Kimi K2.7 Code is generally available in GitHub Copilot

https://github.blog/changelog/2026-07-01-kimi-k2-7-is-now-available-in-github-copilot/

by unliftedq • 21 days ago

417 185 21 days ago

github.blog

boundless88• 21 days ago

When will GitHub Copilot support integrating custom models?

Klaster_1• 21 days ago

AFAIK you can already use custom models in VSCode Copilot, but probably not for cloud workloads yet.

ignoramous• 21 days ago

Copilot Chat supports BYOK since Oct 2025 for the VSCode plugin: https://code.visualstudio.com/blogs/2026/06/18/byok-vscode

mvATM99• 21 days ago

It does, but it's very poorly documented and quite unstable (on purpose i think). What the other commenter said about the VSCode BYOK seems to be the more reliable way.

I tried adding a Foundry LLM as Github Copilot custom model and failed miserably. But with VSCode BYOK (and Github Copilot as the interfact) i did get it working, and i can now use Deepseek V4 Flash with Copilot.

summarity• 21 days ago

It has supported custom, local, any BYOM for quite a while.

I work at GitHub but even then I often use OpenRouter models in the CLI and Copilot App

andhuman• 21 days ago

Finally an alternative to the big dogs that a company can use. People have been asking for a way to run the Chinese models from a trusted provider. Here GitHub delivered!

The performance, if we trust the benchmarks, put it at Sonnet 4.6.

Let’s see if it’s worth it with GitHubs pricing.

MangoCoffee• 21 days ago

Microsoft needs to offer cheaper option since they change to token based billing. GPT-5.4 used to be x1 for yearly subscriber but now it cost 6x. i run out the premium request for just couple prompts. Github copilot for $10 used to be the best value since you get all the US AI labs model for cheap.

sneezychl• 21 days ago

CoPilot was an insanely good value while it lasted. Only moneysoft could subsidize a service that much.

w4yai• 21 days ago

People have been asking for a way to run the Chinese models from a trusted provider

I'm going to be called a chiller again, but at this point I don't care as it is relevant. Synthetic runs their own models for a reasonable price, GLM5.2 & Kimi K2.7-Code included.

Referral link :

https://synthetic.new/?referral=kwjqga9QYoUgpZV

hgoel2• 21 days ago

Being on Copilot means your employer lets you use it at work. It's essentially Copilot's primary value add in the new billing model.

newaccountman2• 20 days ago

OpenCode is an ez way as well

credit_guy• 20 days ago

The performance, if we trust the benchmarks, put it at Sonnet 4.6.

I don't trust these benchmarks. I used a number of times Kimi K2.7 and I was disappointed. It would run in circles for things that Claude would do in one shot. However, my usage was via Ollama cloud, and I have no idea if they serve the actual model or a quantized version, and it was the quantization that degraded the performance.

The great news, in my opinion, is the precedent. If Microsoft is now serving Kimi K2.7, then very soon they might start serving GLM 5.2, and that is indeed a very competitive model.

rpdillon• 20 days ago

Check your harness. I use Kimi K2.6 for a lot of stuff with OpenCode and omp and it's extremely effective. I'm gonna try 2.7, but it should be capable model based on what I've seen with previous models.

impact_sy• 21 days ago

When will DeepSeek be available?

pkaye2• 21 days ago

The V4 models are already in the Azure AI foundry so maybe a good chance of it coming.

websap• 21 days ago

Where is the inference running?

pkaye2• 21 days ago

Azure. It was already available on the Azure AI Foundry before.

https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/reference/ai-models/model...

Tepix• 21 days ago

On servers that are subject to the CLOUD Act. Expect no GDPR compliance.

cassianoleal• 21 days ago

Most European infrastructure runs on the big clouds, who are all subject to the same act. No one cares, unfortunately.

TiredOfLife2• 21 days ago

https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/reference/ai-models/model...

