easygenes

That’s not what this indicates. This is the biggest and most expensive to serve, and most capable open weights model yet. They’re just pricing it in line with capabilities.

Kimi also offers generous subscriptions. Subs aren’t going anywhere. Think of subs like running an insurance business. There might be some users you lose money on (ones who max out their weekly quota without fail), but they’re managed such that the average subscription turns a healthy profit. There’s never been subsidies in model serving, inference is just cheaper in terms of ops TCO than people assume, and API margins are very high.

Was fun to see their developers make nods to Le Chaton Fat in the announcements for this on Twitter.

I suspect a true "big new general-purpose" model is around the corner from them, whether or not they were in on Le Chaton Fat for real. They've mentioned it after the media circus. Hopefully more creatively named than just "Large 4".

I'm a heavy enough user that I have both the OAI and Anth $200 plans. I always use at least 50% of my weekly Opus quota at Extra setting (meaning I use double the limit of the $100 plan, at minimum). Max I rarely touch because it is twice as slow and the incremental capability gain is minimal. Usually if Opus can't sort something well at Extra, the answer isn't to use Max but to hand the issue off to GPT-5.5 at XHigh.

There are. If the kernels are nondeterministic (e.g. timing issues) there are minor changes between runs, on a single system, even with eager decode enabled (typically what temperature=0 achieves).

This is a strange one. We know the hardware capabilities of Cerebras force them to do aggressive REAP pruning to serve Kimi K2.6. Meaning that about 750B parameters is the upper limit of what they can serve economically. Not sure if this means Sol is smaller than anyone thinks or that they're just going to charge so much that a very inefficient serving regime is feasible.

M5 Ultra will ship before end of year, likely. Though with current RAM shortage, likely max spec will be 256GB and in short supply.

In late 2027 or early 2028, Nvidia will release Vera Rubin DGX Spark, likely with double or better the performance of current Blackwell, though unclear if memory capacity will go up much from current 128GB. Two to four of those will run models like this decently.

In 2028 we should expect Vera Rubin RTX discrete lineup, including the replacement to the RTX PRO 6000. Likely memory spec will be minimum 128GB. Good chance of up to 200GB. Two to four of those will run NVFP4 models in this class very well.

Article reads as though written by someone who doesn't have much experience with deployments like this. Underestimates the memory needed to run with a reasonable amount of context. Misses two other obvious targets:

  1) 4x DGX Spark (or equivalent other GB10 boxes) with a switch (MikroTik CRS504 or CRS804) and TP=4.
  2) 4x RTX PRO 6000 box. Probably the most practical for cost/perf if you want on-prem as an individual.

This model quantizes unusually well: https://unsloth.ai/docs/models/glm-5.2#quantization-analysis

The Wired headline reframes the issue in a way that’s misleading. SK Telecom was a previously resolved issue (as in prior to Fable launch).

It may have been a contributing factor, but the crux of the shutdown was the industry reporting of Fable jailbreaks (reportedly spearheaded by Amazon CEO Andy Jassy). The more interesting and honest angle is that the industry which has taken the seriousness of Glasswing at face value felt blindsided by Fable release and totally exposed by the residual risk, when they know they still have a months-long bugfixing backlog exposed by Glasswing and are desperate to buy more time.

This misleading looks deliberate on Wired’s part, to appear as though they’re getting a scoop when they’re really just being dishonest. Shameful.

This headline is not what I would read from this. The numbers are more favorable than the general tone of rumors, and point towards the expected shape of a fast-growing R&D heavy business.

Announcement from the founder of Z.ai:

“ GLM-5.2 is Fully Open, Frontier Intelligence Belongs to Everyone

Today, the sudden restriction of certain frontier models is deeply regrettable. At a time when access to frontier models is abruptly cut off for non-technical reasons, we are even more convinced of one thing: science should be global.

The path to AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) must never be enclosed by high walls. We have always believed that AGI should be the cornerstone for all of humanity to collaboratively explore the boundaries of intelligence and solve complex challenges, rather than a privilege monopolized by a few rules and subject to revocation at any moment. In the face of external blockades and restrictions, our attitude is one of radical openness. Frontier intelligence must remain open-source, accessible, and buildable, serving every dedicated developer.

GLM-5.2 is Zhipu's most capable open-source model to date. It not only supports a truly usable 1M context window but also maintains a continuous lead in the independent completion of long-horizon tasks, providing solid foundational support for building complex agent applications. It also continues to be our main engine for creating the strongest domestic coding model.

Tonight at 5:21—at this special moment—GLM-5.2 will officially be available to all GLM Coding Plan users (including Lite / Pro / Max). The API will also go live next week.

