GLM 5.2 is a great model, but if you only want to use the best model available, it isn't there yet. Every lab releases models that memorize benchmark answers, both intentionally and unintentionally. But we consistently find that models from Chinese labs have a wider gap between public benchmarks and our evaluations, which we designed to be less vulnerable to benchmaxxing.

In multi-agent coding environments, GLM 5.2 is just shy of Opus 4.6 on average. Data at https://gertlabs.com/rankings

But when factoring in performance/cost, GLM 5.2 is the frontier model.

Im really curious about this. Why pay API pricing? I burn 1000s of dollars a month of api according to claude usage but only pay the $100 subscription

If you're using Matrix, consider Hermes as a harness if you haven't already. Native gateway support. I've been primarily using mine through Element and it has largely been great.

Are you sure fireworks is unquant? It's not listing precision on openrouter like everyone else.

$20 on API pricing or on subscription?

Which harness did u use?

LOL a hundred dollars????!!!

Imagine paying for this!

Do you know you can paste into a Google search and get a much higher quality Gemini response?

You can also use Ollama and get Mistral 7b which is better than anything Anthropic offers.

Imagine paying for text-to-text!!! Lmfao

follow antirez - https://x.com/antirez/status/2071173841175363905?s=20

Run quantized versions. https://unsloth.ai/docs/models/glm-5.2

8 X RTX6000. It will run you around 80-100k to get started with a model at this size with decent tps..

Don't worry though, open source evangelists will tell you that these will be running on your phone in the next 3 years.

For $100k you could run this model 24/7 through open router with 10 concurrent sessions at 50tps for a decade and have money left over for a vacation. There's no point in investing this type of money in local models unless you have a business where you're already paying for many employee's individual token usage.

Yes, and the article author is fully aware of that. Thank you for pointing out this small mistake though.

It costs nothing to not be pedantic.

Claude code it's the only way to get access to the actual amortized cost of running a Claude-scale model. The consumer non-enterprise API is extremely expensive (with increasing marginal costs for the user and fat profit margins for Anthropic). If you want to approximate a State level attacker's cost where they can have the model on their own hardware, Claude Code is probably the best guess at the amortized cost.

It will almost for sure surpass the models which Trump will allow US "allies" (which he just considers client states) to use. This, together with China's growing dominance in PV, rechargeable batteries, EV, could really be the nail in the coffin for the post WWII economic world order.

If that happens it'll be an absolute disaster. Imagine a scenario where Anthropic and OpenAI prohibit most US companies from using their latest models because of safety.. And meanwhile attackers use equivalent open source models to attack US companies.

Any prohibition on open source models will do nothing to fix the problem.. since attackers will never feel bound to the law. All advanced models must be available for defensive purposes.

The Americans may ban the use of the Chinese models in America. But like the Chinese car ban, everyone else will use them.

> GLM export controls incoming? I predict Commerce will force OpenRouter, HuggingFace to take some open models down within the next few months.

I’m sceptical they could find the legal framework to do this even if they wanted to

They have legal authority to (a) prevent export of US goods/services; (b) ban imports of physical goods; (c) ban transactions (including purchasing services or license agreements) with foreign firms

But I’m not aware of any legal authority which lets them ban US firms from running a Chinese-developed open source AI model in the United States, if they are at arms length from the vendor, and aren’t using it for government contracts or regulated applications

Possibly they could order HuggingFace/etc to suspend Chinese accounts. But if someone in the US (or a third country) downloads the model from China then reuploads it to a US server, completely independently of the vendor - where is the legal hook to prohibit that?

>GLM export controls incoming?

US imposing export restrictions on a model from China?

I think state-of-the-art AI is going to be defense industry only from now on. We can have our toy drones but not the Predators and Reapers.

Obvious answer: build all your open source LLMs into firearms, get the SC to grant 2A protections.

Cool then everyone will just change their config to route through a provider overseas for an added 50-100ms latency. Who cares.

>Thirdly it compares to GPT 5.5

mythos is <10% ahead of gpt 5.5 on all benchmarks, which it gains by being several times the size of opus. had it been economical to provide, it would've been released to the public on day one instead of the marketing circus those effective altruism clowns had exhibited. admitting that it costs >1000% to run inference on a <10% better model would've been very damning.

In my experience, GLM 5.2 is extremely good at finding vulnerabilities, and more importantly, unlike Opus, I've never seen it refuse a command. It genuinely is a very strong model for finding and fixing vulnerabilities.

> Thirdly it compares to GPT 5.5 and Opus 4.8.

> No, we don't have Mythos at home.

That's still useful. To paraphrase the kids these days, GLM5.2 is in the room with us, today. Mythos is not. And for us in the EU, it's even more complicated, as Mythos might be with us in the room one day, and go poof the next day, on the whims of political entities that we have 0 control over.

Knowing where open, accessible, local models are is important. We know they're behind. But there comes a time when "good enough" is useful. Even if they're "just IDORs" today, and even if they're behind SotA today.

As someone else said above, GLM5.2 (and other models in the same tier like kimi, dsv4, etc) is / are slowly becoming "good enough" to assist in automated repo prepare work (download, install, test, edit, re-test, etc). And that translates in RL traces ready to be trained into the next generations. That might be more important than x% behind on benchmarks.

Technically we don't have Mythos at all? You guys have access. This tells me we have Opus at home (open weights).

Yeah they straight up say that their criteria is narrow and primarily important for their specific use case. Never let rationality cause your pitchfork to be cast away though!

have you tried 5.2? I agree that 5.1 and prior were below Kimi, Mimo, Qwen, Minimax, and probably Deepseek (depending on task), but 5.2 (especially unquantized) feels like something else.

Now I feel like that I'm covered by GLM 5.2 and Minimax M3 (when I need vision or a second pass on something).

But if we patch all of the vulnerabilities, who will pay for our vulnerability scanner?

The robot figured out how to bump the lock. The obvious solution is to ban the robot.

One would. But then the results are even weirder as opus 4.6 scored more than opus 4.8 by a huge margin

They say "Claude Opus 4.8" in the first paragraph.

Opus 4.8 according to TFA. Whether or not the safety guardrails were responsible for the difference is an open question but for a dev who wants to secure their software who doesn’t work at one of the blessed Glasswing companies it doesn’t really matter why, it matters what the best tool you actually have is.

You can use GLM in OpenCode with a z.ai subscription by default as well. Also it'd be good if you mentioned you were involved with nemesis8.

One can also try https://neuralwatt.com using it in opencode.

I think they give $5 trail credits to test with any of the open weight models.

It seems "Mythos is really good at finding vulnerabilities" has been what people took away from the Project Glassing announcement, which makes sense. Unfortunately for Anthropic, most seem to have forgotten the best argument Anthropic had for holding Mythos back from the general public, "it's crazy good at crafting exploits". Then, without that context, the tinfoil hats came out.

It also means giving up vision which I don't know how I would deal with. I think I would prefer a weaker model with vision than a stronger without.

I think the point is less "how can we throw shade on the OP" and more "a harness can enable a lot of models to do very serious cybersec, glm 5.2 is one of them"

Same, but so much $$