They are run by Moonshot itself, so probably china

rombert• 21 days ago

That page states

These models are hosted on US-based Azure AI Foundry infrastructure managed by GitHub and Microsoft. Customer prompts and responses are not sent to the original model developers.

So not in China.

SeriousM• 21 days ago

Who really cares? The model multipliers and the artificial currency were the final nail in the Github Copilot coffin.

sognetic• 21 days ago

Enterprises still have big contracts with github, those companies are imposing tight spending limits now and if the open weight models enable those limits to last a bit longer that's probably quite popular.

mmusc• 21 days ago

Yes significantly cheaper to run compared to the other models, tried it for an hour yesterday and the results look promising.

Saw in a discussion on Reddit that the team is evaluating glm5.2 so hopefully more to come!

scriptsmith• 21 days ago

Is GitHub Copilot the best positioned platform for enterprise? They support Claude, GPT, Gemini, and now even open weight models. Larger orgs are paying at API rates anyway so it costs just as much as anywhere else. They have a pretty good agent CLI and SDK, and now a desktop app. They have hosted agents, and you can run their 'Agentic Workflows' in CI.

Has their reputation tanked so much that the alternatives get all the buzz? Or is it that non-enterprise users are priced out by the usage costs, so no free marketing?

gunalx• 21 days ago

The rugpull with the pricing change without further notice was not taken kindly by enterprice.

attentive• 21 days ago

They were, until they decided to commit suicide for the service.

lbreakjai• 21 days ago

We just cancelled everyone's plans and rolled liteLLM out internally. We kept it for the insanely cheap tokens, but now that they've switched to the new pricing, they're just like openrouter, just with far fewer models.

hrpnk2• 20 days ago

There is literally no more reason to use their service. I don't need a monthly expiring token pool drained at API pricing which I can get from any provider.

theplumber• 21 days ago

For some reasons compilot seems dummer than vscode Claude or vscode codex. I can’t tell what’s the exact reason but it didn’t feel right

a_c2• 21 days ago

Must be the system prompts. Ask copilot to dump its system prompt, and compare the system prompt with claude. It is not accurate but handy. I bet they are quite different

kasey_junk• 21 days ago

Their harness is terrible compared to any of the other cli based harnesses I test against. Like shockingly bad.

This comes up all the time at work because the vendor management people don’t understand the llm ecosystem and think Claude through copilot is the same as Claude through Claude code.

A simple side by side comparison will show dramatic under performance 3 or 4 times out of five when I’m asked to explain the difference.

skybrian• 21 days ago

Looks like it’s the same price on Fireworks AI?

https://fireworks.ai/blog/kimi-k2p7-code

I don’t know much about them but they did a deal with Microsoft in March:

https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/introducing-fireworks...

TiredOfLife2• 21 days ago

https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/reference/ai-models/model...

Says that they are run by Moonshot

calumcl• 21 days ago

These models are hosted on US-based Azure AI Foundry infrastructure managed by GitHub and Microsoft. Customer prompts and responses are not sent to the original model developers.

From your link: https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/reference/ai-models/model....

nsoonhui• 21 days ago

I used GitHub Copilot for my VS 2026 development and switched between ChatGPT and Claude. That was before I discovered Claude Code and the Codex app. Copilot was OK for my purposes, and the USD 10 per month fee was enough for my usage.

However, last month they introduced a new pricing model ( I know the old pricing was not sustainable), and my USD 10 was exhausted within days. Because of that, I switched to Claude Code and Codex and have never looked back. Yes, tokens on Claude Code and Codex are subsidized heavily, but let's just enjoy when good things last.

I do feel there is a difference between using Claude via Copilot versus using Claude directly in Claude Code. I'm not sure what Microsoft is doing behind the scenes.

arikrahman4• 21 days ago

I had a similar experience moving away from Copilot within Zed. Now using the reasonix harness for Deepseek that makes cache hits almost free. And that's with unsubsidized American providers like Digital Ocean or Cloudflare.

k__4• 21 days ago

Nice.

