| ▲ | budsniffer952 a day ago |
| >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? |
|
| ▲ | tarpitt a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | xyzsparetimexyz 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Stop trying to make abliterate happen. it's not going to happen. | |
| ▲ | ChadNauseam a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | chillfox a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Like making your software secure, or worse, testing that it’s secure. | | |
| ▲ | hsuduebc2 a day ago | parent [-] | | It's pretty annoying, yet somehow understendable. I sometimes get irrationally angry when being lectured by a clanker. | | |
| ▲ | timcobb a day ago | parent [-] | | It's not understandable IMO, bad guys will still have guns. | | |
| ▲ | hsuduebc2 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure they will, but that doesn't mean that every bad guy should have nuclear weapon. But what I meant here was, that I understand their need to cover themselves of responsibility. | | |
| ▲ | timcobb 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Oh yes, their need to cover themselves is understandable for sure :) |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | booi a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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 a day ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | ChadNauseam a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I don’t. although I tried to get it to tell me how to take crack cocaine, and it wouldn’t. But when I was taking grey market peptides, claude walked me through reconstituting, dosing and administering them. I assumed it would behave similarly for other drugs, but it doesn’t seem to | |
| ▲ | tibbar a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Anthropic's goals here are not just harm reduction, but to stop competitors from making bio discoveries using Claude. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Hfuffzehn 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | |
| ▲ | peepee1982 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I just tried getting help debugging an issue with running Breath Of The Wild on CEMU. Claude chat refused. ChatGPT didn't care and just gave advice. | |
| ▲ | fragmede a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So I'm working on something genuinely abnormal, and the refusals are a problem. Then what? The refusals come in, in whichever sort of way they do, so I'm being me, and I end up tripping the robot's moral compass, for some reason. Who put them in charge of things? | |
| ▲ | dannyw 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Eh. Refusals for security related tasks seem to be constantly increasing. |
| |
| ▲ | Der_Einzige a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | The cost of running abliterated GLM-5.2 on western inference providers gets close to that of anthropic Opus and is still dumber on everything except the naughty queries you're trying to do. I love uncensored AI too but we need to be realistic here. | | |
| ▲ | speff a day ago | parent [-] | | I'm trying to break anti-cheat protection in order to mod my own (single-player) game and Opus refuses to help. I don't really care if GLM's dumber at this point if Anthopic's going to be a non-option. At work, layoffs cut too deep and I'm trying to find creative ways to re-discover lost knowledge. Wonder if I'll have to beg them to research our own systems at some point. It's not limited to naughty queries. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | A_D_E_P_T a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > 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 a day ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | mark_l_watson 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What if your measure is cost? Or zero-data-retention? Or diversity of inference providers? On those measures it is better. |
|
| ▲ | epolanski a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > 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. |
