| ▲ | 2001zhaozhao 6 hours ago |
| This seems like a big deal, no? If Qwen had released a Qwen3.8 MoE of similar size, with a naive extrapolation its capabilities would roughly be similar to this model. So basically someone has caught up to Qwen (albeit Qwen from 1-2 months ago) in parameter efficiency. |
|
| ▲ | delicious_apple 6 hours ago | parent [-] |
| I don't agree with that conclusion. I'm looking at the benchmarks page for LFM2.5-24B-A2B, and it appears to get a worse score on SWE-Bench-Verified (by a lot) when compared to Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B. It only clearly beats Qwen 3.6 35B on AutomationBench, ToolSandbox, and LiveClaw. At least for my use cases, Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B appears better than this new release. An MoE for Qwen 3.8 would be even better than that! |
| |
| ▲ | selcuka 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Would you call Qwen 3.6 35B "similar size" with ~50% more parameters (both active and total) though? I believe what GP meant that if there was a Qwen 3.8 24B-A2B, it would roughly be as intelligent as this one. | |
| ▲ | onlyrealcuzzo 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Way more excited for Nvidia's A9B model coming out tomorrow. | | |
| ▲ | cmrdporcupine 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why? Their models are useful as a starting place for doing your own fine tuning, but they have never stood well on their own. | | |
| ▲ | htrp 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | they always undertrain the model | | |
| ▲ | cmrdporcupine 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | yeah it's kind of the point. they're pedagogical tools. they give you the full recipe for building it from scratch or fine-tuning it beyond what it is. but i'm prepared to be surprised, maybe they'll conjure up something standalone useful this time | | |
| ▲ | dofm 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | They have an incentive to produce a more finished model to go with the launch of the RTX Spark laptops, I guess. | | |
| ▲ | nl 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not really - you pay for the hardware. Everyone else already is building models for Spark hardware. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
