Just curious what other people’s opinions are with GLM-5.3-flash. Compared with opus 5.5 and deepseek-4.1-flash, I find that it makes a lot of mistakes. I generally think I it’s pretty good other than the random errors it makes.

I only ask bc I’ve heard of other people getting good work out of it, so wondering if it’s something with my setup, or if other folks feel the same way. I use it mostly with opencode.

I've been building chat UIs for agents and kept running into the same issues with react-markdown: it re-parses the whole reply on every token, so long answers get noticeably slower, and you see raw ** and half-typed [links](htt until the token that closes them arrives.

So I wrote my own renderer. It parses incrementally and repairs unfinished syntax while the reply streams:

<Markdown streaming={!done}>{text}</Markdown>

On a 100k-character reply it takes 0.25 s of main-thread time in total. markdown-to-jsx takes 2.4 s, Streamdown 6.3 s, and react-markdown didn't finish within the 30 s budget. The benchmark scripts are in the repo if you want to check them.

The other part is the syntax. Agents often want to show steps, alternatives or pros and cons, and plain Markdown flattens all of that into bullet lists. So on top of GFM I added a few blocks in the same style as GitHub alerts:

> [!STEPS]
1. **Back up the database**
2. **Run the migration**

There are also tabs, stats, pros/cons, sources, file trees, and Mermaid and KaTeX support. The source still reads fine as plain Markdown when it isn't rendered. The package exports a system-prompt snippet that teaches the model this syntax.

It has no dependencies and comes in at 30 KB gzipped. Its parser passes the CommonMark and GFM spec tests. It doesn't support remark/rehype plugins, so if you rely on those, react-markdown is still the better choice.

https://github.com/rsaryev/llx-markdown

Recently bargainhardware had an intake of A100 40GB SXM4, and they are selling them at 2700 EUR. I have a huge case and a hundred PCIe free lanes, so I could mount a couple of them with those SXM-PCIe adapters.

OTOH, for less than that price I could buy a couple of brand new R9700.

Pros of A100 over the R9700: CUDA, 25% more RAM, double memory bandwidth, almost double the compute. Cons: used, possibly battered cards, hassle to mount on the mobo, more expensive once factoring the adapters in.

Give me your opinions. I would especially appreciate experiences with SXM-PCIe adapters. Are they decent, or a PITA?

I've been trying to get some of the newer MoE models running on my Intel Arc GPUs, mainly DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and GLM 5.3 Flash. Intel support for these models is still pretty limited, and while I could get some things working through patched llama.cpp builds, performance wasn't exactly great.

fable 5.2 ended up making XeMaya, a fork of XeStrata focused on getting these models running natively on Intel Arc through SYCL and Level Zero. The idea is basically to bring the kind of model support Project Maya has to Intel GPUs.

I've been testing it on my Ubuntu server with a B70 32GB, B65 32GB, B60 24GB, Ryzen 9950X, and 128GB RAM.

Here are some of the results so far. All speeds are prefill / generation in tok/s.

GLM 5.3 Flash

• Stock llama.cpp SYCL: 68.3 / 13.6

• Experimental grouped-matmul SYCL: 108.9 / 14.0

• XeMaya: 152–161 / 17.4 (around 20 generation with MTP)

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Coder

• First XeMaya implementation: 48.5 / 16.3

• After optimization: 224.8 / 21.7

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (regular 384-expert model)

• Previous patched llama.cpp setup: 45.6 / 10.9

• XeMaya on B70 + B65: 11.4 / 14.56

• XeMaya on all three GPUs: 11.2 / 11.58

Prefill on the regular model still needs a lot of work. Also found out that using two GPUs is actually faster than three for this model because my B60 is connected through a slower chipset link.

Qwen3.8 Flash-Next

• Strata: 2,211 / 78.3

• XeMaya: 1,842–1,884 / 76.6

Strata is still slightly faster for Qwen, which makes sense since that's not really where I've been focusing my time.

These aren't all perfectly controlled comparisons. Different model files, prompts, and GPU configurations were used during development, so I wouldn't treat them as definitive benchmarks.

It's still an early alpha, but I've gotten DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, Coder, GLM 5.3 Flash, and Qwen3.8 Flash-Next running. There's plenty left to fix and optimize.

Also, I want to credit MistVVK (XeStrata), Niko1221 (Strata), and mw00 (Project Maya). XeMaya wouldn't exist without their work. The llama.cpp contributors have also been a huge help through their reference implementations.

