> If it's ~30% bigger and not as good as GLM 5.2, why would I tinker with this model?

The benchmarks never tell the full story. Some of the open weights models have been benchmaxxed for a while. Their utility on real work can be different than the benchmark number.

The multimodal input is also a big deal. Having vision input is really helpful for a lot of tasks.

▲

speedping a day ago | parent | next [-]

I second that. Gemini 3.5 Flash rocks the benchmark charts but is terrible as an agent. Horrible instruction adherence and makes WAY too many tool calls

▲

Der_Einzige a day ago | parent | next [-]

Gemini 3.1 pro is still better at creative writing than any other model.

▲

luckydata a day ago | parent | prev [-]

which cheap models have you found work best as agents?

	▲	verdverm a day ago \| parent [-]
		Most of the bigger open weight models are pretty good. You can get them per-token from companies like Fireworks or OpenCode

▲

buremba a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Then why are they publishing the benchmarks which makes them look worse than GLM 5.2?

	▲	godelski a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Because it's still informative
	▲	buremba a day ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I'm not sure why I'm being downvoted but I didn't mean it in a negative way. For such announcement, I would expect them to give me clues on when I should use this model and in which cases it's the best one. The benchmarks that they share doesn't indicate that it's cheaper to run than other models, or can fit in my local machine, or excels in a specific vertical. After reading the comments here and X, I can see it being the top-3 multi-modal open-source model though.
	▲	verdverm a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		being close is still impressive, especially for their first (released) model gives me hope that the training moat is even smaller than we thought