upvote
Yeah, I dunno. For me it does "talk normally" for the most part when used in an actual coding harness.

One thing though, the actual prompt I used was pretty long (844 words), and ... generated by GPT-5.6 Sol (lol), with the intent of "benchmarking" model performance in being able to write stories where the model avoids explicitly stating every detail in the prompt.

I wonder if the GPT-produced stream could steer the generation into GPT-think territory. That's all I've got, though.

Then there's the actual geometry problem from the stolen thoughts paper:

  Let ABCDE be a convex pentagon with AB=14, BC=7, CD=24, DE=13, EA=26, and ∠B=∠E=60◦. For f(X)=AX+BX+CX+DX+EX, the least value of f(X) is m+n√p (p squarefree). Find m+n+p.
reply
It doesn’t use the caveman speak unless reasoning is set to xhigh, in my experience. But I don’t know if it has always been coincidental.
reply
> unless reasoning is set to xhigh

That's the default and I'm sure almost everyone else is also using it because other reasoning efforts yield subpar results from what I've seen.

reply
It is the default, which is insane.

I think it is clear that medium reasoning has more 'loopy' results like the older Qwens, but I actually think the low effort results are usually more appropriate.

If you plan to one-shot and vibe code AI slop to meet benchmarks, maybe xhigh makes sense. But if you want a responsive agentic coding assistant it is, to me, quite evidently the wrong choice, especially on modest hardware.

I have seen xhigh radically distract itself with rabbitholes and write considerably worse code than low.

It is my own opinion only, but I think much of the fuss about squeezing Qwen 3.8 27B into small local hardware setups, Macs etc., is a bit misguided.

There's too much focus on its benchmark scores, its one-shot capability, canned demos etc.

For my own needs Muse Glimmer (again on reasoning strength: low) is shaping up to being the more practical agentic tool. It is considerably faster than Qwen at solving real coding tasks.

reply
The person evaluating and noticing similar reasoning traces to gpt is because they are using a coding harness which probably has a different system prompt to llama webui which primarly serves as a chat interface
reply
They said literally the opposite in their message above. In their experience, the caveman speech occurs in chat ui, not in coding harness.
reply