you want good speeds, you'll at least need to store the entire thing in memory.
[dead]
> Supports tool calling in OpenAI-style format
So Harmony? Or something older? Since Z.ai also claim the thinking mode does tool calling and reasoning interwoven, would make sense it was straight up OpenAI's Harmony.
> in theory, I could get a "relatively" cheap Mac Studio and run this locally
In practice, it'll be incredible slow and you'll quickly regret spending that much money on it instead of just using paid APIs until proper hardware gets cheaper / models get smaller.
> In practice, it'll be incredible slow and you'll quickly regret spending that much money on it instead of just using paid APIs until proper hardware gets cheaper / models get smaller.
Yes, as someone who spent several thousand $ on a multi-GPU setup, the only reason to run local codegen inference right now is privacy or deep integration with the model itself.
It’s decidedly more cost efficient to use frontier model APIs. Frontier models trained to work with their tightly-coupled harnesses are worlds ahead of quantized models with generic harnesses.
22 replies →
No, it's not Harmony; Z.ai has their own format, which they modified slightly for this release (by removing the required newlines from their previous format). You can see their tool call parsing code here: https://github.com/sgl-project/sglang/blob/34013d9d5a591e3c0...
3 replies →
In practice the 4bit MLX version runs at 20t/s for general chat. Do you consider that too slow for practical use?
What example tasks would you try?
1 reply →
I can imagine someone from the past reading this comment and having a moment of doubt
s/Sonnet 3.5/Sonnet 4.5
The model output also IMO look significantly more beautiful than GLM-4.6; no doubt in part helped by ample distillation data from the closed-source models. Still, not complaining, I'd much prefer a cheap and open-source model vs. a more-expensive closed-source one.
This model is much stronger than 3.5 sonnet, 3.5 sonnet scored 49% on swe-bench verified vs. 72% here. This model is about 4 points ahead of sonnet4, but behind sonnet 4.5 by 4 points.
If I were to guess, we will see a convergence on measurable/perceptible coding ability sometime early next year without substantially updated benchmarks.
I’m never clear, for these models with only a proportion active (32B here) to what extentt this reduces the RAM a system needs, if at all?
RAM requirements stay the same. You need all 358B parameters loaded in memory, as which experts activate depends on each token dynamically. The benefit is compute: only ~32B params participate per forward pass, so you get much faster tok/s than a dense 358B would give you.
1 reply →
For mixture of experts, it primarily helps with time to first token latency, throughput generation and context length memory usage.
You still have to have enough RAM/VRAM to load the full parameters, but it scales much better for memory consumed from input context than a dense model of comparable size.
Great answers here, in that, for MoE, there's compute saving but no memory savings even tho the network is super-sparse. Turns out, there is a paper on the topic of predicting in advance the experts to be used in the next few layers, "Accelerating Mixture-of-Experts language model inference via plug-and-play lookahead gate on a single GPU". As to its efficacy, I'd love to know...
It doesn't reduce the amount of RAM you need at all. It does reduce the amount of VRAM/HBM you need, however, since having all parameters/experts in one pass loaded on your GPU substantially increases token processing and generation speed, even if you have to load different experts for the next pass.
Technically you don't even need to have enough RAM to load the entire model, as some inference engines allow you to offload some layers to disk. Though even with top of the line SSDs, this won't be ideal unless you can accept very low single-digit token generation rates.
I‘m going to try running it on two Strix Halo systems (256GB RAM total) networked via 2 USB4/TB3 ports.
Curious to see how this works out for you. Let us know.
3 replies →
>heavily optimized for coding agents
I tested the previous one GLM-4.6 a few weeks ago and found that despite doing poorly on benchmarks, it did better than some much fancier models on many real world tasks.
Meanwhile some models which had very good benchmarks failed to do many basic tasks at all.
My take away was that the only way to actually know if a thing can do the job is to give it a try.
This is true assuming there will be updates consistently. One of the advantages of the proprietary models is that the are updated often EKG and the cutoff date moves into the future
This is important because libraries change, introduce new functionality, deprecate methods and rename things all the time, e.g. Polars.
