The link has 6 well-known benchmarks where this beats Fable (out of 14 I counted). If the numbers hold up scrutiny, this is scary good.

Forget about their pricing but the companies that do have means to host such models fully on-prem are also the same companies that are paying tens of millions of $ in inference cost every month, and are by extension the biggest customers of OAI and Anthropic

▲

InsideOutSanta 11 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> If the numbers hold up scrutiny, this is scary good.

After using it for a few hours, I believe these benchmarks.

▲

echelon an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Open Source >>> Closed Source [1]

I don't want to cheer against my country, but we've given up on open source. The way Anthropic and OpenAI treat their customers as adversaries is embarrassing.

I will cheer for China, for Kimi, and for z.ai until we have something in the same category.

[1] I'd even be fine with open weights, fair source, or anything that let us have direct access to the weights. Even if that came with stipulations. Don't hide the weights from us.

	▲	GodelNumbering an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I am with you in the spirit of openweights but I am trying to hard-avoid bringing countries into this. The narrative of US vs China only benefits those who want regulatory capture in the US since attacking China is politically much easier than attacking open-weights, so certain groups like to repeatedly call them 'Chinese models'.