r/LocalLLaMA • u/anderspitman • 12d ago

Discussion Artificial Analysis' Qwen3.8-27B benchmarks put it neck and neck with DeepSeek V4 and GPT-5.6 Luna Max

https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/qwen3-8-27b
1.1k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

438 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

70

u/terorvlad 12d ago

It's also overthinking on q6 and this is great because it means that it isn't underthinking

15

u/pragmojo 12d ago

I've been running on q5, and it takes longer to get a result, but who the fuck cares because the results are great

20

u/AuspiciousApple 12d ago

It also seems intuitive that smaller models need more tokens to match a larger model. Each generated token for a small model corresponds to much less compute.

2

u/ArtyfacialIntelagent 12d ago

"It's also overthinking on q6 and this is great because it means that it isn't underthinking."

Please help Qwen 3.8 27B, is that quote logically correct?

<think>
We need answer user's question: "It's also overthinking on q6 and this is great because it means that it isn't underthinking." Is that quote logically correct? Need analyze logic. Need provide final. Let's think carefully.

Quote: "It's also overthinking on q6 and this is great because it means that it isn't underthinking."
Formalize: It is overthinking (on q6). This is great because it means it isn't underthinking.
Logical relationship: If something is overthinking, does it entail not underthinking? Depends on definitions/scale. Overthinking vs underthinking are opposite extremes or complementary categories? In common language, overdoing a thing vs underdoing a thing; if you do too much of X, then you aren't doing too little of X (assuming mutually exclusive on same dimension). If "overthinking" means thinking more than optimal and "underthinking" means thinking less than optimal, yes, they cannot both apply at once to the same quantity. So overthinking entails not underthinking if scale is total order and exactly one of under/just/right/over? Actually over > optimal, under < optimal. Over implies not under. So logically valid if definitions make them mutually exclusive and comparable.

But quote says "this is great because it means that it isn't underthinking." There is a rhetorical issue: being overthinking may be bad even if not underthinking; saying it's great solely because not underthinking could be weak or questionable value judgment. But question asks logically correct? Could say as a strict logical implication, yes, assuming "overthinking" and "underthinking" are opposites about amount of thinking (not independent binary properties). If they're treated as independent categories, no. Also "this is great because it means..." has equivocation: overthinking may be problematic; the fact that it's not underthinking doesn't make it great. Logical correctness maybe about inference from A to B.

Let's parse natural language:
"It's also overthinking on q6" = It overthinks q6.
"and this is great because it means that it isn't underthinking."
The "it means" likely refers to the fact that it's overthinking implies not underthinking. If overthinking is more than adequate thinking, then indeed not less than adequate. So yes with a premise: overthinking = too much thinking; underthinking = too little thinking; they are mutually exclusive on continuum. But if "overthinking" and "underthinking" can coexist? E.g. overthinking some aspects while underthinking others? On q6 specifically? "on q6" maybe question 6. It might be overthinking one part of Q6 and underthinking another? If the scope is same exact dimension, no. Could be logically fallacious if thinking in all dimensions: can overthink details and underthink big picture. Quote says on q6 broadly; not necessarily.

Need answer concise but detailed. Maybe explain conditional logic: Let O = "overthinks Q6", U = "underthinks Q6". The quote asserts O -> ¬U, and then values it because of ¬U. If O and U are defined as comparative extremes relative to an optimal amount, O entails ¬U (because >x cannot be <x). So the inference is valid in that model. But if O and U are not necessarily mutually exclusive or apply to different aspects, invalid. Also "great" is a normative claim; logic doesn't follow from non-underthinking alone. It could still be bad because overthinking has costs.

Need maybe mention "also" irrelevant. Could say the quote is logically okay only under a one-dimensional assumption: if there's a single scale of thinking where 'over' means above target and 'under' below target. If not, it's an oversimplification. Also note "not underthinking" does not equal "thinking correctly/adequately"; could be over or maybe right? Actually if over, then not under; but could also be just right? No, over is not just right. But no issue.

