jietang (@jietang)

Ox Alpha = GLM-5.3 Flash AA = 57 , 1/100 frontier price, Powered by pure Chinese chips. Delivered nearly 20% weekly token share (no. 1) on OpenRouter. Thanks to all for the support.

Thoughts About Scaling Law Scaling, but not only of parameters. Every model release now ends with the same question: how many parameters? It isn't a question that can be answered on its own. Parameter count is only meaningful alongside three others — how much data you have, where you intend to spend your compute, and who will run the model, under what conditions. The field learned this the hard way. Kaplan et al. (2020) fit an exponent that told everyone to grow parameters faster than data — roughly 2.7:1 — and the industry complied: GPT-3, Gopher, MT-NLG. Hoffmann et al. (2022) redid the experiment across four hundred models and found the compute-optimal split is closer to 20 tokens per parameter, and that with sufficient compute the two should grow at the same rate rather than drifting apart. The error in the earlier fit compounded with every order of magnitude of compute, which is why the largest models of that generation were the most misallocated. The trillion-parameter round was, in retrospect, a detour the whole field took together and then reversed. Chinchilla wasn't the end either. It optimized training compute for models that would be trained once and evaluated. Today a model is called billions of times a day and inference dominates lifetime cost. Put inference into the objective and the optimum moves toward smaller models trained far longer — deliberate over-training, which is what Llama-2-7B and Gemma-2-9B were doing at roughly 290 and 889 tokens per parameter. Sparsity moved the target again. In a MoE model two quantities have to be kept apart: total parameters govern roughly how much the model can hold — knowledge, facts, the long tail — while activated parameters and effective depth govern roughly how far it can think, how many steps of a causal chain it can carry before it comes apart. A dense 20:1 ratio does not transfer. And the ratio isn't a single number at all: Roberts et al. (2025) find the optimal tokens-per-parameter is task-dependent, with memorization favoring more parameters and reasoning favoring more data. Follow-up work on MoE observes that at fixed TPP, pushing total parameters higher actually degrades reasoning, while activating more experts reliably helps it. This matters for what we are building toward. Finding a vulnerability is not a retrieval problem. It doesn't come from having memorized more CVEs; it comes from carrying a twenty-step chain of inference to the end without losing the thread. That capability does not live in total parameter count. Which brings us to this release. Total parameters appear to matter up to a threshold — enough to hold the world — after which additional capability comes from scaling elsewhere: effective depth per forward pass, and above all post-training. GLM-5.3 is our controlled experiment on that claim. Same base, same architecture, same total and activated parameters as GLM-5.2. One month of scaling long-horizon environments and RL. The gains are not marginal. Well, scaling has more than one dial. We turned the post-training one this time because it had the most slack left in it — not because the others are finished. Base model size, pretraining data, compute spent per forward pass: all of them are still on the table, and we will come back to each. What this experiment taught us is that the dials do not have to be turned together, and that the one worth turning next is rarely the one that was worth turning last. We are not done scaling. Next time, maybe mid-training, pre-training, and even more.

（Claude、GPT、GLM） GLM-5.2 Tops Artificial Analysis as the #1# Open-Source Model, Ranking Top 3 Globally GLM-5.2 launched and went open-source today, delivering a solid scorecard across multiple authoritative third-party benchmarks and arenas. 📊 Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index A comprehensive evaluation that integrates several authoritative leaderboards spanning coding, reasoning, long context, and more. GLM-5.2 scored 51, ranking among the top of all available models—on par with Claude Opus 4.8—and claiming the #1# spot among open-source models worldwide. 🎨 Code Arena A real-world head-to-head arena focused on front-end code generation, with Elo rankings produced by blind user voting. GLM-5.2 ranked #2# globally with a score of 1,595. 🏆 DesignArena A category arena centered on scenarios that combine design and code. GLM-5.2 took the top spot with a score of 1,360. ⚙️ FrontierSWE A software-engineering benchmark built around the "frontier of human capability," assessing engineering ability across three dimensions: implementation, performance, and research. GLM-5.2 ranked #3# overall. 💪 From front-end development and design-to-code to engineering-grade software tasks, GLM-5.2 consistently lands in the top tier across multiple real-world evaluation scenarios, steadily closing in on the world's strongest models. We'll keep pushing forward in pursuit of an ever-higher ceiling of intelligence.

We're introducing GLM-5.2, our latest flagship model for long-horizon tasks. It marks a substantial leap in long-horizon task capability over its predecessor GLM-5.1 and, for the first time, delivers that capability on a solid 1M-token context. GLM-5.2's new capabilities include: Solid 1M Context: A solid 1M-token context that stably sustains long-horizon work Advanced Coding with Flexible Effort: Stronger coding capabilities with multiple thinking effort levels to balance performance and latency Improved Architecture: We propose IndexShare, which reuses the same indexer across every four sparse attention layers, reducing per-token FLOPs by 2.9× at a 1M context length. We also improve GLM-5.2’s MTP layer for speculative decoding, increasing the acceptance length by up to 20% Pure Open: An MIT open-source license — no regional limits, technical access without borders Supporting long-horizon tasks starts with making long context engineering-usable: the model must maintain quality across long, messy coding-agent trajectories, not just accept more tokens. A 1M context is easy to claim, but much harder to keep reliable under real engineering pressure. To this end, we substantially expanded 1M-context training for coding-agent scenarios, covering large-scale implementation, automated research, performance optimization, and complex debugging. The result is a long-context system that is not only wide in scope, but solid in execution: a practical substrate for sustained engineering work. This capability is reflected in GLM-5.2's performance on three long-horizon coding benchmarks. FrontierSWE measures whether an agent can complete open-ended technical projects at the scale of hours to tens of hours, spanning systems optimization, large-scale code construction, and applied ML research. On this benchmark, GLM-5.2 trails Opus 4.8 by only 1%, while edging out GPT-5.5 by 1% and Opus 4.7 by 11%. On PostTrainBench, where each agent is given an H100 GPU and evaluated by how much it can improve small models through post-training, GLM-5.2 outperforms both Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5, ranking second only to Opus 4.8. On SWE-Marathon, an ultra-long-horizon software engineering benchmark covering tasks such as building compilers, optimizing kernels, and developing production-grade services, GLM-5.2 still has room to grow, trailing Opus 4.8 by 13% while remaining second only to the Opus series. Across all three benchmarks, GLM-5.2 is the highest-ranked open-source model, showing that its 1M context has translated into practical long-horizon delivery capability.