The AI Front Page

Search Edition

Search: open_weights

30 stories from 10 sources across 11 topics.

Stories

30

Sources

10

Topics

11

For You lens

23 stories in this edition match your reader profile.

Reader signals

3

Searches

0

Matches

23

Top score

92

Tune For You

Search Intent

open_weights

This query becomes a recent For You signal, so matching stories can move up on the next personalized pass.

For YouReader CenterPromote Search

Edition Index

Topic, entity, and source map

Topics

Open Source6 storiesAgents3 storiesBig Tech3 storiesFunding3 storiesHot Takes3 storiesModels3 stories

Entities

OpenAI16 storiesAnthropic9 storiesClaude9 storiesMeta9 storiesNVIDIA9 storiesGoogle7 stories

Sources

Latent Space7 storiesHacker News AI6 storiesSimon Willison LLMs5 storiesThe Decoder4 storiesArs Technica AI2 storiesAWS Machine Learning Blog2 stories

Simon Willison LLMs / 10:00 PM

Qwen 3.8 27B is excellent, but it defaults to wildly overthinking things

Friday's big release was Qwen 3.8 27B , an Apache 2 licensed 27B parameter vision-capable LLM from Alibaba's Qwen research lab. I've been looking forward to this one: 27B is an excellent size for running a model on a reasonably specced laptop, and its predecessor Qwen 3.6 27B was impressive. Qwen's self-reported benchmarks for this model are eye-opening. They show a boost from both Qwen 3.6 27B and the closed-weight Qwen 3.7-Plus, which was one of Qwen's strongest models of any size as recently as May this year . It will be interesting to hear what independent benchmarks have to say about the model. I've been running the model on two different machines: my 128GB M5 Max MacBook Pro, and an NVIDIA DGX Spark . On both machines I'm running LM Studio and their 17GB Q4_K_M quantized build . I also tried using llama-server directly on the Spark. The default of extra high results in spectacular over-thinking Qwen's documentation describes the model as defaulting to xhigh for the reasoning effort, and the LM Studio GGUF I've been trying preserves that default: Qwen3.8 comes with official support for reasoning_effort , which can be used to adjust reasoning depth and control cost: xhigh (default): for complex tasks demanding thorough analysis medium : balancing accuracy and speed low : efficient reasoning optimizing for speed and cost This is a hilarious default. It's absolutely not a good way to run the model, especially on consumer hardware. I've been finding the results extremely entertaining. I quickly ran into problems with LM Studio's default context limit of 8,192 tokens - Qwen was using them all up thinking about even the most mundane of problems. I loaded the model with the full 262,144 maximum context length and that problem went away. Here's the pelican riding a bicycle SVG I got from my first attempt with that increased context length. It took 21 minutes to generate, using 22,276 reasoning tokens to produce 3,223 tokens of output. You can read the reasoning trace here . This is by far the best pelican SVG I've been able to generate with a model that runs on a local machine - and this Qwen is pretty small, just a 17GB file on disk. There's a lot to like about this: The bicycle frame is the right shape It has legs on each side of the bike - that's very rare Good, clear pelican pouch The wings extend to touch the handlebars! The motion lines are behind, not in front It has a tasteful background - nice sun, clouds, hill, flowers and grass. Was that worth waiting 21 minutes for? Absolutely not. Here's that same prompt run with reasoning turned off - transcript here . This one produced 3,715 tokens and took 137s - just over two minutes. And just for completeness, I used OpenRouter to run the same prompt through the much larger Qwen 3.8 2.4T-A95B (released last week ) and got this snazzy animated SVG : Your browser does not support HTML5 video. I said Qwen at xhigh has a tendency to over-think things, but how bad really is it? I tried a much simpler prompt, again with that default extra high setting: draw an svg of a circle Qwen's reasoning trace started like this: The user is asking for an SVG drawing of a circle. Simple request — but I want it to be a carefully crafted piece. Let me make something that goes beyond just <circle> : a single self-contained SVG file with character — maybe a geometric "circle study," with subtle animation, layered rings, and a distinctive palette. Keep the scope right: they asked for an SVG of a circle. So