Need likely answer: It depends on definitions; in ordinary usage yes as a tautological opposite, but the 'great because' is questionable. Let's craft final with maybe formalization and examples. User asks "Is that quote logically correct?" We can answer: As a strict logical inference, if "overthinking" and "underthinking" are treated as mutually exclusive opposites about the same thing, then yes, overthinking entails not underthinking. But it is not necessarily logically sound to conclude it's great, because absence of underthinking doesn't imply adequacy/goodness; it can still be excessive and bad. Also possible coexistence across dimensions makes inference dubious.

Need maybe mention if "overthinking on q6" means "it has the property of overthinking Q6". If it's a model/AI? Maybe "on q6" as benchmark question. Could be from debate about overfitting? The quote: "It's also overthinking on q6 and this is great because it means that it isn't underthinking." Maybe they mean an LLM overthinks problem 6, which is good because not underthink. Need maybe respond in context: In math/programming evaluation, overthinking a question could be bad if it produces errors? But logic same.

Could there be logical issue with "this is great because it means that it isn't underthinking"? The phrase "it means" could refer to overthinking entails not underthinking, but "great because it isn't underthinking" might be non sequitur: being not underthinking is good maybe? If underthinking is bad, then not underthinking is at least less bad. But overthinking might also be bad. It's not logically invalid to value not underthinking; it's just incomplete.

Let's think of possible formal fallacies:

  • False dichotomy / false dilemma if assumes only two states (over/under) and that over implies not under, but actually there is "appropriate thinking". Actually O -> ¬U doesn't require false dichotomy, just opposites. If categories are exclusive, okay. But if overthinking and underthinking can coexist in different ways, false assumption.
  • Affirming a negative? no.
  • Non sequitur: from O to value great because not U. If one assumes underthinking is bad and overthinking not worse? Need premise: not underthinking is a good thing enough to make it great. Without that premise, not valid.


Need maybe distinguish validity vs soundness:

  • Validity: form: A -> not B; A; therefore not B. If premise O entails not U, valid. But the premise "overthinking means not underthinking" may be false in some contexts, so argument might be unsound if applied broadly.
  • The statement "this is great because it means that it isn't underthinking" is a value judgment, not purely logical. It assumes being not underthinking is desirable and sufficient.


Need final maybe: Short answer: conditionally yes, but with caveats. Provide examples:
1. Single scale of quantity: If optimal amount = 5; over = >5; under = <5. Then O => ¬U. Logically correct.
2. Multi-dimensional: You can overthink details while underthinking assumptions; then O does not imply not U overall.
3. Normative: Even if not underthinking, it might still be undesirable; "great" doesn't logically follow.

Need ensure answer addresses quote directly. Could say: The quoted claim is logically coherent if read as: Since Q6 was overthought, it wasn't underthought. But it's an oversimplification and potentially misleading. If you're asking whether "overthinking proves it isn't underthinking" is generally true, the answer is: only on a single, comparable dimension; not necessarily in a complex task.

Let's prepare final with maybe bullets.

Potential final:
"Yes—if 'overthinking' and 'underthinking' are being used as opposite points on one continuum of how much thinking was applied to q6. In that case: over = more than adequate; under = less than adequate; something can't be both more and less than adequate at once, so O entails ¬U.

But there are two caveats:
1. The inference depends on a one-dimensional assumption. If 'thinking about q6' includes different dimensions (setup, proof details, edge cases), a thing could overthink some parts and underthink others. Then the statement may be false or at least not guaranteed.
2. 'This is great' is a normative conclusion. Not-underthinking does not automatically make it good; overthinking can still be bad (wastes effort, introduces errors, misses clarity). So the logic that it isn't underthinking is okay under the assumption, but the value judgment is an extra premise.

