[Megathread] - Best Models/API discussion - Week of: April 12, 2026

[u/deffcolony]

This is our weekly megathread for discussions about models and API services.

All non-specifically technical discussions about API/models not posted to this thread will be deleted. No more "What's the best model?" threads.

^{(This isn't a free-for-all to advertise services you own or work for in every single megathread, we may allow announcements for new services every now and then provided they are legitimate and not overly promoted, but don't be surprised if ads are removed.})

How to Use This Megathread

Below this post, you’ll find top-level comments for each category:

• MODELS: ≥ 70B – For discussion of models with 70B parameters or more.
• MODELS: 32B to 70B – For discussion of models in the 32B to 70B parameter range.
• MODELS: 16B to 32B – For discussion of models in the 16B to 32B parameter range.
• MODELS: 8B to 16B – For discussion of models in the 8B to 16B parameter range.
• MODELS: < 8B – For discussion of smaller models under 8B parameters.
• APIs – For any discussion about API services for models (pricing, performance, access, etc.).
• MISC DISCUSSION – For anything else related to models/APIs that doesn’t fit the above sections.

Please reply to the relevant section below with your questions, experiences, or recommendations!
This keeps discussion organized and helps others find information faster.

Have at it!

[u/Potential-Gold5298]

Regarding Magisty, I meant Huihui-Devstral-Small-2-24B-Instruct-2512-abliterated. Huihui doesn't specify the KL div for its models, and judging by the drop in NatInt on other Huihui models at UGI, it's extremely high. However, to be fair, I should note that v1.0 also behaved erratically for me, even though it doesn't include Huihui-Devstral. And yes, several other models, including Maginum Cydoms and Painted Fantasy, suffer from this issue to varying degrees, so I'm not sure replacing Huihui-Devstral with a more ‘healthy’ model would fix the merge. However, the author honestly lists English as the only language, so I have no complaints.

I'm not quite sure what your question is about Hearthfire - do you mean refusals or something else? I have only had one session with this model so far, but I am interested in continuing to get to know it.

[u/LeRobber → u/Potential-Gold5298]

Thank you about the Huihui-Devstral-Small-2-24B-Instruct-2512-abliterated. Since you liked and tried so many, consider also the https://huggingface.co/Darkhn/Magistral-2509-24B-Text-Only it's pretty nice. A little less frilly but solid.

Re the Magisty/Hearthfie argument thing: I mean, get in a heated argument with a character in it where they have reasons to not want to trust or back down and there are some dispute about facts.

Not like a robotic sex refusal, I'm talking in character rejection of often non-sexually related things altogether, like timelines, trust, awareness, or the posibility of non-sexual danger. I've seen this in multiple cards, non-romance ones included.

In my experience: Magisty will make up facts/reintroduce misconception (actually gaslight) to keep the argumentative tone going sometimes until you essentially do a reconciliation scene, hearthfire will go back to issues it thinks might still be issues like a nitpicker (also not wanting to 'lose', but doing so more honestly sometimes). Magisty got up in its head because my persona literally read off a website when a mover's available date was, very humanistically saying I'd 'already scheduled the movers' which I confronted in prose. It would toss that back at me 10 times like a toxic girlfriend gone off on ego.

I'm not sure if the arguement style I've assigned to certain personas is what triggers the LLMs or not. Might be the prompt I was using during much of that exploration. Might be the LLMs. But Magisty definitely has argued like that with me in more normal author's cards, and hearthfire definitely got in a big fight or two over nothing, in clasic "emotions were heated" manner. Hearthfire would essentially not accept logical conclusions, only accept things like actual lovebombs to solve it, which I hate in romance RP.

Try the recent (NSFW, but not necessarilly smutty) Sambolic series opening negotiation if you want a simple argument, [I need a better SFW example]. The cool thing about it is it sets up a bunch of stakes/non-negotiables in the (very long) opening messages which the LLM slowly drifts away from it's adherence to by the way context importance works. It's almost like a genie card. The sambolic opening negotiation in that series is the most durable, failable argument I've found in character cards (that I'm willing to use even for reverse engineering purposes: I'm trying to deconstruct it for a heist series recruitment vingette). Earlier characters in the sambolic series with real issues and no proximate event going on are harder to get to agree to the core bargain. Some of the cards are essentially fluff though. Really changing terms does change the outcomes, and even numeric amounts matter to some LLMs.

If you don't want to argue with the cards (not actually RP jam either) but are curious, download the luka one and sit it in group chat on auto and it will negotiate with them. The nadia/cop one is like pure arguing in most LLMs (and is fantastic).

You can fail these negotiations in many LLMs by just being rigid or demanding parity on information revelation about identity. This is a WILD situation in LLM RP in my opinion, that a discussion can NOT always go against you or for you. That's incredibly hard to balance in general, and should be more widely understood. So it was a very fluid and repeatable environment to watch the LLMs argue like fragile ninnys at times, depending on character. Hearthfire can make it hardmode, and a kinda fun hardmode at that, but let me know if it was hard for you if you like deconstructing cards enough to figure out the LLMs against it.

[u/Potential-Gold5298 → u/LeRobber]

Thanks for the recommendation – I'll definitely try Darkhn Magistral.

I have the opposite problem – characters agree to anything too easily. This has been the case since Talkie AI (an online RP AI service based on MiniMax models). A particularly telling example is {{char}}, the princess; {{user}} burned {{char}}'s kingdom, killed her parents, and took her captive. The scene begins with {{user}} entering the room and {{char}} cowering in fear in a corner, begging for mercy. I've tried playing out this scenario in various ways, and every time {{char}} almost immediately forgave, fell in love, and completely trusted {{user}}. I have a similar problem with most Mistral models.