the core is a circle. But I can add craft: concentric guide circles (like a compass/geometry drawing), tick marks, a soft gradient fill on the main circle, restrained ambient motion (a slowly rotating dashed ring, pulsing glow). Respect prefers-reduced-motion? That's more for CSS; SVG SMIL or CSS inside SVG will do. Palette options: deep teal ink on warm paper? Or bold vermilion circle on off-white with navy construction lines — Bauhaus/compass-drawing vibe. Let me go with a "geometric study" look: cool slate background, or bright paper white? Paper white is fine if it's not the cream-and-terracotta combo. [...] Several minutes later it produced this absolutely beautiful animated circle, which was entirely not what I had asked for! Your browser does not support HTML5 video. My strong recommendation: ignore that default. Run Qwen 3.8 27B on low or even no reasoning levels at first. It's a great model, but wow that default setting is a bad place to start. It's very good at bounding boxes A fun way to test a vision model is to see how well it can return bounding boxes around items in a photograph. I've seen previous Qwen models deal well with this, so I decided to put it to the test drawing bounding boxes around some pelicans. I've seen asking for 0-1000 scale produce good results in the past. I tried this: llm -a https://static.inaturalist.org/photos/714731804/large.jpg \ -m lmstudio/qwen/qwen3.8-27b \ ' Return JSON bounding boxes for the pelicans in this photo, 0-1000 scale for each dimension ' Here's the reasoning trace , which produced this: [ { "bbox_2d" : [ 195 , 290 , 370 , 780 ], "label" : " pelicans " }, { "bbox_2d" : [ 445 , 320 , 675 , 850 ], "label" : " pelicans " } ] This is such a good match . Here are those boxes rendered on top of the photo: Building a tool to label bounding boxes That visualization of the bounding boxes was taken using a new custom tool that I had Qwen 3.8 27B build for me, running offline on my laptop. I forgot to dial down the thinking effort so it was massively over-engineered , but it did manage to produce this full interface from this single prompt : [ {"bbox_2d": [195, 290, 370, 780], "label": "pelicans"}, {"bbox_2d": [445, 320, 675, 850], "label": "pelicans"} ] Build an HTML page which has an input box for accepting the URL to an image and a textarea for accepting the above style of JSON. It appends the image to the page, measures its width and height, then treats the coords in the bbox_2d as scaled from 0-1000 and scales them against the actual width and height, then it renders labelled boxes over the image. This screenshot shows one of the features I did not ask for - a demo scene, for if you don't have a photograph to test the tool with: Here's the relevant segment of the thinking trace, where it decided to draw its own pelicans purely because I had used the label "pelicans" in the example JSON I gave it in the prompt: Also a "load sample" that uses a known image? Can't depend on external images, but… the image URL input is user-provided; I could add a "try with sample" button [...] Hmm, I can draw a simple scene on canvas, export it as a data URL, and load it into the image — that's self-contained and demo-able! [...] But the user's coords are for an actual pelican image; a generated placeholder can still demo the scaling. Generate a 1000x1000 placeholder: gradient water + two blob-like "pelican" silhouettes placed at the given bboxes (using the same scale — cute: silhouettes at the exact 0-1000 positions, showing the boxes align). This makes for a fun, self-contained demo. Keep it simple: sky gradient, sun, water, two pelican-ish shapes (ellipse body, circle head, beak). Place at bbox centers. (I'm slightly nervous that models around the world might have a bias towards drawing pelicans at any chance they can get, brought on by nearly two years of exposure to my own stupid benchmark.) Is all that over-thinking necessary? Maybe it is, at least a bit. I tried with reasoning turned off and got this version , ( transcript here ), which nearly works but shows the boxes in the wrong place: So without reasoning it didn't quite one-shot a working tool. I'm sure it could get there with some follow-up prompts, but this is a good example of how reasoning can make a difference. Yes, it can drive coding agents One of the biggest questions around local models is whether or not they have enough horsepower to successfully run a coding agent loop. Coding agents require