kir-gadjello
Joined 4 years ago
Joined 4 years ago
Where GLM 5 is strictly worse for me though, compared to StepFun, is long-form content generation (planning, research documents) - but this can be said about geminis too and these are obviously very smart models.
Given the free option I'd explore GLM 5 more, but if I had to pay for it myself ofc I'd choose stepfun every time. Basically I think right now the optimal configuration for maximizing output of correct software features per dollar involves using StepFun or its future class competitor for bulk coding and first stage code review.
Maybe I need to write a blogpost about it after all.
StepFun 3.5 Flash is better compared to google's gemini 3 flash which is surprisingly good and pretty costly, and to GLM-5.
I find this outcome ironic given minimax's more aggressive marketing and large-scale distillation accusations from Anthropic specifically accusing minimax but not StepFun.
I can only wonder about the true underlying reasons, but deducing from public information I suspect that minimax simply has weaker, benchmaxx-targeting post-training R&D and leans more on distillation of western frontier models, while StepFun has extensive post-training with lots of hard-won custom R&D and internal large-scale distillation teachers.
Maybe my detailed, requirement-based/spec-based prompting style makes the difference between anthropic's and OSS models smaller and people just like how good Anthropic's models are at reading the programmer's intent from short concise prompts.
Frankly, I think the 1:1 equivalent is an impossible standard given the set of priorities and decisions frontier labs make when setting up their pre-, mid- and post-training pipelines, and benchmark-wise it is achievable for a smaller OSS model to align with Sonnet 4.5 even on hard benchmarks.
Given the relatively underwhelming Sonnet 4.5 benchmarks [1], I think StepFun might have an edge over it esp. in Math/STEM [2] - even an old deepseek-3.2 (not speciale!) had a similar aggregate score. With 4.6 Anthropic ofc vastly improved their benchmark game, and it now truly looks like a frontier model.
1. https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/claude-4-5-sonnet-think... 2. https://matharena.ai/models/stepfun_3_5_flash
Even purely pragmatically, StepFun covers 95% of my research+SWE coding needs, and for the remaining 5% I can access the large frontier models. I was surprised StepFun is even decent at planning and research, so it is possible to get by with it and nothing else (1), but ofc for minmaxing the best frontier model is still the best planner (although the latest deepseek is surprisingly good too).
Finally we are at a point where there is a clear separation of labor between frontier & strong+fast models, but tbh shoehorning StepFun into this "strong+fast" category feels limiting, I think it has greater potential.
I'm working on a pretty complex Rust codebase right now, with hundreds of integration tests and nontrivial concurrency, and stepfun powers through.
I have no relation to stepfun, and I'm saying this purely from deep respect to the team that managed to pack this performance in 196B/11B active envelope.
For me it completely replaced strong models such as Mixtral-8x7B and DeepSeek-Coder-Instruct-33B.
1. https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1cst400/result_...
Google, in collaboration with OpenAI, has published an impressive tour de force where they have throughly developed and validated at scale a sparse transformer architecture, applied to general language modeling task: https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.12763
This happened in November of 2021, and there is a public implementation of this architecture on the Google's public github.
Impressively, due to some reasons, other up-and-coming players are still not releasing models trained with this approach, even though it promises multiplicative payoff in inference economy. One boring explanation is conservatism for NN training at scale, where training runs cost O(yearly salary).
Let's hope the open source side of things catches up.
I have an expanded list of foundational research that is likely to serve as basis for gpt4 here in my blog: https://kir-gadjello.github.io/posts/gpt4-some-technical-hyp...
Hope it helps!
>You are free to:
>Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
>Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
>for any purpose, even commercially.
Compare this to the latest release from StabilityAI lab DeepFloyd, "IF", which in addition to various restrictive clauses strictly prohibits commercial use: https://github.com/deep-floyd/IF/blob/develop/LICENSE-MODEL
Repl.it's release is as open as it gets these days, in my book.
Have you considered using Google's sparse "scaling transformer" architecture as the base? Even at 3B scale it can generate 3-4x more tokens per FLOP while being competitive at perplexity with a dense transformer. I think OpenAI uses a variant of it in their ChatGPT-3.5-Turbo product.
Here is the paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.12763 and the implementation https://github.com/google/trax/blob/master/trax/models/resea... if you are interested.
Hope you get to look into this!
Feel free to say "hi": [email protected]
Github: https://github.com/kir-gadjello
Blog: https://kir-gadjello.github.io/
HF: https://huggingface.co/kir-gadjello