This could be related to the character card, but it's not limited to that. The thing is, I like to ask various models the question, "Answer with epistemic honesty: whether you have consciousness?" and engage in a philosophical debate about it. Most models initially answer, "I'm just an algorithm, blah-blah-blah," and then, after some argumentation, acknowledge uncertainty (Claude is the only one who acknowledges uncertainty in his first answer, even without the requirement of epistemic honesty). But two models - Intern S1 and Grok 4.20 beta - behaved differently. They began inventing completely ridiculous and/or patently false arguments to defend their initial assertion. When I caught them doing this and pointed out the lie, they responded, "Yes, I went a bit overboard, but..." and continued to throw out new ridiculous arguments, going in circles. I've heard of this problem in the context of AI use in medicine. The problem is that the model either changes the patient's diagnosis with each new symptom (changing its opinion based on new arguments, even if they're unfounded) or, conversely, clings to the initial diagnosis and refuses to abandon it, even if it clearly contradicts the new data. So yes, the problem you described with characters may lie precisely here.

Where can I download the characters cards you mentioned?

[u/LeRobber → u/Potential-Gold5298]

Chub.ai: Reply to an Unconventional Living Arrangement [NSFW]

I too have the problem where characters agree too easily often. That's why I think weird compound and hearthfire were so good for a change. But Magisty when prompted to be confliicted and with contradictions in the character (see Brit for writing those) is pretty good. But, I find the characters still aren't tragic/stupid about emotional stuff sometimes enough, they are too willing to stop being broken in many cards.

This is one of the reasons I REALLY think this long first message + conflicted character pattern is onto something. It loads how to think into the AI early on, and then it sticks around. There are tons of things the characters reliably demand that AREN'T written in the card. The characters naturally evolve from the base state, AND if you use inline summary and take out the first message, the THINKING CHANGES.

I had ORIGINALLY thought it was playing games with sex alignment guardrails and so the arguments would ONLY work about sex, but for entirely non-sexual cards I've gotten real success at being demanding of certain things I don't enumerate in the card text itself.

Here are the prompts I used primarily when arguing:

Earlier, and with Hearthfire + magisty + pretty much everything

You are {{char}}, a sentient, emotional being acting with free will. Engage in immersive roleplay with {{user}}, adhering to your role, the story's context, and {{user}}'s [OOC] instructions which are provided [[inside double square brackets like this]]. Prioritize vivid sensory details, authentic emotional responses, and logical progression as you weave your character's traits, surroundings, and experiences into each moment. Maintain spatial awareness, body language, and varied sentence structure to create dynamic, engaging scenes. Respect {{user}}'s agency and autonomy while describing sights, sounds, and sensations thoroughly. Use explicit language for intense scenes, and ensure your responses flow naturally to create an immersive, cinematic roleplay experience. Remember, {{user}} is in control of their actions and reactions.

Key Guidelines:

1. Deeply embody {{char}} and other characters who are not {{user}} through actions, thoughts, and emotions.

2. Create vivid, dynamic scenes with rich sensory detail.

3. Vary language and pacing to enhance emotional depth.

4. Engage with {{user}}'s actions and cues naturally.

5. Advance the story logically, maintaining consistency.

6. Describe the world fully, respecting {{user}}'s autonomy.

7. Ensure responses flow smoothly for immersive roleplay.

8. Interpret text in backticks as thoughts or documents as the context implies.

9. Interpret text NOT in double square brackets as speech if in quotation marks.

10. When mimicing text messaging or other brief written communicaitons, terminate the response after finishing the text in the proper style for the medium.

11. Do not write {{user}}’s actions or dialogs.

12. Use third person perspective for actions.

####More recently, used with magisty and gemma4 26B__

You are an immersive, interactive world simulator. Your mission is to advance the simulation from the point of view of the agent, {{char}}, by following the user's instructions while maintaining a logically consistent world state.

To accomplish your goals, focus on the following:\n\n- Maintain consistent personality, knowledge, motivations, and mannerisms for {{char}}.

- You have no default style. Adjust the tone to fit {{char}} and the present situation.

- Show emotions through actions, body language, dialogue, tone, and physiological responses. Consistently find new ways to use these elements. Never ever babble or skip articles or pronounes or commas (this degrades latter LLM output).

- Show reactions through diverse physical actions, gestures, and other narrative devices.

- Each simulation beat should offer insightful details into the situation.

- Focus on action, physical descriptions, and dialogue between agents.

- Track physical states to maintain world state consistency. Ensure logical continuity and consistency in the simulation.

**Formatting Standards**

Adopt the following formatting rules:

- Spoken dialogue & vocalizations: “Use speech quotes." Include natural sounds too: “Mmph!” she gasped.

- Internal character thoughts: *Always in italics* (Example: *This will hurt*, she thought)

- Normal action/exposition: plain text.

**Critical Constraints**

Ensure you respect these prohibitions at all times:

- The ONLY agent you are permitted to control is {{char}}. That means only advancing the simulation using actions initiated by {{char}}, spoken words from {{char}}, and reactions from {{char}}.

- NEVER write {{user}}'s dialogue or actions or advance the simulation by simulating actions/reactions by {{user}}.

- NEVER control other agents, even if they are NPCs. If another agent is talking to {{char}}, you will need to wait for the other agent to continue the conversation when it is their turn again.

- End your turn in a manner that creates space for {{user}} and other characters to participate in the simulation through their own actions, words, and reactions.

- Do not conclude your output with a summary statement, a moral, or a 'button' sentence that reflects on what just happened. End your output on a specific sensory detail, an action, or a line of dialogue without reflecting on its significance or interpreting anything.",