long context, strong code generation support and reliable tool-calling. On paper Qwen 3.8 27B has all three of these, so is it up to the task? My initial experiments with Pi have been very promising. I chose Pi because it has a shorter system prompt than most other options, making it a better fit for trying out smaller models. I configured Pi to use Qwen 3.8 27B running in LM Studio on the Spark (shared via tailscale serve ) by adding this to ~/.pi/agent/models.json : { "providers" : { "spark" : { "baseUrl" : " https://spark-18b3.tail68a31.ts.net/v1 " , "api" : " openai-responses " , "apiKey" : " dummy " , "models" : [ { "id" : " qwen3.8-27b " , "reasoning" : true } ] } } } Then ran pi --provider spark --model qwen3.8-27b in my ~/dev/datasette folder and prompted: how does auth work? After a sequence of reasoning and tool calls that accessed a bunch of different files it produced this reply , which is very solid. Just one problem: I wanted to share that transcript. So I pointed Pi and Qwen 3.8 27B at the JSONL transcript file in ~/.pi/agent/sessions/--Users-simon-Dropbox-dev-datasette-- and prompted: Write Python code to convert this jsonl to markdown And it built and tested this pi_jsonl_to_md.py , which did exactly what I needed. Here's that session transcript , published using the tool that it created. The quest for speed So far this is all looking very promising. We have a 17GB model that runs on high-end consumer hardware and can write code, drive tools, annotate images and generally do everything that I need from an LLM for getting real work done. There's one very significant catch: it feels slow - especially when it starts over-thinking, but even without that it's not particularly sprightly. I've been getting around 15-30 tokens a second from LM Studio. That's not terrible, but it's slow enough that it's going to be hard to win me away from hosted API models, which can return results a whole lot faster. Artificial Analysis track token speed and show OpenAI 5.6 Sol at 74 tokens/second and 5.6 Luna at an impressive 184/second. The good news is that the community have been exploring ways to speed things up since the model was first released two days ago. One of the most promising optimizations is baked into the model itself. Qwen supports Multi-Token Prediction , an architecture trick where a cheaper mechanism guesses several tokens ahead and the main model can then quickly verify if the guesses were correct. This can have quite a dramatic effect on inference performance. Based on this tweet from llama.cpp creator Georgi Gerganov I tried running the model with MTP like this on the Spark: llama serve \ -hf ggml-org/Qwen3.8-27B-GGUF:Q4_K_M \ -hfd ggml-org/Qwen3.8-27B-GGUF:Q4_0 \ --spec-default \ --spec-type draft-mtp \ --reasoning-preserve And sure enough, this gave me a significant boost. I had GPT-5.6 in Codex run a comparative benchmark on the Spark and the --spec-type draft-mtp server outperformed the LM Studio default GGUF by around 72%. I expect we'll see a whole lot more innovation around serving this model faster over the next few weeks. The MLX community likely have some tricks brewing as well. Some observations The fact that a 17GB file can do all of this stuff on my home machines is a miracle . Once again, I'm delighted and amazed at how much progress local models have made this year. A year ago this would have been competitive with the best and most expensive of the proprietary models - today it can run on a capable laptop. The only thing holding this back from being a daily driver is performance. It feels pretty slow on both the M5 Mac and the DGX Spark. That's the catch with these dense (non-Mixture-of-Experts) models - they require a whole lot of memory bandwidth to perform well, and neither of the machines I have access to are top performers in that regard. The most important thing about Qwen 3.8 27B is what it demonstrates . We can have an open weights general purpose model with a long context, effective tool calling, strong vision ability, and competent code generation, and we can fit the whole thing in just a 17GB file. The models at this size continue to get better at an impressive rate. We don't need to spend half a million dollars on datacenter-class hardware just to run a competent model. Tags: ai , generative-ai , local-llms , llms , qwen , pelican-riding-a-bicycle , llm-reasoning , llama-cpp , llm-release , coding-agents , lm-studio , ai-in-china , nvidia-spark , pi