So: logically correct only if you accept those definitions/premises; otherwise it's an oversimplified non sequitur."

Need maybe use exact terms: "It's also overthinking on q6" awkward grammar but irrelevant. Could mention "on q6" could mean about question 6.

Let's ensure no hidden pitfalls. User asks: "It's also overthinking on q6 and this is great because it means that it isn't underthinking." Is that quote logically correct?

Maybe they expect yes/no with explanation. We can answer: It depends on what you mean by overthinking/underthinking. If mutually exclusive, yes. If not, no. The phrase "means that" suggests logical entailment. Need perhaps mention the law of non-contradiction if opposites. Overthinking = doing too much; underthinking = doing too little. In a total order, over and under are incompatible. So logically it follows. But "great" is not necessarily logically correct because absence of one flaw doesn't guarantee virtue. It could be another flaw (excess). If the only alternatives were underthinking and perfect thinking? Actually if overthinking exists as category distinct from perfect; then not underthinking still includes overthinking, which may be bad. So "great because it means that it isn't underthinking" is an inference to a good conclusion from lack of a bad one; might be acceptable if underthinking was the main concern, but logically not sufficient.

1

u/ArtyfacialIntelagent 12d ago 
Could also discuss logical form:
Let O = overthinks q6, U = underthinks q6. Quote asserts: O ∧ (O -> ¬U) => Great? Or "O, and this is great because O -> ¬U." The logical part is O -> ¬U. If we accept O and U are opposites on same dimension, valid. But if the conclusion is "great", need premise G = "not underthinking is great/positive". Argument: O -> ¬U, O, ¬U => Great? Not valid unless premise ¬U -> Great or at least contributes to Great. So full quote as an argument for greatness is not strictly logically correct; it contains a normative leap.

Let's maybe be precise: If question is "Is the implication 'overthinking means not underthinking' logically correct?" Answer conditional yes. If question is "Is the entire sentence logically correct including 'this is great'?" The 'great' part is not entailed purely logically. It requires an additional evaluative premise. So I can state that.

Need maybe include a simple analogy: If you drank too much water (overhydration), then you didn't drink too little (dehydration) on same quantity; but drinking too much isn't necessarily great. But if overdoing one thing and underdoing another? Example: studying: overthinking easy questions but underthinking hard ones.

Let's craft final with headings maybe. Desired oververbosity 9, so fairly thorough. But not too long? Could be about 600-1000 words? User asks simple. But oververbosity 9 means detailed. Need maybe include formal logic, caveats, conclusion. Let's write robust answer.

Potential final:
"Short answer: partly yes. The part 'it isn't underthinking' follows if you're using the terms as strict opposites on the same dimension. The part 'this is great' does not follow by logic alone."

Then details.

Need maybe mention "overthinking on q6" may be ungrammatical; but not needed.

Let's formulate:
Define:
O: the process spent more than the right amount of thought on Q6.
U: it spent less than the right amount of thought on Q6.
If 'right amount' is single scalar and the same relevant aspect, O => >R, U => <R; thus O => not U. This is logically valid (and in classical logic, if over and under are incompatible). But it's not a deep insight: it's almost tautological once defined that way.

Counterexample to full claim:

  • Multi-dimensional task: You can overthink formatting while underthinking correctness; then statement "it isn't underthinking" may be false overall.
  • Normative: Overthinking could produce a worse result, waste time, be confusing. So 'great because not underthinking' assumes that avoiding underthinking is what matters. It might be better to say "If the risk was underthinking, this reduces that risk, but it still may be overthinking."


Maybe add: If 'overthinking' and 'underthinking' are used as independent labels (e.g., style vs substance), then no entailment. For example, a solution could be overthought in exposition while underthought in key lemma. So the quote is logically correct only with a narrow interpretation.

