Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- We humans should adopt grug, instead of claudish. It seems simple to understand. And has this melancholical feelingby xeonax
- I used Hy3 quite a bit for the type of tasks it was suited for. Excited about this. My one concern over Hy3 was speed. In theory, it could be served much faster as a smaller model but it was relatively slow everywhere I could get it (including from Tencent directly) but also several other inference providers.by vcryan
- In my evals, I saw an unprecedented jump between preview and final release on Hy3, from unusable to competitive. Did you see similar in preview vs release version?by Topfi
- Seeing the model use "caveman speak" in its thoughts to save tokens is hilarious.
"Why use many word when few word do trick?" is actually a legit tech optimization now!
by zyralab - I'm liking where LLMs are headed:
They can do the difficult small level optimization, the boring but tedious code but cannot be tasteful.
That means I'm more valuable and more productive. Good stuff
by vatsachak - This guy gets it.
- This is basically the conclusion the creator (DHH) of Ruby on Rails has come to:
https://lexfridman.com/dhh-david-heinemeier-hansson-transcri...
It's all going to be who has the best and most tasteful ideas. Interesting times indeed.
by Flere-Imsaho - Is anyone here working on a problem for which current generation LLMs are inadequate, but that could possibly be solved by the next release of a first tier LLM?
Or is it like bicycles? Unless your problem is named Tadej, you don't need a $13,000 bike.
by Zigurd - Scientific physics simulations - even the frontier models just engage in rationalization of obviously unphysical results instead of understanding the system. They have the rote knowledge but fail to apply it unless their hand is held through the process.by hgoel
- I was given a picture cube, which is like a Rubik's cube but every side is a unique picture. It came scrambled and I don't have an original reference image. I like to take videos of it and give it to llms to solve. I call it my agi test because it hasn't been solved yetby er4hn
- I want to be able to generate my own Simlilirian movie by dumping the content of a book into an LLM.
Both animated and live action results would be acceptable.
Unfortunately most existing LLMs lack the capability to maintain context across tens of thousands of frames.
by spacebanana7 - I saw a laptop earlier in the train that I asked ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini what it was, providing a brand, screen size and ports description. Gemini could never figure it out, Claude and ChatGPT eventually did, after multiple rounds of indirection, giving completely wrong answers (there was a perfect match for the problem statement, they all explored alternatives first). LLMs are (probably) amazing at things I don't care about, and still suck at the mundane stuff you would have the marketing tell you they excel at.by ezst
- For me personally, the answer is no. Fable is adequate to do basically anything I want to do. My perspective, broadly speaking, is that we've saturated most of the benchmarks because we've largely saturated our capacity to verify models' work at scale. What's left is context-bound verification, i.e. the problem of ensuring that output matches intent and ambiguities in prompting were resolved correctly. Further advances in autonomy do not make that latter verification problem easier. If anything they make it harder as the output per task becomes more complex and therefore more taxing for a human to verify.
The solution to that (to my mind) would be not a better model but a basic shift in architecture beyond the current paradigm and into a setup where agents have durable, plastic memories and undergo contextual individuation over time. But at that point agents start to become quasi-persons and not tools.
by RGS1811 - This is the exact same type of comment I heard about computer hardware upgrades for three decades in a row.
“Very few people actually require a Pentium workstation, a 486 is perfectly adequate for the majority”
The logical fallacy is taking an extant distribution of “product capability” that is priced to fit what the market will bear and assuming the “next upgrade” simply tacks on a little bit more to the right hand rail of that curve.
No!
It shifts the entire curve!
Everything for everyone gets better and the top 1% of the most demanding users will continue to pay the same-ish premium.
“Nothing” will change.
Look at it this way: you can buy a $200 laptop for your kid or a $20,000 Mac with an M5 Ultra processor.
BOTH are vastly more powerful than either a $200 PC or a $20,000 “workstation” from 20+ years ago.
Look at: https://arena.ai/leaderboard/text?q=openai&utm_source=chatgp...
The “budget” 5.5 Instant model beats o1 and o3 which were “pro” models at the time of their release!
by jiggawatts - I asked a current generation LLM to make me $1k a week and it hasn't so far.by lopatin
- My experience is that even Opus 5 still tends to write buggy or low-quality code and makes serious mistakes when analyzing code. It's a lot better than before but still not something I trust. I've had less experience with Fable since I can't use it at work; I hear it's a step up but still has its limits.