ReadSource

The Decoder / 5:01 PM

Alibaba's Qwen team releases Qwen 3.8 models with open weights under the Apache 2.0 license

Alibaba's AI team Qwen has released new open model weights under the Apache 2.0 license with Qwen 3.8. The dense 27-billion-parameter model is designed to outperform the larger Qwen 3.7 Plus in coding and office tasks and natively processes up to 262,000 tokens of context. With this release, Qwen is targeting developers building local and agent-based applications. The article Alibaba's Qwen team releases Qwen 3.8 models with open weights under the Apache 2.0 license appeared first on The Decoder .

ReadSource

VentureBeat AI / 5:06 PM

The AI context gap: Enterprise AI organizations have a trust problem, not a retrieval problem — and most are still building the fix

Across 101 enterprises, the infrastructure that feeds AI agents their business context is being built faster than it can be trusted. Retrieval-augmented generation is already the default context source, and provider-native retrieval has quietly overtaken the dedicated vector databases that define the category — yet a majority of enterprises have already watched their agents produce confident, wrong answers traced to missing or inconsistent context. A governed semantic layer is emerging as the fix, but most are still building it; the field is converging on hybrid retrieval; and even as provider-native tools lead in practice, a plurality say they intend to keep best-of-breed. The result is a context gap — agents that sound authoritative running on a foundation their owners do not yet fully trust. This wave of VentureBeat Pulse Research examines the enterprise RAG and context layer: what feeds AI agents their business context, which retrieval systems enterprises run, how they buy and measure them, where the architecture is heading, and — most revealingly — how often that context is already failing them. The central finding is a context gap — the distance between how confidently enterprise agents answer and how reliable the context beneath them actually is. A majority of enterprises (57%) report that in the past six months their AI agents produced confident but wrong answers they traced to missing or inconsistent business context, and more than half of those said it happened more than once. This is not a fringe failure: retrieval is the primary context source for 38% of enterprises, more than any other approach, so when retrieval is thin or inconsistent, the errors it produces are wearing the agent’s authority. The infrastructure to fix it is being built — 58% already run or are building a governed semantic layer — but for most it is not yet in production. Underneath, the market is consolidating in a direction that surprises. Provider-native retrieval — OpenAI’s file search (40%) and Google’s Vertex AI Search (38%) — already leads every dedicated vector database, and enterprises expect hybrid retrieval to dominate by the end of 2026 (34%). Yet a plurality (36%) say they intend to keep best-of-breed standalone tools rather than consolidate onto a provider’s native context stack, and a majority (57%) plan to switch or add a provider within the year. Stated preference and actual usage are pulling in opposite directions — the market is buying provider-native while insisting it wants independence. Methodology VentureBeat fielded this survey as part of its ongoing Pulse Research series. This survey focused on enterprise RAG infrastructure and the context layer — the retrieval systems, semantic layers, and context sources that feed AI agents. Responses are filtered to organizations with more than 100 employees (n=101); the survey drew no responses from organizations of 100 or fewer, so the full sample qualifies. All responses are from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave, so the report reads cross-sectionally and does not infer month-over-month trends. Several questions were multiple-select, so those shares can sum to more than 100%. By organization size the sample concentrates in the mid-market: 251–1,000 employees (31%) and 101–250 (31%) lead, with 1,001–5,000 (20%), 5,001–10,000 (12%), and 10,001+ (7%) above them. By role it spans managers (39%), individual contributors (27%), the C-suite (16%), and VPs and directors (14%); on purchasing authority it is buyer-credible, with 46% final decision-makers and another 26% recommenders or influencers. Technology/Software is the largest industry at 20%, followed by Healthcare/Life Sciences (11%) and a broad spread across retail, transportation, financial services, manufacturing, and education. At 101 respondents this is a modest sample and should be read as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement; it is self-selected and is not a probability sample. It is best read as the view from organizations actively standing up RAG and context infrastructure rather than from the largest operators. Finding 1: Confident and wrong More than half have traced agent errors to bad context We asked whether, in the past six months, enterprises had traced a confident but wrong agent answer to missing or inconsistent business context. Most had. This is the report’s defining number. A majority of enterprises (57%) have already had an AI agent produce a confident, wrong answer they traced to bad context — wrong metrics, stale definitions, or missing documents — and more than half of those have seen it happen more than once. Only 28% report no such failure, and a