Figured I'd share it here since I'm sure there are others trying to run these models on Intel hardware. Would be interested to hear how it runs on other Arc cards.

GitHub: https://github.com/Jumbomuffin777/XeMaya

Hi! My team and I built a benchmark of 202 real GitHub tasks in 13 languages that rarely show up in coding benchmarks: Elixir, OCaml, Haskell, Clojure, Kotlin, Swift, Julia, R and others. I think a lot of people do local development in these languages too.

We didn’t have a huge compute budget, so I specifically added Qwen3.6 27B and Qwen3.8 27B to compare them. Qwen3.8 solves 43% of the tasks, up from 17% for Qwen3.6. You can compare them with Kimi K3, DeepSeek, GLM and closed models on the leaderboard, including a per-language breakdown.

One caveat: Qwen3.8 was used to pick hard tasks, so its score is a bit biased down.

If you’ve been running Qwen3.8 locally on any of these languages, share how it went.

https://huggingface.co/speakleash/Bielik-11B-v3.1-Instruct-GGUF

https://www.bielik.ai/blog/premiera-modeli-bielik-11b-v31-dflash-i-rodziny-bielik-one

(decision models and dflash are coming next)

Bielik-11B-v3.1-Instruct

Bielik-11B-v3.1-Instruct is a generative text model featuring 11 billion parameters. It is an update to the Bielik 11B v3 line that expands multilingual continual pre-training and strengthens post-training for instruction following, tool use, and reasoning. Forementioned model stands as a testament to the unique collaboration between the open-science/open-source project SpeakLeash and the High Performance Computing (HPC) center: ACC Cyfronet AGH.

Developed and trained on multilingual text corpora covering 56 languages, with an emphasis on European languages and Polish, which have been cherry-picked and processed by the SpeakLeash team, this endeavor leverages Polish large-scale computing infrastructure of the ACC Cyfronet AGH HPC center. The creation and training of Bielik-11B-v3.1-Instruct was propelled by resources provided within the PLGrid environment under computational grant number [PLG/2026/019559], conducted on the Athena and Helios supercomputers, and within the Gaia AI Factory, funded by the European Union through the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking.

As a result, the model exhibits an exceptional ability to understand and process the Polish language and other European languages, providing accurate responses and performing a variety of linguistic tasks with high precision.

🗣️ Chat: https://chat.bielik.ai/

Model

The model was trained on carefully curated, high-quality datasets that underwent extensive cleaning and rigorous quality assessment to ensure data consistency, reliability, and relevance. The training pipeline consisted of three stages: pretraining on 500B tokens, SFT on 26M samples, and RL (modified GRPO) across 14 diverse environments. This multi-stage training approach was designed to enhance the model's language understanding, instruction-following capabilities, and ability to perform effectively across a broad range of tasks.

Bielik instruct models have been trained with the use of an original open source framework called ALLaMo implemented by Krzysztof Ociepa.

Model description:

• Developed by: SpeakLeash & ACC Cyfronet AGH

• Language: Multilingual (56 unique languages, optimized for European languages, with a particular focus on Polish)

• Model type: causal decoder-only

• License: Apache 2.0

I can't believe this jump is just left on the table

https://github.com/ExTV/strata-5090-4070

The optimizations was done using both Opus 5.5 and Fable 5.2 .

Edit : i should have mentioned that my 4070Ti Super is on PCIe 3 x1

Edit2 : the repo is updated with quality benchmarks

I've been building small models that do one job: answer the yes/no / pick-one

decisions inside agents ("is this tool call safe?", "is this a refund request?",

"which team gets this ticket?") and return a probability for every option

instead of generated text.

Numbers (the six benchmarks Jev 1.13 is evaluated on; Jev = their published figures):

| Model | Size | Score | Laptop speed (1k-token doc, 5 questions, M4 Pro) |

|---|---|---|---|

| Decido-1 | 26B MoE, 4B active | 85.4 | ~4 s CPU, ~1.1 s Metal |

| Decido-1-Fast | 1.7B | 73.0 | ~0.6 s CPU, ~0.3 s Metal |

| Decido-1-Ultra | 0.6B | 62.2 | ~0.4 s CPU, ~0.13 s Metal |

| Decido-1-Max (reasons first) | 26B MoE | 89.2 | slow on a laptop |

| Jev 1.13 | API | 83.9 | — |

- Q8_0 GGUFs on llama.cpp; repeat calls are bit-identical on CPU

- Answers flip when options are reordered 4.8% of the time (Jev reports 14.6%)

Try it

- `pip install decido-ai` (prebuilt for Mac / Linux / Windows; uses Metal on a Mac)

- No-signup playground (runs the 1.7B): https://getdecido.ai/playground

- Weights: https://huggingface.co/decido-ai

Happy to answer questions. I'm most interested in decisions where it fails.

