upvote
This is an open weights model based on other open weights models.

The dispute is that they released it with claims about having done some post training that improved the outputs. It was discovered that the model was not post trained like they claimed.

The HF page now says it’s a merge of models, which wasn’t there before. They’re trying to claim they accidentally uploaded the wrong model to HF and that they’ll upload the real one soon.

Basically, they thought they could splice two open weights models together and claim their team had accomplished some amazing post training, but they weren’t smart enough to realize that other researchers would discover that there wasn’t any post training.

reply
Thanks for the factual clarification. This is so important when everyone already has their trigger finger on politics. Not meaning that politics are irrelevant here, see sister comment by jobim.

But it's impossible to form a nuanced opinion when political association has a higher priority than the facts; which, again, don't look flattering for the implementers.

reply
How do they just splice two models together?
reply
The Nex N2 model they merged is based on Qwen 3.5, so you can swap pieces of one into the other. They found a combination of the two that did well on some benchmarks and shipped it.

In the early days of Llama there were a lot of experiments like this. There were even some interesting combinations of models where they stacked layers of different models together or even added more layers with interesting results.

But announcing that you spliced two models together isn't very impressive in 2026, so they announced that they had done their own post training and outdid the big labs. They thought nobody would look close enough to notice.

reply
Out of curiosity, how was it discovered? You would have to look for it to find this linear combination.
reply
Without the system prompt, asking its name results in it responding with the name of the model they're ripping from. That would certainly draw your eyes to the right places.
reply
Why is this? Do labs reinforce the model name during training? I was under the impression that this sort of "self-knowledge" always came from the system prompt, but I guess not...
reply
Check the linked GitHub issue. They explain their process.

Scroll past the first issue to find it. It’s further down.

reply
deleted
reply
Attribution isn't the relevant part. Lying about your lab's capabilities is.
reply
That's also something all the AI companies have been doing.
reply
They’re using public money to “train” this.
reply
Lying about model capability is right now the lingua franca of the cloud AI business model, almost; they yes-and each other's lies because they are in a position of needing to generate interest, including going as far as needing to trigger regulatory capture.

(It's not news to anyone who has worked in sales-led businesses that salespeople are prone to believing the claims of other salespeople, I guess).

reply
It seems to me like the lies are both for the same reason. To capture attention and profits that are not deserved.
reply
Sounds like the whole AI movement.
reply
But the whole game is lying and stealing isn't it?
reply
leopards ate my face
reply
I do not see anyone lying.

The model card says:

> Post-trained from Qwen 3.5 397B

The model card also says that they use an inference framework based on "SwiReasoning: Switch-Thinking in Latent and Explicit for Pareto-Superior Reasoning LLMs" by Shi et al.:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.05069

So the sources seem properly attributed.

They only claim that what they did to "Qwen 3.5 397B" has improved the LLM, including, as expected, with "strong performance in Portuguese".

reply
That's attribution to Qwen team.

There (is/was) no attribution to Nex team (they've released a model based on Qwen 3.5 397B as well).

As per OP link Nex claims that what Rio team released (so far) is just linear interpolation of weights between Nex and OG Qwen model. With no attribution to Nex and zero signs of Rio doing any training of their own.

reply
deleted
reply
Are you talking about the credit that was just updated an hour ago? lol
reply
[dead]
reply
deleted
reply
This is a pure scam on tax payer money. But what else would be expected?
reply
Apparently no public money was involved.
reply
This is contrary to the mayor's words on Twitter.

> An open AI model trained in Rio with public funding over the last year by @Prefeitura_Rio surpassing all other models.

https://x.com/CavaliereRio/status/2065984620626129026

reply
Unlike the big companies who do this, which often are merely impure scams on tax payer money a little more downstream.
reply
Companies that generate loads of corporation tax, income tax, and VAT revenue are the exact opposite of wastes of public money.
reply
Yes, when they do so proportional to what they take, especially as compared to individuals and their tax liabilities.

You'll have to let me know when that finally happens, because that ain't now.

reply
Great, now we're defending embezzlement and fraud with public funds on HN, because we really really hate big business.

A child caught doing something bad will cry "but my friends also did it!", is that the level of reasoning hackers want to be at?

reply
There are no hackers around here anymore. HN is mainly about business nowadays
reply
HN has always discussed business
reply
That seems like a bad faith read to me. Nobody is defending it, just pointing out the irony / hypocrisy. Two things can be bad, and they can be related.
reply
What part of that said "defense?"

They can both be bad.

reply
> Great, now we're defending embezzlement

I might be missing something, but I don’t see anyone defending the the scams.

reply
"Their work"? First you had the original content creators that did 99.99% of the work. Then you had the US companies bundle it up into a frontier LLM. Then "they" did the "work" of using the US model as a foundation for their own. So in the sense of doing 0.00001% of the actual work that went into their product, sure.

I'd say it's more like someone forking a Linux distro, adding a few themes and fonts, and then complaining when someone else forks their distro and adds another theme.

reply
That’s the joke.
reply
It isn't. The entirety of the comment I responded to is "Oh no, someone is profiting off of their work without proper attribution!?!?" It's a valid point, but references someone using content created by others for profit. I'm objecting to equating this project with the work done by the original content creators. They're not remotely the same thing.

I understand how the internet works and how people respond to others in this type of setting, but the comment I replied to did not in any way make the point I was making about the disproportionate nature of relative contributions.

reply
That was the joke of the parent comment.
reply
That joke really went over your head, huh...
reply
It is only a problem if you claim it to be an independently developed OS with no attribution to base
reply
Oof this is delete your post level I think. Sorry bud, I been there.
reply