I paid $6 yesterday for DeepSeek V4 Flash on OpenRouter. That's like $120 dollar for a month, and it's not even a good model.

toyg2• 21 days ago

I tried using Zed but with local models it constantly breaks on tool calls. I wanted to like it but the smell of vibing is just too much.

VortexLain• 21 days ago

What is the average monthly token price for daily reasonix use?

sydneypan• 20 days ago

Yep reasonix is an absolute case study of caching. They literally compiled byte level cache in their design and it is insane. i can one shot many workflows, apps in under 0.05 cents.

altmanaltman• 21 days ago

My copilot quota finished in maybe 2-3 prompts with claude 4.8 opus. i was expecting it to suck but not this bad. it was good while it lasted though

taspeotis• 21 days ago

The harness is super important, what tools are available and the system prompts vary from harness to harness.

Anthropic seems to have a modest lead on their harness and models, so it’s a best-of-both-worlds scenario.

I'm not sure what Microsoft is doing behind the scenes

It’s probably the exact same model, but the tools and the prompts around it are worse, so you get worse results.

Vinnl3• 21 days ago

So if you use Claude via Copilot in Zed... You use Zed's harness, I think? What does Copilot do, at that point?

kilburn• 21 days ago

The harness was absolutely not an issue in my case.

The new pricing model where I got banned from using Opus entirely and half a day of work (with weaker models) consumed the 10$ plan was.

I'm now using a Claude Max subscription and I can get close to the daily limits but I'm fairly happy with the overall plan consumption.

irthomasthomas• 21 days ago

Claude in Claude code has been shown to perform persistently worse in evals than claude + a minimal harness.

happyweasel• 21 days ago

Same ,I switched to cursor. I told it how to invoke msbuild and it can edit away without needing a native Visual studio plugin.. no problems at all. Target language c++

seanieb• 21 days ago

GitHub Copilot costs have ballooned in recent week, what once took $100 requires $300. I like using Claude with VS Code through Copilot and I feel it’s given me much better code, that I can control the quality. It’s much more transparent than Claude Code. It’s open source but and the IDE interface gives so many more features to have you context and control over whats generated. The increase in cost isn’t purely due to their price increases but also the Opus models agents use more tokens. So I’ve moved to Claude Code and I’m happily still using Opus 4.6. Fable and 4.7 seem to do much larger units of work, go off on tangents and make assumptions that frequently results in slop.

kingstnap2• 21 days ago

Input: $0.95

Cache hit (most important): $0.19

Output: $4.00

This is the same as how much Moonshot charges for it, and it puts it at roughly the price of GPT 5.4 mini, not a bad option.

For some context here is a stupid prompt that wastes tokens: "Play a game of tic tac toe against yourself on a 5x5 board, you need 5 in a row to win."

It costs $0.006 on Kimi K2.7, and you get to see the whole raw reasoning trace.

GPT-5.4 mini costs $0.016 and its summarized.

And in case you are wondering both play incredibly stupidly.

Kimi:

      A   B   C   D   E
  1   .   .   .   .   .
  2   .   .   .   .   .
  3   X   X   X   X   X
  4   .   O   O   O   O
  5   .   .   .   .   .

GPT 5.4 mini:

  1: X X X X X
  2: O O . . .
  3: . . O . .
  4: . . . O .
  5: . . . . O

asimovDev• 21 days ago

when i will be extremely bored, I think I will make two models play chess against each other. I bet there's a chess benchmark / llm tournament already somewhere

rusticpenn• 21 days ago

Models are bad at chess. I am using a middleman to help models play chess and experimenting. https://abhay-ai.github.io/R_Daneel_AI/

fuglede_• 20 days ago

In fact, you don't even need an LLM tournament when you can have tom7's Elo World tournament: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpXy041BIlA

kingstnap2• 21 days ago

Btw if anyone is wondering, GPT 5.5 does the same garbage as 5.4 mini for 4 times the cost.