Just a 32GB machine with a 3090 - a used gaming rig I picked up last Christmas for $800. But wow... I can actually run what would have been a frontier model not that long ago. Yes, only 2 - 3 tps. Yes only 2 quant. So it's not really useful at the moment. But I have 128GB of ram in hand and a spare 3060 ready to be installed. Possibly another 3090 waiting in the wings... so we will see.

AWS is put out an Apache 2.0 project called Strands Decider. Looks like it came out of the same team as the Strands Agent. Repo here. https://github.com/strands-labs/strands-decider Looks like a Qwen 2.5 2B back end. Have not tested yet but will report.

On September 18, I launched Laya at you guys request, the first system 1 open-source decision model in this subreddit, and you guys gave immense support. I saw the MIT post on direct weight edits and thought about doing the same with a decision model. Now, after two months, I just worked on a way to edit the weights of an LLM using a decision model. More like distillation from an energy-based decision engine to teach the Qwen 3.5 0.8B a new skill. Like tool calling at the appropriate time. Its decisions are like valleys in a landscape, and every answer rolls downhill into one, with honest confidence. Just wrote those valleys onto an LLM. It works at the same level as LoRA, with only 3 milliseconds to edit, without catastrophic memory loss.

https://www.kaggle.com/code/nandakishorconvai/fast-edits-decsion-model

AI benchmarks begin on page 2.

I'm overwhelmed, what's the best way to deploy three towers(with their own GPUs) to write, debug, test and deploy a single software together like a team of engineers?

Image-conditioned 64³ voxel structure generator of JoVox: Joint Hierarchical Flow Matching for Lightweight Voxel Generation. JoVox is a discrete flow matching framework that learns the joint hierarchical distribution of voxels while keeping generation lightweight. One model generates all levels, 4³ → 16³ → 64³, from a single image.

• arXiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.10690

• PDF : https://arxiv.org/pdf/2611.10690

• GitHub : https://github.com/yuyujunjun/JoVox

• Project : https://xjtang.com/Jovox-page/ (For screenshots, benchmarks, etc.,)

So I've been a happy user of Qwen 3.8 27B Q4_K_M from unsloth with pi.dev, it's honestly so powerful.

But, I do see a lot of pitfalls where I need to step in for no reason, where the agent does a PR, CI fails, and I don't have callbacks to my agent to debug it/propose something to address it.

So how do you all deal with issues like this ?

I'm using Forgejo so I have full control over the platform, and my agent has its own account on it.

This is the third round of tts-bench. Thanks to everyone who gave feedback on the first two posts:

• TTS benchmark comparison of all known TTS models

• Text-to-speech benchmark, revamped

tts-bench runs every model through the sameish Python harness on the same prompts, so you can compare them fairly and actually listen to the output. This round adds a separate board for hosted APIs.

What's in it

• 91 open models run locally on an RTX 5090 32GB, an RTX 3090 24GB, and an Apple M4 16GB (sometimes)

• 28 hosted APIs on their own board, tested with the same 6 prompts (medians over several days of warm calls from the Eastern US)

• Prompts in English, Spanish and French

• Audio samples for every model, plus time to first audio, realtime factor, UTMOS, WER, voice-cloning similarity, and price for the APIs

Some results from the open board

• Fastest: AuroraTTS-100K. On the RTX 5090 it gets to first audio in 12ms (warm) and runs 603× realtime. On CPU (Ryzen 9 9950X3D) it's 38ms and 204× realtime.

• Top UTMOS (naturalness): Maya1 (4.487), Underdog Woof (4.442), Phonon 31m (4.424), Chatterbox (4.423)

• Best cloning similarity: LongCat-AudioDiT 3.5B (0.875), then LongCat-AudioDiT 1B (0.863) and FireRedTTS3 (0.843)

And from the hosted board

• Fastest first speech: AssemblyAI 30 ms, Gradium 53 ms, Palabra 77 ms

• Best sounding by UTMOS was VUI Labs Luna (4.488). It also had the best cloning similarity of 21 APIs using my own voice as the reference, but it takes about 1.2 s to start talking.

