There is minimal downside to switching to open models

Re:There is minimal downside to switching to open models by Aurornis on Sunday June 21, 2026 @11:03PM (#48625155)

> I think it's interesting that people write off open weight models because they're "a few months behind" proprietary models

I experiment a lot with the open models and I’m getting tired of this trope. I’m not yet convinced that even the best open weight models are equal to Opus from “a few months” ago.

I know what the benchmarks say. I had higher hopes. My real experience just doesn’t match the benchmarks.

I also do a lot of work that even Opus 4.8 struggles with. When even the cutting edge LLMs aren’t all the way there yet, my motivation to switch to something even further behind just isn’t there.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There is minimal downside to switching to open models by CamperBob2 on Monday June 22, 2026 @12:14AM (#48625598)

Have you found anything specific that the full-precision quant of GLM 5.2 can't do that Opus 4.8 can? I haven't, so far.

5.2 lives up to the hype. I don't find it to be the best at anything except coding. But for coding... yeah, it lives up to the hype. Not quite Opus 4.8-level, but I would feel comfortable comparing it to 4.5, at least if it had vision capabilities.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There is minimal downside to switching to open models by iot_devs on Monday June 22, 2026 @12:37AM (#48625726)

I would love if you could make some examples

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There is minimal downside to switching to open models by OtomotO on Monday June 22, 2026 @01:29AM (#48626060)

> My real experience just doesn’t match the benchmarks.

That's exactly the problem I have... with Anthropic and "Open""AI"

[ Parent | on HN ]