Fable manages to make a reasonable game, at a cost of 40 cents.

  X X O O O
  O O X X X
  X X X O O
  X O O X O
  X O X X O

ubanholzer• 21 days ago

Nice idea. I just asked Haiku to do the same in Claude Chat on iOS: it created a interactive react game, implemented the rules and let it play. Clever move for 1$ input and 5$ output, Anthropic!

a_c2• 21 days ago

While LLM models are bad at games, they are perfectly capable of writing a RL agent to train on the game itself.

grumbelbart2• 21 days ago

Is there a zero-retention option?

tapirl• 21 days ago

Unlike Google, the AI wave appears to deliver positive revenue impacts for Microsoft.

The company does need to integrate the new AI-human-machine interface into its application development SDKs.

Kon5ole2• 21 days ago

I am a huge fan of Copilot CLI. It just feels so logical and low-friction to use compared to Claude Code. Having the ability to juggle various models at will is really nice too. ("Plan this using Opus 4.6, let GPT 5.4 verify the plan and give feedback before implementing with Sonnet 4.6").

Unfortunately the June pricing change for Copilot forced me personally as well as my entire department at work to switch to Claude Code. With copilot we were hitting a few dollars of extra spend over the included credits in April and May, then in June we started chewing through the monthly budget every 2-3 days.

Just a completely insane price hike from the customer's perspective, I don't know what MS were thinking there.

Even if that is the price they need to be sustainable they should have waited until the competition changed their prices first. I wouldn't be surprised if Copilot lost 50% or more of their customer base last month.

Eventually this could be where all the major players set their prices, so the thought occurs to me that nations should run some form of "public access AI", just like they did for TV. Use the free open models and use tax money to finance a few datacenters. Geo-lock the use and set strict throttles to manage load, but let school children and citizens use that AI freely otherwise.

If Copilot's pricing is the level for all AI in a few years, only the unicorn companies can afford to use them, and everybody else has no chance of competing with a company that can use AI.

nsbk2• 21 days ago

The price hike was insane. My $dayjob is moving away from Copilot and into Claude Code subscriptions. In parallel we are testing AWS bedrock and Deepinfra for open weight models in preparation for when CC inevitably stops being such a good deal and aligns with actual token cost. Fun times.

Incipient• 21 days ago

I had to do the same. I expect everything will go token pricing, and at that point a LOT of small/mid businesses will drastically change how they use code.

I've swapped to the 20x Claude plan for a month or two to knock out two ideas I need to get it MVP - expecting Claude to go token priced soon.

K3UL• 20 days ago

The price hike was insane yes, but because they were eating the price difference. How exaclty does moving to a Claude sub is better, when it's actually more expensive ?

At my company we did the comparison and Copilot still wins: for 20$ you get a seat and 20$ of usage, whereas with Claude enterprise you get a seat and then usage is completely added. Moreover usage in Copilot is exactly the price of the providers AND it allows us to use various models from multiple providers.

The case that might be less expensive is if you negociate a volume discount with AWS for Bedrock usage, but that is also possible with GitHub and Microsoft.

ffsm83• 21 days ago

they should have waited until the competition changed their prices first.

They did...

They're literally just passing on the costs https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing

Anthropic just provides a subscription - which Enterprise usually doesn't want you to use because everything you're submitting through that will be trained on / becomes part of their model.

So If you use it without explicit permission from your employer you may be committing a contract violation which can have serious consequences - up to jail time - as they can sue you for that.

phillipcarter• 20 days ago

It's a little more complicated than that, unfortunately.

If you use Claude via API in your own app, you're paying full price.

If you have an "API Plan" for Claude Code (i.e., free), you're paying full price.

If you have a Pro, Max, Max 5x, or Max 20x, your tokens are subsidized up until a rate limit. Then you pay full price for usage thereafter, until the end of the billing cycle.