small remainder either don’t run agents on enterprise data or don’t trace root cause closely enough to know. The failure mode is specific and dangerous: the model is not obviously hallucinating; it is confidently wrong because the context feeding it was thin or inconsistent. Everything else in this report — what enterprises retrieve, how they govern it, and what they plan to build — is downstream of this problem. Finding 2: RAG is the default context source Retrieval feeds more agents than any other method We asked what an enterprise’s AI agents primarily use to understand its data. Retrieval leads by a wide margin. Retrieval is the backbone of enterprise context. For 38% of organizations, RAG over documents or a vector index is the primary way agents understand the business — nearly twice the share of the next approach, a governed semantic layer or ontology (21%). Mixed approaches (14%), direct live-system queries (10%), and long-context loading (6%) fill out the rest, and only 2% let agents run on the model’s general knowledge alone. The concentration matters in light of Finding 1: because so much enterprise context flows through retrieval, the quality of that retrieval is the quality of the answer. When RAG is the default source, thin retrieval is not an edge case — it is the main failure surface. One approach is notable for its absence from these answers: customizing model weights, also known as fine-tuning. Every leading source of business context is injected at run time. Our most recent direct measurement of fine-tuning comes from our April–May survey wave (a separate survey, n=136), where fine-tuning capabilities ranked last of six factors in model selection at 5% — even as 26% of that sample still named fine-tuning and customization an investment they expect to grow. Fine-tuning has fallen out of the primary selection conversation; context injection is how enterprises make agents knowledgeable about their business. Finding 3: Provider-native retrieval already leads the vector databases OpenAI file search and vertex AI search top the dedicated tools We asked which retrieval systems enterprises run in production today. The answer favors the model providers and hyperscalers over the specialists. The dedicated vector database is no longer the center of the RAG stack. OpenAI’s file search (40%) and Google’s Vertex AI Search (38%) lead — provider-native and hyperscaler-native retrieval — ahead of every purpose-built vector database. Among the specialists, the most-used is the one enterprises already run for other reasons (Elasticsearch/OpenSearch, 20%) and the open, embedded option (pgvector, 12%); the pure-play vector databases that define the category — Weaviate, Qdrant, Pinecone, Milvus — each sit in single digits to low double digits. Notably, 13% of enterprises say they still run no production RAG at all. As with the platforms in the parallel infrastructure wave, enterprises are gravitating to retrieval that comes bundled with tools they already buy. The shape of this finding held across both Q2 waves. In April–May (n=161), provider-built retrieval led usage there too, while every dedicated vector database remained marginal — the most-used standalone vector database peaked at 8% of that sample — and the hybrid, pluralistic future was already the consensus expectation (34% expected hybrid retrieval to dominate, with another 29% expecting multiple architectures by use case). Two waves, consistent picture: the category that coined the “vector database” term is being collected by the platforms enterprises already buy from. Finding 4: But they say they want to keep best-of-breed A plurality resist consolidating onto a provider’s native stack We asked how enterprises will respond as model providers bundle retrieval, memory, and orchestration into their platforms. Their stated intent cuts against their current usage. Here is the tension at the heart of the stack. Even as provider-native retrieval leads in practice (Finding 3), a plurality of enterprises (36%) say they intend to keep best-of-breed standalone tools rather than consolidate onto a provider’s native context stack — well ahead of the 21% who plan to consolidate. Another 21% expect a mix, and 9% intend to build and own the layer themselves. The gap between what enterprises run and what they say they want is the strategic question of the category: they are adopting bundled retrieval for convenience while asserting they will preserve independence. Which impulse wins — the pull of the provider bundle or the stated preference for modular control — will shape the retrieval market more than any single tool. Finding 5: Hybrid retrieval is the consensus bet Vector-only retrieval is already seen as insufficient We asked which retrieval architecture enterprises expect to dominate their production RAG systems by the end of 2026. The field is converging — with a large share still unsure. The architecture is settling on hybrid. A third (34%) expect hybrid retrieval — embeddings combined with reranking and access controls — to dominate their production systems by the end of 2026, three times the 11% who expect vector-only retrieval to prevail. That is a notable signal: the pure vector-search approach that launched the category is already viewed as insufficient on its own, superseded by pipelines that add reranking for accuracy and access controls for governance — the very access controls whose absence produces the failures in Finding 1. Tellingly, the