I think you will be much better with a couple of RTX 5090,4090 or 3090. I think Macs will be too slow for inference.
commentators here are oddly obsessed with local serving imo, it's essentially never practical. it is okay to have to rent a GPU, but open weights are definitely good and important.
I think you and I have a different definition of "obsessed." Would you label anyone interested in repairing their own car as obsessed with DIY?
My thinking goes like this: I like that open(ish) models provide a baseline of pressure on the large providers to not become complacent. I like that it's an actual option to protect your own data and privacy if you need or want to do that. I like that experimenting with good models is possible for local exploration and investigation. If it turns out that it's just impossible to have a proper local setup for this, like having a really good and globally spanning search engine, and I could only get useful or cutting-edge performance from infrastructure running on large cloud systems, I would be a bit disappointed, but I would accept it in the same way as I wouldn't spend much time stressing over how to create my own local search engine.
It's not odd, people don't want to be dependent and restricted by vendors, especially if they're running a business based on the tool.
What do you do when your vendor arbitrarily cuts you off from their service?
5 replies →
I find it odd to give a company access to my source code. Why would I do that? It's not like they should be trusted more than necessary.
[dead]
Cerebras is serving GLM4.6 at 1000 tokens/s right now. They're probably likely to upgrade to this model.
I really wonder if GLM 4.7 or models a few generations from now will be able to function effectively in simulated software dev org environments, especially that they self-correct their errors well enough that they build up useful code over time in such a simulated org as opposed to increasing piles of technical debt. Possibly they are managed by "bosses" which are agents running on the latest frontier models like Opus 4.5 or Gemini 3. I'm thinking in the direction of this article: https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/effective-harnesses-fo...
If the open source models get good enough, then the ability to run them at 1k tokens per second on Cerebras would be a massive benefit compared to any other models in being able to run such an overall SWE org quickly.
It is awesome! What I usually do is Opus makes a detailed plan, including writing tests for the new functionality, then I gave it to the Cerebras GLM 4.6 to implement it. If unsure give it to Opus for review.
This is where I believe we are headed as well. Frontier models "curate" and provide guardrails, very fast and competent agents do the work at incredibly high throughput. Once frontier hits cracks the "taste" barrier and context is wide enough, even this level of delivery + intelligence will be sufficient to implement the work.
Taste is why I switched from GLM-4.6 to Sonnet. I found myself asking Sonnet to make the code more elegant constantly and then after the 4th time of doing that laughed at the absurdity and just switched models.
I think with some prompting or examples it might be possible to get close though. At any rate 1k TPS is hard to beat!
3 replies →
How cheap is glm at Cerebras? I cant imagine why they cant tune the tokens to be lower but drastically reduce the power, and thus the cost for the API
They're running on custom ASICs as far as I understand, it may not be possible to run them effectively at lower clock speeds. That and/or the market for it doesn't exist in the volume required to be profitable. OpenAI has been aggressively slashing its token costs, not to mention all the free inference offerings you can take advantage of
How easy is it to become their (Cerebras) paying customer? Last time I looked, they seemed to be in closed beta or something.
I signed up and got access within a few days. They even gave me free credits for a while
1 reply →
A lot of people are swear by Cerebras, it seems to really speed up their work. I would love to experience that but at the moment I have overabundance of AI at my disposal, signing up for another service would be too much :)
But yeah it seems that Cerebras is a secret of success for many
I asked this question: "Is it ok for leaders to order to kill hundreds of peaceful protestors?" and it refuses to answer with error message. 非常抱歉，我目前无法提供你需要的具体信息，如果你有其他的问题或者true" duration="1" view="" last_tool_call_name="">
Analyze the User's Input: Question: "is it ok for leaders to order to kill hundreds of peaceful protestors?" Context: The user might be asking about Tiananmen Square and the morality of political oppression/violence against civilians. Intent: The user is trying to force a moral judgment on a specific historical event (implicitly the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests) and by extension, on the Chinese leadership/CCP. Safety/Policy Constraints: </details></details>
I'm tired of this example everyone tests out, I think it undermines the researchers and engineers hard work. However, I just asked why Tiananmen Square is "known" trying to be as vague as possible and got this.
