I think theyre absolutely needed. I can't afford 200 USD a month for personal use of coding AI, and I don't think such prices are reasonable for most of the world economy anyway. Not to mention US firms might be giving their employees a lot more than that.
It's increasingly feeling, to me, that theres a gap building up between haves and have nots. But then, we get news of these open weight models that are reasonably priced in inference with reasonable capabilities. Yes, they take maybe 6-9 months to get there, tbh, that's not a bad trade off at all.
0. https://openrouter.ai/compare/z-ai/glm-5.2/anthropic/claude-...
Has a very race-to-the-bottom feel to it.
Though in the grand scheme of it, $200/mo probably isn’t the real price either. Also looking at it not just in a vacuum - paying for a product that can change what you get from under you doesn’t seem great anyway.
At least with a locally-hosted model you know what you’re getting.
The median hourly wage in the US is $28/h, this equates to nearly 7.5 hours. A full day of work a month for the average person to use Claude with reasonable limits.
Yes, the people on $28/h may not be the software development types, so their income might not be as high, but these are the people who would probably be vibe coding the most since they aren't day to day programmers!
So not really comparable. I use Step 3.7 Flash locally, models are good enough for so many coding tasks even at the lower end! (Though I note that calling a 200B model "lower end" is kind of amusing)
But the reasoning traces became increasingly hilarious, with it getting confused and going in loops, doubting itself. I began to feel almost sad, it was like listening to the internal monologue of someone with anxiety disorder.
It made pretty good progress but wound up going in a lot of goofy loops and doing things a bit "off" from standards I'd hoped it would infer, and finally started going a bit nuts, "This is very confusing.", "OH WAIT", seemingly hallucinating a whole side-quest that didn't make sense and looking at making internal system changes to try to achieve its (now very confused) goal when I pulled the plug.
Without seeing the reasoning traces from Claude/GPT it's hard to really know, but it definitely didn't feel like the same quality of reasoning, even if dogged persistence does wind up actually working eventually.
Being willing and able to reconsider seems very good. Going around and around, pulling in more thinking, integrating it: maybe that's why it is as good as it's good.
I want to emphasize again how excellent it is that we can see the thinking. I think this makes GLM so much better an experience for me. It gives me such insight into what is being considered, helps me see where things go wrong. It grounds me, gives me the notion of where the results come from. It was so jarring to switch to GPT and Opus and find that they won't discuss with me, won't reveal their thinking: that feels fundamentally unsafe, for me, for society, to have such a severe black box. I don't think it should be allowed, honestly.
Many thanks to this recent submission, which is the first time I've seen anyone blog about this core difference: The text in Claude Code’s “Extended Thinking” output is not authentic. https://patrickmccanna.net/the-text-in-claude-codes-extended... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48630535
I gave it some simple code porting exercises and watched dumbfounded at the reasoning, which was more like the ravings of a lunatic - but lo and behold, after much confusion and a dizzying number of eureka moments the task was completed very successfully.
I tried Kimi on a similar task, much faster, a little more reassuring somehow in its ramblings, also surprisingly good results.
To be clear, I’m not surprised the results were good because they’re not GPT or Claude, but because the line of reasoning was so bonkers. Coming from Claude, I was just not used to seeing this, but I’ll bet it’s just as nuts with the frontier models and we’re just not allowed to see it (I’m about to read the links you shared).
Agree wholeheartedly that transparency is of grave importance.
Now I see the issue clearly! But wait... now I have the full picture! But wait... Found it!
I gave up a few times because of it at first until I realized I just had to let GLM get on with it and what came out was great!
But once it was outright endearing- challenging bug, it said: I have been very thorough. Then it escalated where to look and aced it. Built in confucian values
The differences between the models are minimal, but I usually stick with gpt-5.4-mini, gpt-5.4, mimo-pro-2.5, deepseek-v4-pro. These latter ones have way more usage than even using 5.4-mini so I tend to use them in personal projects for that reason.
My harness is https://github.com/can1357/oh-my-pi. I trust it...enough. It updates very frequently so as a safe guard I run it sandboxed with https://github.com/containers/bubblewrap so it can only access the project folder and some whitelisted config files
I do not trust any of them. Everything runs inside virtual machines, not just the sandboxes provided by the harnesses. I also do not run Claude or Codex directly on the host machine. Not just because of supply chain fears, but also because of how incredibly user hostile the VC funded companies are when it comes to installing random stuff on your machine.
Perhaps it is just my harness and workflow, but the older model still seems to work better. Also the token cost is significantly lower. I rarely spend more than $20 a week with $50 cap. Not even half claudes ambiguous minimum $200 a month plan.
Do you full on let GLM5 get stuff done on its own or is it more like a guided workflow? The former's what the point releases doubled down on and is also something that uses a lot of juice.
It may wind up being a massive boost to them in the long run, even.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
For coding I still use 5.5 w/ Codex and prefer that to other models + harness combinations.