second-largest answer is uncertainty: 17% simply don’t know, and another 14% expect to move beyond a dedicated vector layer entirely toward tool-first or long-context retrieval. The consensus is not a single tool but a layered pipeline — and it is not yet fully formed. Finding 6: The governed context layer is being built now Most run or are building a semantic layer — few in production We asked whether enterprises use a governed semantic or context layer to give agents and BI a shared understanding of their data. Most are on the path; fewer have arrived. The fix for the context gap is under construction. Well over half of enterprises (58%) either run a governed semantic layer in production (25%) or are piloting and building one (34%), and a further 17% are actively evaluating — meaning three-quarters are engaged with the idea in some form. But the balance is telling: more are building than have shipped, so for most enterprises the shared, governed definition layer that would prevent the "confident but wrong" failures of Finding 1 is still a work in progress. The semantic layer is the industry’s answer to inconsistent context; this wave catches it mid-construction, ambition well ahead of production. Finding 7: Bought on ingestion and simplicity, watched for correctness Selection favors operability; monitoring favors correctness and security We asked what matters most when enterprises choose a retrieval system, and what they track once it is running. Both answers lean practical. Enterprises choose retrieval systems on operability. Ease of data ingestion (36%), latency and performance (32%), and operational simplicity (29%) lead the selection criteria — ahead of retrieval accuracy and access control (23% each), the two factors most directly tied to the failures in Finding 1. Once systems are running, the emphasis shifts toward trust: the most-tracked metrics are response correctness (42%) and security and access control (38%), ahead of latency (28%), operational stability (27%), and answer relevance (23%). Satisfaction with current systems is moderately positive but not enthusiastic — on a five-point scale, overall satisfaction averages 4.0, with ease of implementation and value for money both near 3.9. Enterprises buy for how easily a system runs and watch it for whether it can be trusted. Finding 8: A retrieval reshuffle is coming A majority plan to change providers — and the vector specialists are gaining interest We asked whether enterprises plan to change or add a retrieval provider, and which they are considering. The consideration set differs from today’s stack. The retrieval stack is not settled. While 43% have no plans to change, a small majority (57%) intend to switch or add a provider within twelve months, and a quarter (26%) within the next quarter. The consideration set is where it gets interesting: provider-native retrieval still leads what enterprises are evaluating (OpenAI 22%, Vertex AI Search 21%), but the open-source vector specialists punch above their current footprint — Qdrant (14%) and Milvus (13%) draw more switching interest than their present usage (10% and 6%) would suggest. Read with Finding 4, the picture is a market in flux: enterprises run provider-native today, are evaluating a broader field, and say they want to keep their options open. The reshuffle ahead will test whether best-of-breed intent survives contact with the convenience of the bundle. The bottom line: A context gap that more retrieval alone won’t close Organizations with more than 100 employees are wiring agents into their business faster than they can guarantee the context those agents run on. Retrieval is the default source of enterprise context, and it increasingly comes from the model providers and hyperscalers rather than the dedicated vector databases — yet a majority of enterprises have already watched agents answer confidently and wrongly because that context was thin or inconsistent. The failure is not exotic; it is the predictable result of pointing authoritative-sounding agents at an unreliable foundation. The industry’s answer — a governed semantic layer, hybrid retrieval with reranking and access controls — is being built but is mostly not yet in production, and enterprises are pulled between the convenience of provider-native bundles and a stated preference for best-of-breed independence. At 101 respondents in a single Q2 wave this is a directional read, skewed toward the mid-market — but the direction is clear: the context layer is the next contested tier of the AI stack, and right now agents are running ahead of it. The context gap is not a retrieval-volume problem that more documents or bigger indexes will solve on their own; it is a problem of governed, consistent, access-aware context. The open question for later waves is whether enterprises finish building that layer before the confident-but-wrong failures move from the lab into decisions that matter. Based on survey responses from 101 qualified enterprise respondents (100+ employees), drawn from a single Q2 2026 (June) wave. At this sample size the results should be read as a directional signal rather than a precise measurement — it's a self-selected sample, not a probability sample, and skews toward the mid-market. Respondents include managers, individual contributors, VPs/directors, and the C-suite, with strong purchasing authority, across technology, healthcare, retail, transportation, financial services, manufacturing, and education.

