upvote
This is definitely the position of the big ai companies.

But it doesn't match my experience. Qwen3.8 27b is clearly smarter at coding than MANY bigger models. gpt-oss-120b for example, is almost 4x the size, and performs way worse at coding tasks.

It's clear to me that you can build small models that work well at specific tasks.

Python vs Rust is probably too fine grained a way to build a model. Coding in general seems like a better target.

There will always be a place for large generalist models, no doubt. But I think that place is much smaller than the big ai companies are counting on.

reply
Gpt-oss—120b is like 1000 years old in AI years, whereas Qwen 3.8 27b is pretty young. What you’re seeing is that parameters aren’t apples to apples, and at a given parameter level, the new models are much, much better than the ones from a year or two ago. Like, to a comical degree.
reply
Does that not prove my point? Bigger doesn’t automatically mean better. Quality of training data, and model structure, matters as much or more than size
reply
Ah sorry, I should've continued, the bigger recent models are commensurately smarter. If you really want to make the point, then you'd need to show 27b being smarter than similar vintage bigger models. And in that case, there's confounding issues like efficiency, speed due to excessive thinking maybe to make up for the smaller amount of world knowledge baked in (qwen 27b's main issue iirc), etc - they're tuned for different things.
reply
https://artificialanalysis.ai/?models=gpt-5-3-codex%2Cqwen3-...

Shows qwen3.8-27b along side seven larger models of ~similar vintage. Only one scores above 27b.

Many of those are closed models so idk their exact parameter count / active param count, but it hardly matters - i’m sure all of them are far above 100b params

My point is not that bigger is pointless. It’s just clearly not the only road to take to make a model better, which is obvious just from seeing how models of the same size have gotten better over the past few years

reply
Thanks! That's very helpful as a way to discuss.

First off, I'd include Qwen flash-next and GLM 5.3 to show some of the other strong open weight models, and they predictably dominate it, but they're much larger. But, it shows up right next to DSv4 Flash 0731 on the overall index, and that's much larger. It's a great model! But then scroll down and hit Time Per Task, and you'll see that DSv4 Flash takes 3.6 seconds per task to Qwen's 21.1. That's what I meant when I said this:

>speed due to excessive thinking maybe to make up for the smaller amount of world knowledge baked in (qwen 27b's main issue iirc), etc - they're tuned for different things.

It can make up for its shortcomings by iterating a lot longer, and using way more thinking tokens. And that's a great trade if you don't have the vram to run the bigger models, but speed is pretty important for getting things done... And that's why DSv4Flash is great, too, despite being much larger, and scoring similarly on the intelligence index.

reply
Wasnt this known by everyone who cared to pay attention?

It practically became a joke about how a huge amount of the training data for GPT-4 was bottom of the barrel reddit vomit and obvious bot spam. Leading to many bizarre edge cases.

reply
I think we’re in agreement.

I make heavy use of smaller local models on a daily basis (Qwen3-VL for auto-captioning images, Gemma3:27b for some translation work, etc.). Gemma3:27b is a good example of a very capable general purpose multimodal model and has handled almost everything I've thrown at it from sentiment analysis to documentation writing.

I suppose I was drawing a distinction between specialized and general intelligence versus small and large. I don’t think those are necessarily mutually exclusive.

reply
gpt-oss-120b only has 5B active parameters, so its not surprising Qwen3.8 27B outperforms it (Qwen3.8 is also ~13 months newer, which is forever in LLMs)
reply
Fair enough. I’ve barley touched oss-120b, so i didn’t know it was so few active params. For a direct comparison, qwen3.6-35b-a3b is still better at coding than oss-120b.

And Qwen3.8-27b is still better at coding than opus 4.1.

Yes, if you list off models 27b is better than it’s all older models. But that’s my point - newer models are better than older models at the same AND much smaller size. That’s because model size matters less than they say. Training data and model architecture matter more.

reply
No, it’s not the active parameters. Qwen 3.8 Flash has 6B active and it smokes both models.
reply
The western labs are very AGI pilled, and their public models are distilled down from larger research-only models that are uneconomical to serve directly. They could (and probably will) start distilling models for more niche use cases eventually, but we're not there yet.
reply
> more diverse knowledge tend to cross-pollinate across domains

Yeah, the cross domain transfer learning from RL is overstated by a lot.

reply
Problem is conflict of interest: the studies are mostly from the providers of the biggest models, or someone who received free tokens to do the research.
reply
It would be nice to hear exactly how the conflict of interest has impacted the specific studies and how they are wrong rather than conspiracy theory level speculation and hand waving at the entire category
reply
I think is more than reasonable to be suspicious of studies funded by party with conflict of interest. Think of how many studies about climate change were funded by big polluters, for example.

In 2026, the default outlook should be suspicion for any big private organisations with profit motive.

reply
I think it’s less than reasonable to operate mainly on vibes, rumors, and hearsay.

You don’t need to think about climate change studies. Instead you can read the allegedly tainted studies we’re actually talking about and profess to all of us what is wrong with them. You can’t point to exactly where they’ve fudged them.

reply
In an alternate universe where all research is completely auditable and we all have infinite time, yes that's a valid approach. And you're welcome to spend your life going that route, but the rest of us are gonna trust our common sense on this.
reply
[dead]
reply