The widespread belief in industry right now is that the per-seat pricing (which Copilot bailed from first) is going to go away in the near-term.

ac29• 20 days ago

Anthropic just provides a subscription - which Enterprise usually doesn't want you to use because everything you're submitting through that will be trained on / becomes part of their model.

My Pro account very clearly has a toggle for "Help improve our AI models: Allow the use of your chats and coding sessions to train and improve Anthropic AI models."

pantulis2• 21 days ago

I am a huge fan of Copilot CLI. It just feels so logical and low-friction to use compared to Claude Code.

Honest question, can you ellaborate? If given the option, I use OpenCode but what do you find in Copilot CLI that makes you prefer it to Claude Code?

gwerbin• 21 days ago

Not OP but Copilot CLI is really straightforward, almost minimal in some sense. It's a lot like OpenCode but stripped down.

I also use the Copilot ACP server inside Pycharm and that works decently well too, although it has some annoying bugs, but if you're a Jetbrains user you're used to annoying bugs.

Kon5ole2• 20 days ago

It's a combination of small things really. The mentioned ability to easily call on various models in the same prompt, having agent definitions be able to orchestrate other agents just by mentioning it in the description, doing things like goal/loop automatically.

There is also IMO a distinct difference in "tone" in the dialogue. Claude seems to impersonate a human a bit more than I like.

Claude is of course very good as well and does a few things better than copilot too, but overall I'd prefer to use Copilot.

deckar01• 20 days ago

Letting them automatically pick the model is no longer sustainable, but there are some very efficient models that are capable of executing the plan created by a much nicer model. It’s kind of embarrassing to think that Microsoft’s auto model selection was choosing cutting edge reasoning models for tasks like resolving dependency conflicts back when their pricing was at a loss.

lanthissa2• 20 days ago

i ran out of claude credits for the first time at work in months and had to fallback to copilot.

pleasantly surprised, claude's way ahead in tooling but the ability to designate what model your subagents use and having access to all models is a better feature than all of what claude offers combine atm.

The only limit on the amount of ai can consume in a month a work is dollars, so anything that helps with cost is the best model/harness for me.

It also did a better job at smart designating subagents itself where as claude often used higher cost models.

monooso• 20 days ago

You can tell Claude Code which model to use for subagents.

For example: https://github.com/monooso/dotfiles/tree/main/.claude/agents

matteocontrini• 20 days ago

Copilot's main target is probably enterprises, who already pay per token with both Claude and Codex, on top of a per-seat subscription. With Copilot they get both Claude and Codex and many other models in one subscription. Also, per-seat price includes usage and the cost of extra usage is identical to going direct with model providers. I'd say it makes sense.

theanonymousone3• 21 days ago

A very sharp slap in the face of those of us who kept our annual plans and didn't ask for s refund: It seems it will not be available to annual subscriptions.

mellosouls2• 21 days ago

where does it say that? its not available to me (also annual) at the moment via cloud but it said it is rolling out gradually, so I'm not too concerned. Tho I'm not overly excited either given Copilot pricing now; I reckon this should be at most 1x.

theanonymousone3• 20 days ago

They say it here: https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/reference/copilot-billing...

But then again they released MAI despite this, so I don't know.

c7b9• 21 days ago

Gotta say, I've lost all interest in cloud-based AI products. Too many cool features and workflows that I was once excited about that I can't or don't use anymore for a variety of reasons (price hikes, subjectively nerfed, disappeared altogether, replaced,...) for me to even remember. It's tiring.

I've set up a small rig, mostly settled on Qwen3.6 and I'm slowly adding features myself. It probably can't compete with Claude. I don't even know, I've stopped checking. It's providing a ton of value to me as is, and it only keeps getting better. All it takes is to realize that it doesn't actually matter if the grass is (maybe even objectively) greener somewhere else. Feels so good to know that it won't change under my feet. I've got this amazing, highly extensible tool, and it's mine.