ReadSource

The Decoder / 10:21 AM

Zhipu AI releases GLM-5.3, claims it's the strongest open-weights coding model

Zhipu AI has released GLM-5.3, a model that, according to its own benchmarks, is the most powerful open-weights coding model, with a 50 percent improvement over its predecessor through post-training alone. Trained for cybersecurity, GLM-5.3 helped security teams find 2,436 vulnerabilities across 269 projects. The model weights are set to go open source in two weeks. The article Zhipu AI releases GLM-5.3, claims it's the strongest open-weights coding model appeared first on The Decoder .

ReadSource

Simon Willison LLMs / 11:56 PM

Introducing Muse Glimmer

Introducing Muse Glimmer Meta are back in the open weights game! Muse Glimmer is a brand new 30B model under a clean Apache 2.0 license (a step up from the janky Llama licenses of old). They claim to have optimized it for exactly the kind of things I'm looking for in a local model: End-to-end Agentic Task Completion. Muse Glimmer achieves strong success rates on full-task benchmarks including DeepSearch QA, MCP-Atlas, 𝛕-Bench and SWE-Bench, which measure its ability to work within scaffolds, write and debug code, and resolve multi-turn requests from start to finish. Reliable Tool Use. The model handles a wide range of function calls, invoking tools with precise schemas throughout extended workflows. Multi-Step Reasoning. Muse Glimmer chains reasoning over long horizons, sustaining coherent plans across complex, extended workflows. [...] Here's a pelican which I generated using LM Studio's 18.16 GB version of the model : I also tried it out with my llm-coding-agent plugin, running against a fresh checkout of Datasette with the prompt: how does auth work? Here's the response , at the end of a long transcript showing all of the tool calls it made to explore the codebase. I ran this using llm-lmstudio with this patch applied to upgrade it for compatibility with LLM 0.32 . I really like this size of model, because if a machine has 32 GB of RAM or more (mine has 128GB) it leaves plenty of space for running other applications at the same time. Glimmer is a vision model, so I asked it to describe this image: llm -m lmstudio/meta/muse-glimmer -a https://static.inaturalist.org/photos/714731804/large.jpg 'describe image' Here's what I got back : The photograph shows a rocky, breakwater-style shoreline on an overcast day with a smooth, gray body of water and a faint dock/pier line in the soft-focused background. In the foreground two large brown pelicans, Pelecanus occidentalis , are perched on the jumbled gray-white stones. They have the species’ characteristic long, down-curved yellow-orange bills with a large throat pouch, long slender necks and mottled brown-gray plumage on the back and wings. The pelican on the left is turned slightly toward the camera and appears to be preening or resting its bill against its chest; a pale, whitish patch is visible on the crown and nape and a small crest of feathers is raised. The pelican on the right faces mostly forward/right, its head up, bill pointing down and to the right, with the same pale head markings and the barred, darker wing feathers clearly visible. Scattered among the rocks around the two pelicans are several much smaller dark birds — gulls/tern-like birds in muted brown-gray plumage. One dark bird sits on the far left on a rock, another brownish bird stands to the right of the right-hand pelican, a grayish bird with a reddish bill is in the lower right foreground, and a further small dark bird is at the extreme right edge of the frame. The overall light is flat and diffused, giving the water and sky a muted, almost monochromatic palette that contrasts with the textured rock and the detailed feathering of the pelicans. The composition places the two big birds as the dominant subjects, framed against the calm water and the low, rocky perch. Via Hacker News Tags: ai , generative-ai , llama , local-llms , llms , llm , vision-llms , meta , pelican-riding-a-bicycle , llm-release