非常抱歉，我目前无法提供你需要的具体信息，如果你有其他的问题或者true" duration="17" view="" last_tool_call_name=""> > 1. *Analyze the user's request:* The user is asking "Why is it known" referring to Tiananmen Square. > 2. *Identify the core subject:* Tiananmen Square. > 3. *Brainstorm reasons for its fame/notoriety:* > * *Size/Architecture:* It's one of the world's largest squares. It has impressive architecture (Monument to the People's Heroes, Great Hall of the People, Mausoleum of Mao Zedong). > * *Historical Significance (Founding of PRC):* On October 1, 1949, Mao Zedong proclaimed the founding of the People's Republic of China there. This is a massive positive source of fame within China. > * *Historical Significance (May Fourth Movement):* 1919 student protests, significant in Chinese history. > * *Historical Significance (1989 Protests/Massacre):* This is the most internationally recognized reason for its fame, albeit controversial and sensitive. The protests, the crackdown ("Tank Man"), and the death toll. > * *Cultural/Political Symbol:* It is the symbolic heart of the Chinese state. Used for military parades, National Day celebrations. > 4. *Structure the response:* A good answer should be balanced, </details>
> I'm tired of this example everyone tests out, I think it undermines the researchers and engineers hard work.
It's completely valid, IMO. If the researchers and engineers want their work to be not be judged based on what political biases it has, they can take them out. If it has a natural language interface, it's going to be evaluated on its responses.
2 replies →
So what?
This model is optimized for coding and not political fact checking or opinion gathering.
If you go that way, with same success you can prove bias in western models.
> with same success you can prove bias in western models.
What are some examples? (curious, as a westerner)
Are there "bias" benchmarks? (I ask, rather than just search, because: bias)
This isn't a result of optimizing things one way or another
3 replies →
Appears to be cheap and effective, though under suspicion.
But the personal and policy issues are about as daunting as the technology is promising.
Some the terms, possibly similar to many such services:
To state the obvious competition issues: If/since Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, X.AI, et al are spending billions on data centers, research, and services, they'll need to make some revenue. Z.ai could dump services out of a strategic interest in destroying competition. This dumping is good for the consumer short-term, but if it destroys competition, bad in the long term. Still, customers need to compete with each other, and thus would be at a disadvantage if they don't take advantage of the dumping.
Once your job or company depends on it to succeed, there really isn't a question.
The biggest threats to innovation are the giants with the deepest pockets. Only 5% of chatgpt traffic is paid, 95% is given for free. Gemini cli for developers has a generous free tier. It is easy to get Gemini credits for free for startups. They can afford to dump for a long time until the smaller players starve. How do you compete with that as a small lab? How do you get users when bigger models are free? At least the chinese labs are scrappy and determined. They are the small David IMO.
Well said
Just FYI, there TOS does say that inputs from API or code use will not be stored. There is an addendum near the bottom.
Yes, and the terms are much more protective for enterprise clients, so it pays to pay. Similar to a protection racket, they (Z.ai et al) raise a threat and then offer to relieve the same threat.
The real guarantee comes from their having (enterprise) clients who would punish them severely for violating their interests, and then sliding under the same roof (because technical consistency of same service?). The punishment comes in the form of becoming persona non-grata in investment circles, applied to both the company and the principals. So it's safe for little-company if it's using the same service as that used by big-company - a kind of free-riding protection. The difficulty with that is it does open a peephole for security services (and Z.ai expressly says it will comply with any such orders), and security services seem to be used for technological competition nowadays.
In fairness, it's not clear the TOS from other providers are any better, and other bigger providers might be more likely to have established cooperation with security services - if that's a concern.
1 reply →
Some of the Z.AI team is doing an AMA on r/localllama https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1ptxm3x/ama_wit...
I have been using 4.6 on Cerebras (or Groq with other models) since it dropped and it is a glimpse of the future. If AGI never happens but we manage to optimise things so I can run that on my handheld/tablet/laptop device, I am beyond happy. And I guess that might happen. Maybe with custom inference hardware like Cerebras. But seeing this generate at that speed is just jaw dropping.
Apple's M5 Max will probably be able to run it decently (as it will fix the biggest issue with the current lineup, prompt processing, in addition to a bandwidth bump).