JSR_FDED2• 21 days ago

This sounds very appealing. What size Mac mini would I need for that?

blensor3• 21 days ago

I am curious if you implicitly assumed they are Macs or if that's what you are looking for specifically?

jadbox• 21 days ago

A PC with an nvidia card with 16gb vram works just fine for Qwen MoE models, and these have worked great as a daily driver for me.

mathgeek• 20 days ago

Good summary blog: https://maloyan.xyz/blog/running-qwen-locally-mac-mini-m4

c7b9• 20 days ago

Personally, I would always max out the RAM you can fit into your budget. You might get lower bandwidth (= slower generation) than you do on a Mac if you choose a Strix Halo or DGX Spark, but there are always new tweaks being discovered to speed things up. That being said, with 32GB you should be able to fit an ok quant of 35B-A3B or 27B with some context, with 64GB you should be golden.

SwellJoe3• 20 days ago

A 4-bit quantization of either Qwen 3.6 27b or Gemma 4 31b will run on a 32GB Mac with a decent-sized, but not full-sized, context. 64GB gets you the full ~256k context and you don't need to quantize your KV cache (though 8-bit quantization of KV may be worth it for performance). The 4-bit QAT version of Gemma 4 has practically identical performance to the full size version or the 8-bit version in most benchmarks and my tests, so there's no reason to run anything else. The 4-bit Qwen is a little bit lossy, as it hasn't gotten the QAT treatment, but not catastrophically lossy. A 6-bit dynamic quantization would be better for that model, but it's ~25GB on disk, and you'll need more than 32GB to run it with a big context.

I wrote up how I run local LLMs, with numbers and a focus on running Qwen 3.6 and Gemma 4. I prefer Gemma 4 31b, even though the general consensus is that Qwen 3.6 is better for code, and it is better on most coding focused benchmarks...it doesn't seem to be for my use cases, Gemma feels smarter. And, with QAT, you get more smarts in less memory, so it's fast and runs on more hardware.

https://swelljoe.com/post/how-i-run-local-llms/

Currently, the sweet spot for self-hosted models is either Qwen 3.6 or Gemma 4, and those top out at 31B (Gemma) and 35B (for Qwen, but you want the dense Qwen 3.6 27B if you can run it as reasonable speed...the dense models are much smarter), so for now, a system with 64GB or 128GB is going to be running the same models. Going to a bigger model doesn't get you better performance because there aren't any better models that are a little bigger. I wish there was a ~70B or even ~120B MoE in the Qwen 3.6 or Gemma 4 families, as I've got a Strix Halo running a model that leaves a lot of memory on the table (and it's not very fast, to boot...an MoE would be faster, and hopefully smarter if it's a much bigger model, like double or triple sized).

In short, right now, 64GB is all you need for the best models you can self-host on anything short of five-figure machines, but, I wouldn't buy any hardware right now, if you can wait a while. Tokens from DeepSeek are so cheap, you can wait out the memory shortage and get access to models you could never host locally. And, OpenRouter always has free models in preview or just because that you can use lightly, as they're rate-limited (but your self-hosted models are going to be rate-limited, too, because a Mac Mini can't run models very fast). Google AI Studio has the Gemma 4 models for free too, also rate/usage limited.

anon373839• 21 days ago

What features/workflows have you added?

c7b9• 20 days ago

Web search, MTP (speeds up generation), uncensored models. Lots more things on my bucket list (eg various things related to image generation).

Not gonna lie, if you're coming from ChatGPT/Claude Code, you'll mostly be adding back features you've taken for granted, or solving problems you wouldn't have had. But sometimes you do get some extra utility, like uncensored models, which have become my go-to. Not because I'm doing anything saucy, but I hated how I'd become trained to pre-emptivly self-censor my prompts. The guardrails in open weights models are no less strong than in proprietary ones, subjectively even a bit stronger in Qwen. But luckily there's an entire sub-discipline of model ablation. Another advantage would be better control over image generation (although I can't attest to that, yet).

hathym• 21 days ago

Same here, I’ve removed my credit card from Copilot and won’t be renewing

cyanydeez4• 21 days ago

I never got into any of the AI models because it was clear local first was going to be more valueable, if they were to replace coding tasks.

