Hacker News Reader

Comment by danny_codes | Hacker News Reader

I just don’t see how they’ll be able to make a profit. Open models have the same performance on coding tasks now. The incentives are all wrong. Why pay more for a model that’s no better and also isn’t open? It’s nonsense

View on HN

I wouldn't say the same but it's pretty close. At this point I'm convinced that they'll continue running the marketing machine and people due to FOMO will keep hopping onto whatever model anthropic releases.

Which open model has the same performance as Opus 4.7?

They dont have to be parity today.

If the frontier models reach a point of barely any noticeable improvements the trade off changes.

You do not need a perfect substitute if you are getting it for free...

People will factor in future expectations about the development of open source vs frontier models. Why do you think OAI and anthropic are pushing hard on marketing? its for this reason. They want to get contractual commitments that firms have to honour whilst open source closes the gap.

The person they were responding to said "Open models have the same performance on coding tasks now." AFAIK this is bullshit, but I'd love to be corrected if I'm wrong.

Open models, in actual practice, don't match up to even one or two generation prior models from Anthropic/OpenAI/Google. They've clearly been trained on the benchmarks. Entirely possible it was by mistake, but it's definitely happening.

That hasn’t been my experience. For coding at least I find little difference between closed and open models

GLM 5.1 is absolutely on par with Sonnet 4.5, sometimes better in practice (it holds abstractions over longer context windows better)

It’s about the only one that is at that level though to be fair. They’re all still useful, still!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com