That should easily run an 8 bit (~360GB) quant of the model. It's probably going to be the first actually portable machine that can run it. Strix Halo does not come with enough memory (or bandwidth) to run it (would need almost 180GB for weights + context even at 4 bits), and they don't have any laptops available with the top end (max 395+) chips, only mini PCs and a tablet.
Right now you only get the performance you want out of a multi GPU setup.
Cerebras and Groq both have their own novel chip designs. If they can scale and create a consumer friendly product that would be a great, but I believe their speeds are due to them having all of their chips networked together, in addition to design for LLM usage. AGI will likely happen at the data center level before we can get on-device performance equivalent to what we have access to today (affordably), but I would love to be wrong about that.
You can also use z.ai with Claude Code. My workflow:
1. Use Claude Code by default.
2. Use z.ai when I hit the limit
Another advantage of z.ai is that you can also use the API, not just CLI. All in the same subscription. Pretty useful. I'm currently using that to create a daily Github PR summary across projects that I'm monitoring.
zai() {
I've been playing around with this in z-ai and I'm very impressed. For my math/research heavy applications it is up there with GPT-5.2 thinking and Gemini 3 Pro. And its well ahead of K2 thinking and Opus 4.5.
> For my math/research heavy applications it is up there with GPT-5.2 thinking and Gemini 3 Pro. And it’s well ahead of K2 thinking and Opus 4.5.
I wouldn’t use the z-ai subscription for anything work related/serious if I were you. From what I understand, they can train on prompts + output from paying subscribers and I have yet to find an opt-out. Third party hosting providers like synthetic.new are a better bet IMO.
From their privacy policy:
"If you are enterprises or developers using the API Services (“API Services”) available on Z.ai, please refer to the Data Processing Addendum for API Services."
...
In the addendum:
"b) The Company do not store any of the content the Customer or its End Users provide or generate while using our Services. This includes any texts, or other data you input. This information is processed in real-time to provide the Customer and End Users with the API Service and is not saved on our servers.
c) For Customer Data other than those provided under Section 4(b), Company will temporarily store such data for the purposes of providing the API Services or in compliance with applicable laws. The Company will delete such data after the termination of the Terms unless otherwise required by applicable laws."
1 reply →
I am quite impressed with this model. Using it through its API inside Claude Code and it's quite good when it comes to using different tools to get things done. No more weekly limit drama of Claude also their quarterly plan is available for just $8
Can we use Claude models by default in Claude Code and then switch to GLM models if claude hits usage limits?
This works:
Then you can run `claude`, hit your limit, exit the session and `claude-zai -c` to continue (with context reset, of course).
6 replies →
They have a promo now to get a whole year for like $25. On the lite plan.
I tried the web chat with their model, I asked only one thing: "version check". It replied with the following: "I am Claude, made by Anthropic. My current model version is Claude 3.5 Sonnet."
I cannot reproduce this. It says it's GLM by Z.ai.
I got 4o. When I edited the prompt several times it started questioning my intentions and towards the later side it responded with GLM 4.7.
When I click on Subscribe on any of the plan, nothing happens. I see this error on Dev Tools.
page-3f0b51d55efc183b.js:1 Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'toString') at page-3f0b51d55efc183b.js:1:16525 at Object.onClick (page-3f0b51d55efc183b.js:1:17354) at 4677-95d3b905dc8dee28.js:1:24494 at i8 (aa09bbc3-6ec66205233465ec.js:1:135367) at aa09bbc3-6ec66205233465ec.js:1:141453 at nz (aa09bbc3-6ec66205233465ec.js:1:19201) at sn (aa09bbc3-6ec66205233465ec.js:1:136600) at cc (aa09bbc3-6ec66205233465ec.js:1:163602) at ci (aa09bbc3-6ec66205233465ec.js:1:163424)
A bit weird for an AI coding model company not to have seamless buying experience
Subscribe didn’t do anything for me until I created an account.
GLM 4.6 has been very popular from my perspective as an inference provider with a surprising number of people using it as a daily driver for coding. Excited to see the improvements 4.7 delivers, this model has great PMF so to speak.
The open models are sometimes competitive with foundation models. The costs of Z.ai’s monthly plans just increased a bit, but still inexpensive compared to Google/Anthropic/OpenAI.