I tried out a few models and ended up going with either Qwen3-Coder-Next (no think, just do) and Qwen3.6-35B (thinking, w/llamacpp token budget). Created a customized prompt that works fairly well to around ~60k tokens and then is a toss up on whether it's poisoned itself or I've directly steered it into the wrong. When it's clear that's happened, if it's important to continue, ask it to write a doc then start fresh.

I don't kno whow any one cold have witnessed the last 2 decades of American VC funded tech startups and tell themselves, "you know, this will be a reliable technolgy with no hidden problems".

Even a sober technical evaluation is just two steps:

1. You're proposing to build a app on a non-deterministic model.

2. That model is hosted behind a non-deterministic system (model alignment, model guardrails, system context subterfuge, cost/token pricing)

---

So you want to build your app and you think you're going to kep up with both #1 and #2?

maykthewessen• 21 days ago

Qwen is the Alibaba distilled Anthropic Claude model

So piracy on an by piracy trained ai model..

ACCount37• 21 days ago

We live in a non-deterministic world. Anything "deterministic" in it is a castle built on quicksand.

LLMs are, as far as the nastiness of the Real World goes, really fucking benign. Future models outperform past models, both in open weight land and at the big frontier labs. Performance per $ only ever goes up. That's just nice.

c7b9• 20 days ago

Cool! Anything you want to share? I haven't looked much into my system prompt yet, do you have any tips?

unleaded3• 21 days ago

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-UD-Q4_K_M runs at about 11 tokens/second on my poor old 1060. Absolutely nuts how far we've come

broodbucket• 21 days ago

Mind sharing your llama.cpp settings for that?

piyh• 20 days ago

I tried running any model on my 1070 and it instantly crashes my old tower, probably time to get off windows and run linux on it.

deadbabe• 20 days ago

People want to make it seem like you need to always use the latest and greatest frontier models to be taken seriously as a developer.

You really don’t need them. After a certain point, bigger models give diminishing returns. If you can get 80% of the productivity gain with a free local model, use the local model. It will still be way faster than doing everything by hand, but you also don’t have to pay for tokens to a cloud provider and the tools won’t be ripped away from you on a whim.

This is the new attitude enlightened people should adopt. Reject the arms race.

organsnyder• 20 days ago

The biggest appeal of the frontier models is for those trying to get autonomous agentic systems running that do real work with minimal human input. I went down a rabbit hole trying that with frontier models, and after a lot of initial promise it ended up actually slowing me down.

ravenstine• 20 days ago

People want to make it seem like you need to always use the latest and greatest frontier models to be taken seriously as a developer.

Except you kinda do. Try getting a job today without mentioning Claude experience. In another year it'll probably be something else. Saying you like to use Copilot today makes one seem elderly.

Not saying you need frontier models on a technical basis, but for career PR you probably do.

kamranjon2• 20 days ago

I'm really happy this is one of the top comments here, I am fully local as well.

Just wanted to leave a note for folks who might not have the memory to run a big 32gb model - I just found out there are some pruned models that have really good performance and If I had a smaller machine I might try this pruned unsloth Q4 quant of GLM 4.7 flash that sits at 14gb: https://huggingface.co/unsloth/GLM-4.7-Flash-REAP-23B-A3B-GG...

I usually use LM Studio for this type of thing but unsloth has their own studio type app that might be even better suited for these quants.

I used GLM 4.7 flash as my main model for months and it was an incredibly tenacious model and very very fast - I think on restricted hardware, this could be a great choice.

