| |
| ▲ | tyre 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think everything has to be Thought Leadership. OP compared the same generation of models to show that the latest open model—at the time of the latest closed model—was Good Enough. I agree that the opener to their reply wasn't productive, but neither is "Weak." | |
| ▲ | dbreunig 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think it’s a fine response when you say, “Doesn't feel well informed enough to give advice,” because I said 5.2 | | |
| ▲ | hypfer 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Idk man, but an engineer would've taken that and said something like: "Damn, yeah, good point, I shall add a sentence mentioning 5.3" Because an engineer feels secure in their knowledge so that such an oversight doesn't make them suddenly defend their identity - it's just an oversight after all. Happens. | | |
| ▲ | simonw 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 5.3 isn't available as open weights yet, and only became available via API three days ago. Prior to that the only way to access it was via a Z.ai subscription. | | |
| ▲ | hypfer 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Yes, weights aren't out yet, but neither are the ones of Fable. Granted, edited in by me, but definitely before you - another thought leader - arrived. he did already tell on himself btw. No point in this charade. | | |
| ▲ | dgellow 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | FWIW you’re not looking good in this engagement, feels very childish, looking for a gotcha that doesn’t mean much | | |
| ▲ | hypfer 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think that depends on the audience. Thank you for caring though :) | | |
| ▲ | kelnos 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Audience member here: I agree with GP; you posts come off as petty and childish. It seems natural to me to make comparisons only to open weight models where the weights have actually been released. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
