They still suck at explaining which model they serve is which, though.

They also released today Qwen3-VL Plus [1] today alongside Qwen3-VL 235B [2] and they don't tell us which one is better. Note that Qwen3-VL-Plus is a very different model compared to Qwen-VL-Plus.

Also, qwen-plus-2025-09-11 [3] vs qwen3-235b-a22b-instruct-2507 [4]. What's the difference? Which one is better? Who knows.

You know it's bad when OpenAI has a more clear naming scheme.

[1] https://modelstudio.console.alibabacloud.com/?tab=doc#/doc/?...

[2] https://modelstudio.console.alibabacloud.com/?tab=doc#/doc/?...

[3] https://modelstudio.console.alibabacloud.com/?tab=doc#/doc/?...

[4] https://modelstudio.console.alibabacloud.com/?tab=doc#/doc/?...

> They still suck at explaining which model they serve is which, though.

"they" in this sentence probably applies to all "AI" companies.

Even the naming/versioning of OpenAI models is ridiculous, and then you can never find out which is actually better for your needs. Every AI company writes several paragraphs of fluffy text with lots of hand waving, saying how this model is better for complex tasks while this other one is better for difficult tasks.

Eh i mean often innovation is made just by letting a lot of fragmented, small teams of cracked nerds trying out stuff. It's way too early in the game. I mean, qwens release statements have anime etc. IBM, Bell, Google, Dell, many did it similarly, letting small focused teams having many attempts at cracking the same problem. All modern quant firms are doing basically the same as well. Anthropic is actually an exception, more like Apple.