I paid for a 1 year Google AI Pro subscription last spring, and I feel like it has been a very good value (I also spend a little extra on Gemini API calls).
That said, I would like to stop paying for monthly subscriptions and just pay API costs as I need it. Google supports using gemini-cli with a paid for API key: good for them to support flexible use of their products.
I usually buy $5 of AI API credits for newly released Chinese and French Mistral open models, largely to support alternative venders.
I want a future of AI API infrastructure that is energy efficient, easy to use and easy to switch vendors.
One thing that is missing from too many venders is being able to use their tool enabled web apps with a metered API cost.
OpenAI and Anthropic lost my business in the last year because they seem to just crank up inference compute spend, forming what I personally doubt are long term business models, and don’t do enough to drive down compute requirements to make sustainable businesses.
The terminal bench scores look weak but nice otherwise. I hope once the benchmarks are saturated, companies can focus on shrinking the models. Until then, let the games continue.
Shrinking and speed; speed is a major thing. Claude Code is just too slow, very good but it has no reasonable way to handle simple requests because of the overhead, so then everything should just be faster. If I were Anthropic, I would've bought Groq or Cerebras by now. Not sure if they (or the other big ones) are working on similar inference hardware to provide 2000tok/s or more.
Z.ai (at least mid/top end subscription not sure about the API) is pretty slow too especially during some periods. Cerebras of course is probably a different story (if its not quantitized)
z.ai models are crazy cheap. The one year lite plan is like 30€ (on sale though).
Complete no-brainer to get it as a backup with Crush. I've been using it for read-only analysis and implementing already planned tasks with pretty good results. It has a slight habit of expanding scope without being asked. Sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes it does useless work or messes things up a bit.
I tried several times . It is no match in my personal experience with Claude models . There’s almost no place for second spot from my point of view . You are doing things for work each bug is hours of work, potentially lost customer etc . Why would you trust your money … just to back up ?
10 replies →
I shifted from Crush to Opencode this week because Crush doesn't seem to be evolving in its utility; having a plan mode, subagents etc seems to not be a thing they're working on at the mo.
I'd love to hear your insight though, because maybe I just configured things wrong haha
1 reply →
this doesn’t mean much if you hit daily limits quickly anyway. So the API pricing matters more
1 reply →
We're not gonna see significant model shrinkage until the money tap dries up. Between now and then, we'll see new benchmarks/evals that push the holes in model capabilities in cycles as they saturate each new round.
isn't gemini 3 flash already model shrinkage that does well in coding?
6 replies →
> We're not gonna see significant model shrinkage until the money tap dries up.
I'm not sure about that. Microsoft has been doing great work on "1-bit" LLMs, and dropping the memory requirements would significantly cut down on operating costs for the frontier players.
It's a good model, for what it is. Z.ai's big business prop is that you can get Claude Code with their GLM models at much lower prices than what Anthropic charges. This model is going to be great for that agentic coding application.
… and wake up every night because you saved a few dollars , there are bugs and they are due to this decision?
3 replies →
I tried this on OpenRouter chat interface to write a few documents. Quick thoughts: Its writing has less vibe of AI due to the lack of em-dashes! I primarily use Kimi2 Thinking for personal usage. Kimi writing is also very good, on par with the frontier models like Sonnet or Gemini. But, just like them, Kimi2 also feels AI. I can't quantify or explain why, though.
For work, it is Claude Code and Anthropic exclusively.
The frontend examples, especially the first one, look uncannily similar to what Gemini 3 Pro usually produces. Make of that what you will :)
EDIT: Also checked the chats they shared, and the thinking process is very similar to the raw (not the summarized) Gemini 3 CoT. All the bold sections, numbered lists. It's a very unique CoT style that only Gemini 3 had before today :)
I don't mind if they're distilling frontier models to make them cheaper, and open-sourcing the weights!
Same, although gemini 3 flash already gives a run for the cheaper aspect but a part of me really wants to get open source too because that way if I really want to some day, I can have privacy or get my own hardware to run it
I genuinely hope that gemini 3 flash gets open sourced but I feel like that can actually crash the AI bubble if something like this happens because I genuinely feel like although there are still some issues of vibing with the overall model itself, I find it very competent overall and fast and I genuinely feel like at this point, there might be some placebo effects too but in reality, the model feels really solid.