A step closer to frontier intelligence for everyone. The future of AI is open, and it is for the people. ModelKey: GLM-5.2”

https://x.com/jietang/status/2065784751345287314

This release was rushed to hang on the coattails of the Mythos drama (“hey, sorry you can’t use Fable, but try us while you wait this weekend!”) I think they planned to release next week, hence benchmarks not all being ready yet.

That happened a year ago when these shipped as the DGX Spark with only Linux pre installed.

Mostly a strategy move to protect the CUDA moat… Apple would take over mobile inference in a clean sweep without competition.

This is the same chip and same memory. Only difference is it is going in a laptop, so will be more thermally limited.

If I were paying API rates this year, I would have already burned through $20k in tokens. Looking forward to the costs of this level of capability coming down.

I have now also tried it on this scatter plot: https://3215535692-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-p...

Similarly, the 26B A4B Gemma 4 and the 35B A3B Qwen 3.6 identify it clearly, give me the title and trends analysis fairly accurately. While this 12B spits out gobbledygook about it having something to do with hard-drive capacity. It's like it can barely see, gets the very broad strokes (knows it's looking at some kind of chart), but can't identify any details clearly.

They haven't made one for this new model, but Unsloth has a comprehensive quant KLD map of Gemma 4 26B A4B here: https://3215535692-files.gitbook.io/~/files/v0/b/gitbook-x-p...

I want to like the vision capabilities of the model. However, when I gave it an image which Gemma 26B A4B and Qwen 3.6 35B A3B has no problem correctly describing in detail, including identifying the Taj Mahal in the background it utterly failed. Its sense of the image was that it was a "distorted wide panorama" and even when I asked directly if it was the Taj Mahal it said no. The reference models saw it correctly as a normal square image taken from a fairly rectilinear lens (iPhone main camera).

Have you run it through DeepSWE? I understand that's probably a high ask for this class of model, but would be interesting to see regardless.

Even if it can't fully pass much, there are so many tests against most of the scenarios that you can get a fairly rich report beyond the pass@1 stat. See e.g. this DeepSWE report against the Minimax M3 model: https://entrpi.github.io/misc/deep-swe-minimax-m3/

While I agree directionally, I'll caveat that "cost per token" != "cost per task". In the case of Qwen3.6 it tends to think 1.6x more than Haiku, so the cost of Haiku on the same tasks tends to only be about double. More detail from comparing their Artificial Analysis metrics:

  Qwen3.6-35B-A3B   vs   Claude Haiku 4.5
    reasoning mode · AA Intelligence Index v4.0
  
  46.0 ┤   ↖ better — cheaper · smarter · faster
       │
       │
  44.0 ┤     ╭─────╮
       │     │  ●  │ Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
       │     ╰─────╯
  42.0 ┤
       │
       │
  40.0 ┤
       │
       │
  38.0 ┤                                       ╭───╮
       │                      Claude Haiku 4.5 │ ○ │
       │                                       ╰───╯
  36.0 ┤
       └┬─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬────────┬
        $200    $300      $400      $500      $600    $700
  
    x → cost to run the index (USD)        lower is better
    y → AA intelligence index              higher is better
  
    bubble area = output speed (tokens / sec)
          ╭─────╮                  ╭───╮
          │  ●  │ Qwen ~196 t/s    │ ○ │ Haiku ~93 t/s
          ╰─────╯                  ╰───╯
  
    ┌─────────────────────┬──────────┬──────────┬───────────┐
    │ model               │ AA index │ run cost │ out speed │
    ├─────────────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
    │ Qwen3.6-35B-A3B    ●│   43.5   │   $280   │  196 t/s  │
    │ Claude Haiku 4.5   ○│   37.1   │   $620   │   93 t/s  │
    └─────────────────────┴──────────┴──────────┴───────────┘


    COST PER TOKEN   ≠   COST PER TASK  
    output tokens per index run:
       Haiku 4.5    87.3M   (79.3M reasoning + 8.0M answer)
       Qwen3.6     143.2M   (131.7M reasoning + 11.5M answer)
       → Qwen emits 1.64× more output
  
    ── output speed (tokens / sec) ──────────  raw rate · higher = faster
       Qwen3.6     100%   ~196 t/s
       Haiku 4.5   ~47%   ~93 t/s
                                                  → Qwen ~2.1× faster per token
  
          ╎   1.64× more tokens  <  2.1× faster rate
          ▼
  
    ── solution speed (per finished answer) ──  higher = faster
       Qwen3.6     100%
       Haiku 4.5   ~78%
                                                  → Qwen ~1.3× FASTER to a solution
  
    SCORECARD
                            intelligence    cost / task     speed to solution
     Qwen3.6-35B-A3B        43.5            $280            ~1.3× faster 
     Claude Haiku 4.5       37.1            $620            (slower)
  
     → Qwen wins all three. The reasoning blow-up (1.64×) is smaller than
       the raw-speed edge (2.1×), so Qwen stays ahead per task.

