News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Kimi K2.5 Technical Report [pdf] by margorczynski on Friday January 30, 2026 @02:28PM (#46828776)
I wonder how K2.5 + OpenCode compares to Opus with CC. If it is close I would let go of my subscription, as probably a lot of people.
Re:Kimi K2.5 Technical Report [pdf] by eknkc on Friday January 30, 2026 @03:17PM (#46829306)
It is not opus. It is good, works really fast and suprisingly through about its decisions. However I've seen it hallucinate things.

Just today I asked for a code review and it flagged a method that can be `static`. The problem is it was already static. That kind of stuff never happens with Opus 4.5 as far as I can tell.

Also, in an opencode Plan mode (read only). It generated a plan and instead of presenting it and stopping, decided to implement it. Could not use the edit and write tools because the harness was in read only mode. But it had bash and started using bash to edit stuff. Wouldn't just fucking stop even though the error messages it received from opencode stated why. Its plan and the resulting code was ok so I let it go crazy though...

Re:Kimi K2.5 Technical Report [pdf] by esafak on Friday January 30, 2026 @04:06PM (#46829881)
Some models have a mind of their own. I keep them on a leash with `permission` blocks in OC -- especially for rm/mv/git.
Re:Kimi K2.5 Technical Report [pdf] by naragon on Friday January 30, 2026 @03:11PM (#46829233)
I've been using K2.5 with OpenCode to do code assessments/fixes and Opus 4.5 with CC to check the work, and so far so good. Very impressed with it so far, but I don't feel comfortable canceling my Claude subscription just yet. Haven't tried it on large feature implementations.
Re:Kimi K2.5 Technical Report [pdf] by ithkuil on Friday January 30, 2026 @03:09PM (#46829210)
I also wonder if CC can be used with k2.5 with the appropriate API adapter
Re:Kimi K2.5 Technical Report [pdf] by tjuene on Friday January 30, 2026 @04:27PM (#46830134)
Re:Kimi K2.5 Technical Report [pdf] by jauntywundrkind on Friday January 30, 2026 @09:01PM (#46832586)
I've been drafting plans/specs in parallel with Opus and Kimi. Then asking them to review the others plan.

I still find Opus is "sharper" technically, tackles problems more completely & gets the nuance.

But man Kimi k2.5 can write. Even if I don't have a big problem description, just a bunch of specs, Kimi is there, writing good intro material, having good text that more than elaborates, that actually explains. Opus, GLM-4.7 have both complemented Kimi on it's writing.

Still mainly using my z.ai glm-4.7 subscription for the work, so I don't know how capable it really is. But I do tend to go for some Opus in sticky spots, and especially given the 9x price difference, I should try some Kimi. I wish I was set up for better parallel evaluation; feels like such a pain to get started.