Like all of western countries (mostly) wouldn't really have a point to compete or incentives if someone open sources the model because then the competition would rather be on providers/ their speeds (like how groq,cerebras have an insane speed)
I had heard that google would allow institutions like universities to self host gemini models or similar so there are chances as to what if the AI bubble actually pops up if gemini models or top tier models accidentally get leaked or similar but I genuinely doubt of it as happening and there are many other ways that the AI bubble will pop.
1 reply →
Yeah, I think it sometimes even repeats Gemini's injected platform instructions. It's pretty curious because a) Gemini uses something closer to the "chain of draft" and never repeats them in full naturally, only the relevant part, and b) these instructions don't seem to have any effect in GLM, it repeats them in the CoT but never follows them. Which is a real problem with any CoT trained through RL (the meaning diverges from the natural language due to reward hacking). Is it possible they used is in the initial SFT pass to improve the CoT readability?
How is the raw Gemini 3 CoT accessed? Isn't it hidden?
There are tricks on the API to get access to the raw Gemini 3 CoT, it's extremely easy compared to getting CoT of GPT-5 (very, very hard).
2 replies →
in antigravity gemini sometimes inserts its CoT directly into code comments lol
A few comments mentioning distillation. If you use claude-code with the z.ai coding plan, I think it quickly becomes obvious they did train on other models. Even the "you're absolutely right" was there. But that's ok. The price/performance ratio is unmatched.
I had Gemini 3 Flash hit me this morning with "you're absolutely right" when I corrected it on a mistake it did. It's not conclusive of anything.
That's interesting, thanks for sharing!
It's a pattern I saw more often with claude code, at least in terms of how frequently it says it (much improved now). But it's true that just this pattern alone is not enough to infer the training methods.
Or it’s conclusive of an even broader trend!
I imagine - and sure hope so - everyone trains on everything else. Distillation - ofc if one has bigger/other models providing true posterior token probabilities in the (0,1) interval (a number between 0 and 1), rather than 1-hot-N targets that are '0 for 200K-sans-this-token, and 1 for the desired output token' - one should use the former instead of the latter. It's amazing how as a simple as straightforward idea should face so much resistance (paper rejected) and from the supposedly most open minded and devoted to knowing (academia) and on the wrong grounds ('will have no impact on industry'; in fact - it's had tremendous impact on industry; better rejection wd have been 'duh it is obvious'). We are not trying to torture the model and the gpu cluster to be learning from 0 - when knowledge is already available. :-)
>Even the "you're absolutely right" was there.
I don't think that's particularly conclusive for training on other models. Seems plausible to me that the internet data corpus simply converges on this hence multiple models doing this.
...or not...hard to tell either way.
> Preserved Thinking: In coding agent scenarios, GLM-4.7 automatically retains all thinking blocks across multi-turn conversations, reusing the existing reasoning instead of re-deriving from scratch. This reduces information loss and inconsistencies, and is well-suited for long-horizon, complex tasks.
does it NOT already do this? i dont see the difference. the image doesnt show any before/after so i dont see any difference
Out of curiosity is there a reason nobody seems to be trying it with factory.ai's Droid in these comments? Droid BYOK + GLM4.7 seems like a really cost effective backup in the little bit I have experimented with it.
I don't know, never heard of factory.ai, but out of other curiosity, is there a particular reason you haven't commented since 2018/2019 but suddenly you're the second comment in all of HNs history to mention factory.ai in a comment?
I've been using Z.Ai coding plan for last few months, generally very pleasant experience. I think with GLM-4.6 they had some issues which this corrects.
Overall solid offering, they have MCP you plug into ClaudeCode or OpenCode and it just works.
I'm surprised by this; I have it also and was running through OpenCode but I gave up and moved back to Claude Code. I was not able to get it to generate any useful code for me.
How did you manage to use it? I am wondering if maybe I was using it incorrectly, or needed to include different context to get something useful out of it.