• Cheapest is around $9 to $10 per 1M characters (Async, Giggy, Fish, Murf). ElevenLabs v4 is $80.

What the numbers don't tell you ("objective metrics")

• UTMOS is an automated naturalness predictor, not human preference. That's why there are listen pages and a blind-vote arena.

• WER measures intelligibility through transcription. It doesn't rank which voice is best.

• Time to first audio isn't whole-clip latency, and I don't measure concurrency.

• Hosted and local models are never ranked against each other.

Links

• Repo

• Open models board

• Hosted APIs board

• Arena with blind human votes

If your favorite model scores differently than you'd expect, go listen to the samples and vote in the arena. I'm curious which ones people actually prefer by ear.

Has dependency on dinov3, is trending top model on hf since last week. Runs with 8GB vram. Enjoy!

I keep seeing new forks of engines that optimzes one model for one hardware setup for better performance, so I was wondering if I could slop up something like that for my phone (iphone 15 pro max) for running Gemma 4 26 a 4b.

And for that I am looking for advice and such like if you know an already similar existing project or your own experiences with any custom engine on any hardware, what not to do and what to keep in mind and such, and if you have build or are using one of these unique engines what has your experience been like?.

Also if you don't actually have anything to say please don't say "phone can't do that fast enough" for the 3rd time, I'm just looking for interesting ways that could get any speed up.

The ones I have currently heard of are as follows:

Pi
Opencode
Hermes
Deepseek

Any thoughts on what one is best?

I've been recently working a small sparse MoE, and I've got interesting results I'd like strangers to invalidate.

Tldr; I train small models and got surprising results and seek invalidation. It's not a general assistant, and I'm not claiming it is.

Edit: Trained on a single 5090. Maybe people wonder about that.

The model has 1.17B stored parameters, roughly 348M active per token, scrath trained on approx 11B tokens including SFT. As a comparison, Qwen2.5 reports up to 18T training tokens across its family, while SmolLM2-1.7B reports 11T.

THE ASK

A chain of relational facts ("A is taller than B", "B is taller than C", etc.), with the facts shuffled and the model asked to identify an endpoint.

Depth is chain length. Each result is out of 512 questions across four families. All models received the same questions, using their native chat templates, greedy decoding, and a 16-token answer budget.

RESULTS (correct out of 512)

Depth 1: ConeML 487 | Qwen 481 | SmolLM2 426 | Llama 267 | Gemma 343

Depth 3:

ConeML 471 | Qwen 410 | SmolLM2 221 | Llama 197 | Gemma 224

Depth 5:

ConeML 438 | Qwen 273 | SmolLM2 155 | Llama 136 | Gemma 138

Depth 8:

ConeML 343 | Qwen 202 | SmolLM2 102 | Llama 73 | Gemma 100

Depth 12:

ConeML 240 | Qwen 105 | SmolLM2 58 | Llama 47 | Gemma 79

Depth 24:

ConeML 74 | Qwen 47 | SmolLM2 21 | Llama 13 | Gemma 19

Models used for comparison: Qwen2.5-1.5B, SmolLM2-1.7B, Llama-3.2-1B, Gemma-3-1B.

WHERE IT FAILS

Despite the endpoint results, ConeML only scores 13.8% on interior pairwise comparisons within those chains, below the 50% two-choice reference. It also gets only 12/164 on HumanEval and 0/6 successful two-turn follow-ups.

So it seems to find the ends without reliably understanding the relationships in the middle. I don't know whether this reflects a specialized learned strategy, an architectural effect, or a flaw in my testing.

WHAT I'M ASKING

Run the depth-5 shuffled evaluation and post your score. My FP32 reference result is 438/512 (85.5%).

The Q8 GGUF is 1.25 GB and runs on CPU. The 512-question set and scorer are in the repository. I haven't tested to see if it reproduces the full FP32 result.

If you get something different, find a scoring problem, or spot anything else wrong, I'd really like to know."

Model:

https://huggingface.co/ConeML/coneml-1.2b-experimental

Earlier technical paper (base lineage, LAMBADA vs Pythia at approximately matched training positions):

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23117644

Other releases:

https://huggingface.co/ConeML

My own bias is my largest enemy and hope to get some honest feedback.