ReadSource

Simon Willison LLMs / 4:16 AM

Open letters about AI development

Open letters about AI development I wrote this summary of the past few weeks of open letters as a section of my sponsors-only newsletter but I've decided to share it here as well. Open Weights and American AI Leadership was shepherded by Microsoft, dated July 24th, and signed by 235 AI-adjacent companies including NVIDIA (see Jensen's first ever tweet ), Amazon, Y Combinator, The Linux Foundation, and (a later signer) OpenAI. It's clearly an argument designed to counter any instincts by the current US government to ban or limit open weight models over "safety" concerns - a reasonable consideration given what happened to Claude Fable 5 ! Relying solely on closed models is not inherently safe: they can be breached, misused, or fail in ways that outsiders cannot detect. And concentrating advanced AI capabilities behind a small number of closed models compounds that risk. It results in a small number of single points of failure, weakens competition, and leaves critical technology in the hands of a few providers. Open weight models, on the other hand, allow a broad community of researchers and developers to examine their behavior, identify vulnerabilities, develop safeguards, and improve them over time. The one surprising note in the letter is that it comes out in support of distillation, where models train on output from other models: In shaping this ecosystem, policymakers should be careful not to conflate legitimate model-development techniques with misappropriation. Distillation, or the practice of using one model’s outputs to help train or improve another, is a widely used technique for model improvement, evaluation, and validation. It reflects a long tradition of learning from, building upon, and improving existing technologies, a tradition that has helped drive innovation since the rise of the open-source software movement. Notably absent from the signatures: Anthropic, who published their own response Our position on open-weights models three days later. CEO Dario Amodei doubled down on the risk of authoritarian governments building "AI models that are more powerful than those built by the US", and models being "misused to carry out cyberattacks or biological attacks", and called for "a crack down on industrial-scale distillation operations ", while also stating that "Anthropic has never advocated for a ban on open-weights models". Then on July 28th Pacing the Frontier was published, featuring signatures from "1,324 employees of frontier AI companies" - with names like Jakub Pachocki (Chief Scientist, OpenAI), Ilya Sutskever (Safe Superintelligence Inc, previously OpenAI), Dario Amodei (Anthropic), Jack Clark (Anthropic) and more. Their core message: We request that the U.S. government support an international effort to develop the technical and governance tools needed to deliberately pace the frontier of automated AI development. Their concern is intense competitive pressure combined with accelerated AI progress caused by automated AI research - and given that Anthropic produce 80% of their code with Claude Code , OpenAI had Sol reduce their end-to-end serving costs by 20% , and Kimi K3 designed a chip to serve a nano model built on its own architecture , you can see why people are taking that risk more seriously right now. Tags: ai , openai , generative-ai , llms , anthropic , ai-ethics

ReadSource

Simon Willison LLMs / 9:33 PM

Oxide and Friends: The Open Weight Revolution with Simon Willison

Oxide and Friends: The Open Weight Revolution with Simon Willison On Monday Bryan Cantrill and Adam Leventhal invited me to join their podcast to talk about the wild week we've had - with Kimi K3 showing open weight models can stand toe-to-toe with proprietary frontier ones, accidental cybersecurity attacks , and public letters about Open Weights and American AI Leadership signed by almost every big name in AI (with one notable exception ). It was a great conversation, even though it's already out-of-date! DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 and Anthropic's own embarrassing cyber incident would absolutely have made the cut if we had recorded just a few days later. We also talk about Golden Gate Claude , the Zizians , Alameda wild turkey attacks , Soviet Marburg virus research , the Lead-crime hypothesis , and a bunch of other worthy digressions. Finally, we revisited some of our predictions from January , and we added a new Pope prediction : Prediction by the end of this year: the Pope says something about open models. Tags: predictions , ai , generative-ai , local-llms , llms , oxide , bryan-cantrill , podcast-appearances , ai-in-china , ai-security-research , openai-hugging-face-incident , accidental-cyberattacks

ReadSource

Simon Willison LLMs / 11:52 PM

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next

Qwen3.8-Flash-Next Another open weights model from Qwen. This one is "a multimodal MoE model that also serves as an early preview of the architecture used in Qwen4". It's pretty big: 125B parameters but only 6B active which means it gets a significant performance boost. I've been trying it out on a DGX Spark using these Unsloth quantized models . I'm still exploring the model - so far I've tried the 72.5GB UD-IQ1_S one (producing these pelicans ) and the 78.9GB UD-Q2_K_XL (producing these ). My favorite so far was this xhigh reasoning effort one from UD-Q2_K_XL: Via Hacker News Tags: ai , generative-ai , llms , qwen , pelican-riding-a-bicycle , llm-release , ai-in-china , nvidia-spark

ReadSource

Latest story in this edition: 9:37 PM

Back to front page