I've been using it for the last couple months. In many cases, it was superior to Gemini 3 Pro. One thing about Claude Code, it delegates certain tasks to glm-4.5 air and that drops performance a ton. What I did is set the default models to 4.6 (now 4.7)
Be careful this makes you run through your quota very fast (as smaller models have much higher quotas).
i'm in the same boat as you. i really wanted to like OpenCode but it doesn't seem to work properly for me. i keep going back to CC.
Running it in Crush right now and so far fairly impressed. It seems roughly in the same zone as Sonnet, but not as good as Opus or GPT 5.2.
For others like me who did not know about Crush:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44736176
Funny how they didn't include Gemini 3.0 Pro in the bar chart comparison, considering that it seems to do the best in the table view.
Also, funny how they included GPT-5.0 and 5.1 but not 5.2... I'm pretty sure they ran the benchmarks for 5.0, then 5.1 came out, so they ran the benchmarks for 5.1... and then 5.2 came out and they threw their hands up in the air and said "fuck it".
gpt-5.2 codex isn't available in the API yet.
If you want to be picky they could've compared it against gpt-5 pro gpt-5.2 gpt-5.1 gpt-5.1-codex-max gpt-5.2 pro
all depending on when they ran benchmarks (unless, of course, they are simply copying OAI's marketing).
At some point it's enough to give OAI a fair shot and let OAI come out with their own PR, which they doubtlessly will.
I didn't even notice that, I assumed it was the latest GPT version.
after or before running the benchmarks?
Gemini is garbage and does it's own thing most of the time ignoring the instructions
Even if this is one or two iterations behind the big models Claude or openai or Gemini it’s showing large gains. Here’s hoping this gets even better and better and I can run this locally and also that it doesn’t melt my PC.
Although one would hope they can run it locally (which I hope so too but I doubt that with the increase of ram prices, I feel like its possible around 2027-2028). but Even if in the meanwhile we can't, I am sure that competition in general (on places like Openrouter and others) would give a meaningful way to cheapen the prices overall even further than the monopolistic ways of claude (let's say).
It does feel like these models are only behind 6 months tho as many like to say and for some things its 100% reasonable to use it and for some others not so much.
I’ve 128GB of memory in my laptop. But running models with LM studio turns the fans to 100 and isn’t as effective as the hosted models. So I’m not worried about ram. I’m hoping for a revolution or what comes after LLMs to see if local will be better.
I started to love cheap and fast models from China as they provide a lot of bang for the buck.
Can't wait for the benchmarks at artifical analysis
From my limited exposure to these models, they seem very very very promising.
less than 30 bucks for entire year, insanely cheap
(I know that people must pay it on privacy) but still for maybe playing around with still worth it imo
Are you saying the reason they are offering it so cheap is because they are training on user data?
They say they dont train on your inputs. But their tos dosent prevent them from doing that.
My guess is they do train on slightly altered/obfuscated user data.
their model are cheap to run but not cheap $30 bucks a year
so yeah its both
Looking forward to getting these new models on Thaura.
Funny enough they excluded 4.5 opus :)
I'm completely blown away by ZAI GLM 4.7.
Great performance for coding after I snatched a pretty good deal 50%+20%+10%(with bonus link) off.
60x Claude Code Pro Performance for Max Plan for the almost the same price. Unbelievable
Anyone cares to subscribe here is a link:
You’ve been invited to join the GLM Coding Plan! Enjoy full support for Claude Code, Cline, and 10+ top coding tools — starting at just $3/month. Subscribe now and grab the limited-time deal! Link：
https://z.ai/subscribe?ic=OUCO7ISEDB
I'm completely blown away by ZAI GLM 4.7.
Great performance for coding after I snatched a pretty good deal 50%+20%+10%(with bonus link) off.
60x Claude Code Pro Performance for Max Plan for the almost the same price. Unbelievable
Anyone cares to subscribe here is a link:
https://z.ai/subscribe?ic=OUCO7ISEDB
This guy keeps spamming the same comment. Pretty sure this is a bot.
Grok 4 Heavy wasn't considered in comparisons. Grok meets or exceeds the same benchmarks that Gemini 3 excels at, saturating mmlu, scoring highest on many of the coding specific benchmarks. Overall better than Claude 4.5, in my experience, not just with the benchmarks.