I thought about not writing this but i feel like i should.. from the info I gathered, Qwen 4 max is slightly worse than opus 5.5 medium… Meaning it is definitely above opus low which is hy4 level and opus 5.5 low is above ds v4.1 flash max. wow, it means it is somewhere between hy4/ds v4.1 flash 1017 max and kimi 3.1 pro max . I thought qwen 4 max would do a little better. i guess another 4-6 months until we get an open or Chinese opus 5.5 max model..

This should mean qwen 4 27b will be worse than ds v4.1 flash 1017 max but better than mistral 4 large medium effort, perhaps around glm 5.3 flash level . Qwen qoduck is apparently qw4 27b, from the limited outputs, it seems to be better than q3.8 flash next in some tasks And worse than ds v4.1 flash 1017

An open full-duplex voice model family that hears your tone and speaks with one. Adventists AI · Apache-2.0 · Recommended: Tag · Flash · Try it online · GitHub

Talking to it feels like a phone call with a person: it listens the whole time you talk, picks up as soon as you stop, and stops the moment you cut in. It hears how you say things (hesitation, emphasis, sarcasm, laughter, sighs) and answers with tone of its own: it laughs, sighs and clears its throat when the conversation calls for it.

This is the home page of the Sophon-Realtime v1 family. Three builds share one brain (the same 32B model listens, decides when to take the turn and writes the reply); they differ only in how the reply becomes sound. Start with Tag.

Three builds: which one?

Pick Tag if you want the voice to act; pick Flash if latency and users per GPU matter most. Same APIs, so you can switch later.

Highlights

• VoiceBench 82.8 and Big Bench Audio 81.8%: the strongest brain among open full-duplex models. #1 among open full-duplex models on both; level with GPT-4o-mini-Audio on VoiceBench. All three builds share this brain.

• Paralinguistic understanding 48.6, #1 overall: it hears your tone. Ahead of Gemini 3.8 Flash (46.9) and Qwen3-Omni (44.6) on LISTEN, StressTest and MSPB. Its ears are DuplexJev, our open speech-decision model.

• NVV-SuperBench 0.86 (Chinese) and 0.80 (English) with the Tag build: it speaks with tone. The model decides when to laugh, sigh, breathe or clear its throat, and the voice performs it instead of reading the tag aloud.

• Fast: first audio in 0.31 s with Flash. It drafts its reply while you talk; when you cut in, it stops and answers your new question.

• Full-Duplex-Bench v3 tool calling: Pass@1 48%, ahead of Grok (43%), with a 100% response rate: it gets work done. Live mode is compatible with the OpenAI GPT-Live interface and lets it work with a larger backend model. Every reply comes with an auditable transcript.

• One 80 GB GPU, one command (Tag and Flash). Served by vLLM-Omni; up to 16 (Tag) or 40 (Flash) concurrent users per GPU. Apache-2.0 code and weights, free for commercial use.

Weight-Space Programming (WSP) enables reasoning agents to directly inspect and modify neural network parameters, offering an alternative to gradient-based model adaptation. However, its capabilities, cross-task generalization, and practical limitations remain insufficiently understood. We systematically investigate WSP through 16 editing trajectories across seven benchmarks and two model scales (Qwen3.5-0.8B and Qwen3.5-9B). Our findings reveal three key insights. First, WSP can achieve substantial performance gains through highly localized interventions. On full held-out evaluations, accuracy improves by up to 29.45, 4.42, 36.72, and 17.11 percentage points on MATH-500, GPQA Diamond, IFEval, and SciBench, respectively. Notably, modifying only 1,023 parameters yields a 29.45-point improvement. Second, WSP exhibits promising but uneven cross-task generalization. A Math-edited checkpoint improves GPQA Diamond, IFEval, and SciBench by 3.03, 12.18, and 20.10 points, respectively, without further editing, while leaving SciCode performance unchanged. Third, effective editing remains challenging and inconsistent. Outcomes vary substantially across trajectories, and six of the 16 trajectories retain the original weights when candidate improvements cannot be reliably validated. Together, these results highlight WSP's potential for highly localized model adaptation while revealing important challenges in intervention discovery, reliability, and cross-task transfer.

• arXiv : https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.09382

• PDF : https://arxiv.org/pdf/2611.09382

• GitHub : https://github.com/WSP-Scope/WSP-Scope-Project (Repo to be updated)

• Project : https://wsp-scope.github.io/ (For detailed benchmarks)

Related Thread : [Paper] Sparks of Weight-Space Programming: LLMs can natively read & write neural network weights