Speaking as someone who has had a DGX Spark all year and been active developing at the driver and kernel level for it and other ARM64 Linux devices the last couple of years, it's not bad now and certainly doesn't have any issues that I wouldn't expect to be fully fixed with the second-gen motherboards going into these. The main hardware issues are not with the core SoC. They're replaceable edge peripherals like the PD PMIC.

Looks like RTX Spark desktop is the DGX Spark desktop, minus the expensive 200GbE Connect-X NIC. Only since the DGX Spark released, memory and nand prices have jumped, so it will likely retail for the same amount as the DGX Spark did on release (which has since gone up significantly).

Claude Opus 4.7 defaults to exactly this design language for a lot of "just make me a rich html presentation page" requests without further specification.

While I endorse the message of TFA (though do find the framing a bit on the overly blunt side), I believe it's unfair to reduce to "losing the person". The person is still willing to engage with you and still had to use their human words to prompt the AI. The latent space they exposed within the model is still uniquely the result of their words and effort.

We're just missing the establishment of a decorum of, "even if you do feel like you need to prompt the AI before responding, and even if you like the response, you still need to paraphrase and synthesize to avoid coming off rude and inhuman."

Their methods are only calibrated on open models (of course) and they admit very broad confidence bounds. You can also just see from comparing their estimates of the same models at different reasoning levels that there are major confounders to this. I would err on the absolute lowest side of their estimates for frontier models (e.g. 3T for GPT-5.5, 1.5-2T for Opus 4.5+).

This is the reality of the premiums available from being in the lead by ~8 months on model building technicals.

We know from NVIDIA's public Vera Rubin inference engine marketing materials that the frontier lab models are ~1-2T total.

Mythos is an exception that's larger.

For those who would like to know the total and active parameter count of this model: even though Google doesn't disclose the model technicals, we can infer them within relatively tight margins based on what we do know.

We know they serve the model on TPU 8i, which we have plenty of hard specs for (so we know the key constraints: total memory and bandwidth and compute flops). We can also set a ceiling on the compute complexity and memory demand of the model based on knowing they will be at least as efficient as what is disclosed in the Deepseek V4 Technical Report.

We can also assume that the model was explicitly built to run efficiently in a RadixAttention style batched serving scenario on a single TPU 8i (so no tensor parallelism, etc. to avoid unnecessary overheads... Google explicitly designed the 8th-generation inference architecture to eliminate the need for tensor sharding on mid-sized models).

We know Google intends to serve this model at a floor speed of around 280 tok/s too.

Putting all these pieces together, we can confidently say this model is ~250-300B total, and 10-16B active parameters. Likely mostly FP4 with FP8 where it matters most.

Visual:

  ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
  │                   TPU 8i VRAM (288 GB)                 │
  ├───────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┤
  │   Static Model Weights    │  Dynamic Allocations &     │
  │   (250B - 300B @ Mixed    │  Compressed KV Caches      │
  │   FP4/FP8)                │  (RadixAttention / SRAM)   │
  │   ~110 GB - 150 GB        │  ~138 GB - 178 GB          │
  └───────────────────────────┴────────────────────────────┘

Edit: There's one factor I under-rated in my initial estimate... TurboQuant. This is a compute to KV memory use tradeoff. It's plausible with TurboQuant at a quality-neutral setting they've gotten the model up to 400B with similar economics. This is a variable effecting concurrency and the the way they decided total model size was likely based on what they see for the average user's average KV cache depth in real-world usage.

This has me pining for a future professional class CAS 3d graphing calculator.

I'm thinking something that could be a major upgrade in spirit to the long-in-the-tooth (released a decade ago) Casio FX-CG500.

Could use the soon to be released ARM C-1 Nano and Pro cores in an SoC with stacked 2GB LPDDR4, USB-C charging to a large battery, high-res transflective LCD...

Mockup "AxiomPad Pro X1": https://enia.cc/out/axiompad-cas-mock.png

Very early in my career I made friends with the business’s sole Lotus Notes administrator, "the email server guy." He was pretty proud of what it could do, and I sometimes get nostalgic for the admin UI.