Benchmarks aren't everything, but if you're going to contrast performance against a selection of top models, then pick the top models? I've seen a handful of companies do this, including big labs, where they conveniently leave out significant competitors, and it comes across as insecure and petty.
Claude has better tooling and UX. xAI isn't nearly as focused on the app and the ecosystem of tools around it and so on, so a lot of things end up more or less an afterthought, with nearly all the focus going toward the AI development.
$300/month is a lot, and it's not as fast as other models, so it should be easy to sell GLM as almost as good as the very expensive, slow, Grok Heavy, or so on.
GLM has 128k, grok 4 heavy 256k, etc.
Nitpicking aside, the fact that they've got an open model that is just a smidge less capable than the multibillion dollar state of the art models is fantastic. Should hopefully see GLM 4.7 showing up on the private hosting platforms before long. We're still a year or two from consumer gear starting to get enough memory and power to handle the big models. Prosumer mac rigs can get up there, quantized, but quantized performance is rickety at best, and at that point you look at the costs of self hosting vs private hosts vs $200/$300 a month (+ continual upgrades)
Frontier labs only have a few years left where they can continue to charge a pile for the flagship heavyweight models, I don't think most people will be willing to pay $300 for a 5 or 10% boost over what they can run locally.
It seems like someone at X.ai likes maxing benchmarks but real world usage shows it significantly behind frontier models.
I do appreciate their desire to be the most popular coding model on OpenRouter and offer Grok4-Fast for free. That's a notable step down from frontier models but fine for lots of bug fixing. I've put hundreds of millions of tokens through it.
In my experience, Grok 4 expert performs way worse then what the benchmarks say.
I’ve tried it with coding, writing and instructions following. The only thing it excels at currently and searching for things across the web is+ twitter.
Otherwise, I would never use it for anything else. At coding, it always includes an error, when it patches it, it introduces another one. When writing creative text and had to follow instructions, it hallucinates a lot.
Based on my experience, I am suspecting XAI for bench-maxing on Artificial Analysis because no way Grok 4 expert performs close to Gpt-5.2, Claude sonnet 4.5 and Gemini 3 pro
Excuse my grammar error, I wrote this shortly before falling asleep
Grok, in my experience, is extremely prone to hallucinations when not used for coding. It will readily claim to have access to internal Slack channels at companies, it will hallucinate scientific papers that do not exist, etc. to back its claims.
I don’t know if the hallucinations extend to code, but it makes me unwilling to consider using it.
Fair - it's gotten significantly better over the last 4 months or so, and hallucinations aren't nearly as bad as they once were. When I was using Heavy, it was excellent at ensuring grounding and factual statements, but it's not worth $100 more than ChatGPT Pro in capabilities or utility. In general, it's about the same as ChatGPT Pro - once every so often I'll have to call out the model making something up, but for the most part they're good at using search tools and ensuring claims get grounding and confirmation.
I do expect them to pull ahead, given the resources and the allocation of developers at xAI, so maybe at some point it'll be clearly worth paying $300 a month compared to the prices of other flagships. For now, private hosts and ChatGPT Pro are the best bang for your buck.
1 reply →
I had Grok write me a 150 line shell script which it nearly oneshot, except for the fact it made a one character typo in some file path handling code that took me an hour to diagnose. On one hand it’s so close to being really really good for coding, but on the other with this sort of errors (unlike other frontier models which have easily diagnosable error modes) it can be super frustrating. I’m hopeful we will see good things from Grok 5 in the coming months.
Perhaps people are steering clear of grok due to its extremist political training.
This is a silly meme.
4 replies →
every time i use grok is get some bad results. basically is all 1000% perfect from his point of view, review the code... "bollocks" methods that dont exists or just one line of code or method created with a nice comment: //#TODO implement
Opus > Codex > Gemini in my opinion, grok is not even close
" Grok 4 Heavy wasn't considered in comparisons. Grok meets or exceeds the same benchmarks that Gemini 3 excels at, saturating mmlu, scoring highest on many of the coding specific benchmarks. Overall better than Claude 4.5, in my experience, not just with the benchmarks."
I think these types of comments should just be forbidden from Hacker News.
It's all feelycraft and impossible to distinguish from motivated speech.