For large tasks like a web browser or a compiler, even expensive swarms of frontier LLMs have not been shown capable of producing codebases that actually work. (Anthropic built a C compiler with Opus 4.6 but it lacked optimizations and apparently hit a complexity wall.)
I also want to use LLMs for reverse engineering, but apparently it's pretty hit-or-miss, especially if you're forced to use open-source models to avoid restrictions.
by comex - Just got benchmarks done for German langauge eval index i help maintain. Hy4 is a big improvement over h3 but still below Deepseek pro and Significantly below GLM 5.3 Flash .
hy4 ranks ~14th overall
https://dach.peerbench.ai/compare?models=tencent%2Fhy4-previ...
by scirob - I experimented with Hy3 for a project and was surprised with how good it was. I don't know if it's good for coding, but as a general purpose agentic model, it was only beaten by deepseek4-flash in our tests. It was so close to deepseek behaviour I kept thinking it must have been forked from it.by jorl17
- For the last few days I've been experimenting with the _free_ version of Hy3 offered by Opencode Go and I was also surprised to see how (relatively) good it is on coding tasks too.
The free quota from Opencode Go is also surprisingly generous, I perhaps hit limits one or two times and I've been using it _a lot_ for implementation tasks (using e.g. GLM-5.3-flash for working on specs and planning next steps).
by alexfortin - Genuine Q about word optimization/token density:
If we create a stripped-down vocabulary with greater token density to use less resources and to resolve ambiguities earlier in the semantic process, aren't we creating NEWSPEAK and dragging along the worst aspects of it? The ambiguity and multi-valence of words is what creates more connections between words, increases the directionality of associations, and expands the potential subtlety and depth of meaning. By paring down (or requiring verifiability) we make it harder to say certain things, or at least make it harder to unintentionally say something that makes MORE or DEEPER sense than what we intended. If the token density becomes extreme, you're left with something like a calculator.
Maybe this is the ultimate path toward better coding? But the worse path toward better genuine thinking?
by jamienk - I don't think so. It's pretty clear that LLMs use the higher level layers for reasoning, so a bit of logorrhea very possibly enriches the result quality.by dnautics
- Nah reducing token length means that we're just reducing English down towards a programming language like a nice demi-glaceby vatsachak
- This is one of the dangers. AI boosters would say that humans already do this compression and it was accelerated by mass media and then the internet, and that model memory + context can be broad enough that compared to human capabilities the opportunities for depth and variability are even greater. But I think we know which way this optimization usually goes. Even the notion of a "fine-tune for subtlety" is a contradiction.by nbush
- It's my understanding that the llm is not literally thinking those words, they are just the conversion of the matrix multiplication results (numbers) into the tokens. So the matrix is "multiplying" concepts and directions to come up with the final answer - which produces a somewhat readable reasoning trace. As far as the llm is concerned the reasoning trace could be random (to us) symbols. In fact, the reasoning traces are not necessarily optimized for readability as much as they are an emergent property of the way a reasoning model is trainedby algoth1
- I wish model providers would stop committing chart crimes in their releases.
- if you're gonna order the rest of the bar chart by rank, order your model accordingly.
- if you're gonna highlight a winner in a table of benchmarks, don't highlight your entire model row in the table.
Etc etc
by fastball - Read websites through llm.by mirekrusin
- I wonder if this is being reinforced via LLM because they see every other modeler doing the same thing.by jimbob45
- I'd bet there's a correlation between benchmaxxing and chart crimes. Companies who try to deceive perceptions via the charts are more likely to cheat at the benchmarks too, I'm sure. That's assuming ill intent, of course - which is often the case for charts related to model releases, but not necessarily always the case.by nullbio
- Hy4 apparently has ludicrous traction on OpenRouter already (https://openrouter.ai/tencent/hy4-preview), with trillions of tokens processed in a couple days: more than GLM 5.3 in a week. That said, it's relatively cheap with a 5% cache cost when everyone is still doing 10%/20% cache costs, so Hy4 may be more compelling.by minimaxir
- i'd be curious if openrouter is just being gamed by these publishers by paying for the exposure.
wouldn't trust they dont do Capitalism like the rest of the AI field.
by cyanydeez