MrDrMcCoy4• 19 days ago

It's a good model for sure, but it's training set is based on some pretty old stuff. Would be good to post-train any languages / frameworks you care about being current into a LoRA for it. I even had to do that for the newer Qwen3.6, but it wasn't too hard thanks to Unsloth.

pyreko• 20 days ago

Same here, been happy throwing Qwen3.6 on my old MBP - no it's not as fast as Claude which I use at work, but it works well enough locally and I don't have to worry about credits or shit like the rug getting pulled under me in terms of capabilities.

jug• 20 days ago

I often feel like we're nowadays mostly pushing AI developments in the ways of finetuning differences. Like how new editions of Claude are tuned for agentic coding which might even be detrimental if you're using it for non-agentic coding. Or how Fable 5 in fact do look great but at a huge cost for inference and a high likelihood of post-launch nerfs or limit/price revisions. How Gemini 3.5 has more liberal limits but on the other hand underperforms a bit.

It's like we're mostly treading mud at this point. New editions are released, a version number increases, but I have to wonder if all steps are forward or they're more just tuned differently with similar actual perf per dollar as when this year began.

Most in fact seem to be happening to me with small models. Like your Qwen. Or Gemma 4 31B which is kinda magic especially when considering multilingual abilities. So yes, in that sense I can see "development" probably as we refine data sets and training methods but I see it less on the big hulking beasts with daily limits (unless you turn it up to 11 like Fable).

Edit: As I posted this, I saw a "before and after" comparison for Fable and the reintroduced version is seeing a catastrophic drop in BridgeBench performance as they're still mucking with the model. Go figure... https://x.com/Hesamation/status/2072692225100612032

KolmogorovComp• 21 days ago

What's the credit cost compared to Gemini, Claude and GPT? As others have said, the last month price update killed copilot for good.

matrik• 20 days ago

And why should one prefer GitHub Copilot over OpenCode? Worse harness, more expensive prices, unreliable product strategy, limited model support, the list goes on.

esafak• 20 days ago

Legacy corps on the Microsoft steamboat.

purerandomness• 20 days ago

You can select Copilot as provider in OpenCode.

Copilot is used a safe liability layer for enterprises, not as an actual harness.

At $OURCORP we are only allowed to use models available in Copilot. No problem to use them in OpenCode.

boronine• 20 days ago

For any small team wanting to try Copilot, heed my warning that you will waste hours navigating their billing settings using various out-of-date documentation. Long story short, I finally got an email from them saying that "Copilot Business is available for teams purchasing 10 or more licenses". This is undocumented but other people are reporting the same: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/199346

We're sticking with Cursor for now, using Kimi as our daily driver (branded as "Composer").

e2e42• 20 days ago

Much better value by using K2.7 Code with GitHub cli via opencode subscription - at $10/month gives you $60 worth of usage (for now) - you get $5 usage credits per day (with some weekly / monthly limits)

ps opencode cli is quite nice too

e2e42• 20 days ago

If you want to get an extra $5 off for the first month (I'll get $5 too) https://opencode.ai/go?ref=XDHX30HEFB

jackbravo• 20 days ago

Odd that AWS Bedrock has very poor support for such models. They only have Kimi 2.5, qwen 3 coder, DeepSeek V3.2, GLM 5. So none of the newer models.

hrpnk2• 20 days ago

Wonder if this is a product decision or rather a limitation on GPUs. Their Inf2 instances require AWS Neuron [1]. Maybe porting models to run on their hardware takes too much time.

[1] https://aws.amazon.com/ai/machine-learning/neuron/

raptor7197• 20 days ago

damn

addozhang• 20 days ago

Finally. Is this the first open weight LLM on Copilot? The gate is opened!

rldjbpin• 20 days ago

all this talk, and the student pack's access to copilot (and i can imagine the free tier) is completely neutered.

you still cannot choose any models nor have much credits to work with (200 per month, around 2 usd). this was luckily the nudge i really needed personally to get out of the vs code paradigm, and i am lowkey glad for it.

overall, we have come full circle where vs code is using a model that one of its fork (cursor) has adapted as the core underlying model for its product.

Kimi K2.7 Code is generally available in GitHub Copilot

Related Stories