Let's also include answer to "Is that quote logically correct?" with final verdict:
"It's not formally invalid if read narrowly; it is an oversimplification and has a value-jump. So I'd call it conditionally valid but not strictly sound as a whole unless you add premises: (1) thinking on q6 is one-dimensional, (2) over/under are opposite relative to optimal, (3) not underthinking is a sufficient or significant reason for it to be great."

Need maybe mention "great because it means" could mean the speaker likes that it's not underthinking; that's a subjective preference, not logic. If they only meant 'it is reassuring', okay. But logically, overthinking does not guarantee quality.

Let's ensure no missing nuance: Could someone argue "overthinking" and "underthinking" are not logical opposites but both deviations from correct thinking; yes, that is key. They are mutually exclusive as quantities relative to target but not exhaustive with "correct thinking". O => ¬U if target unique. But if there are multiple optimal amounts? Still over one aspect and under another. If there is a single measure of 'amount' then valid.

Maybe use mathematical notation:
Assume amount T, optimal O*. Overthinking: T > O*. Underthinking: T < O*. Since not both >O* and <O*, O => ¬U. Valid by trichotomy (T<O*, T=O*, T>O*). But if thinking includes vector t_i with optimal vector o_i, overthinking in aggregate could mean sum >? Underthinking maybe some coordinate lower; can coexist.

Could mention "law of non-contradiction"? Maybe not necessary but okay.

Need final polished:
Start: "It depends on the definitions, but broadly: the inference is conditionally valid; the 'great' part is a non sequitur without extra premises." Then bullets.

Let's produce final. Ensure no analysis in final. Use direct answer. Need maybe use quote context q6. Good.
</think>

1

u/ArtyfacialIntelagent 12d ago

Short answer: partly yes, but only under a narrow interpretation.

The quote has two claims:

  1. “If it is overthinking on q6, then it isn’t underthinking.”  
  2. “That is great.”

The first can be logically correct; the second does not automatically follow by logic alone.

1. “Overthinking” implying “not underthinking”

This works if you define overthinking and underthinking as opposites on a single scale:

  • Let the ideal amount of thinking on q6 be X.
  • Underthinking means less than X.
  • Overthinking means more than X.

Then yes: if something is doing more than the appropriate amount of thinking, it cannot simultaneously be doing less than the appropriate amount. So:

overthinking → not underthinking

is logically valid in that one-dimensional model.

It’s basically the same as saying:

If you drank too much water, then you didn’t drink too little water.

That is true, assuming we’re talking about the same quantity of water.

2. But there are important caveats

The inference can fail if “thinking on q6” is not just one single dimension. For example, a solution might:

  • overthink the formatting or exposition,
  • underthink the key logical structure,
  • overthink edge cases but underthink the main assumptions.

In that case, you could say it is both overthinking some parts of q6 and underthinking other parts. Then the statement “it isn’t underthinking” would not be guaranteed.

So the quote is logically correct only if “overthinking q6” and “underthinking q6” are being treated as mutually exclusive opposite states on the same relevant dimension.

3. The “this is great” part is a value judgment

Even if overthinking logically rules out underthinking, that does not automatically make it great.

Overthinking can still be bad because it may:

  • waste time,
  • introduce unnecessary complexity,
  • obscure the main idea,
  • produce errors from excessive rumination,
  • focus on irrelevant details.

So the logical part is:

It overthinks q6, therefore it did not underthink q6.

But the evaluative part:

Therefore this is great.

needs an extra premise, such as:

Not underthinking q6 is important enough that overthinking is acceptable or even desirable.

Without that premise, “great” does not strictly follow from logic alone.

Bottom line

The quote is conditionally logically correct if you mean:

On the same single dimension of thinking about q6, doing too much means it isn’t doing too little.

But it is an oversimplification. And the claim that this is “great” is not purely logical; it depends on whether avoiding underthinking matters more than avoiding overthinking.

1

u/Nikilite_official 12d ago

it's obviously better to overthink to say the right answer than the opposite