State of Open Models: Summer 2026 Observations
gmays
36 points
8 comments
September 01, 2026
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 60.5ms across 5,215 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
- Using an open model feels surprisingly good msaltz · 173 pts · July 28, 2026 · 61% similar
- 6 months to live for open models g42gregory · 31 pts · July 12, 2026 · 59% similar
- J-space comparisons across open models babelfish · 20 pts · July 15, 2026 · 58% similar
- Ollama: All Aboard Open Models inferhaven · 132 pts · July 19, 2026 · 54% similar
- The state of open source AI rellem · 407 pts · July 17, 2026 · 53% similar
Discussion Highlights (3 comments)
AnodicElegy
The data and graphs are great, but it would have been a much higher quality report if the text and titles were written by a human.
cl42
I recently read a few articles about how the harness is a bigger factor to successful LLM usage and wish they discussed this here. I use GLM-5.3, Qwen3.8, Claude (all of 'em), GPT Sol/Luna/Terra across direct API calls + local models where I can (128GB Macbook Pro)... The harness and whether the model or underlying system prompts know how to make the best use of iterative LLM calls makes such a big difference... For example: one-off articles on a news topic (e.g., "Update me on the US-Canada relations") yields very similar results across all models... But "run a web search, write a draft perspective from three points of view, and structure data around it" will make everything but Claude + GPT struggle.
john_rood
The harness share is the most interesting new data here, but raw request volume can be misleading. A noisy agent with a wide tool loop may generate 10x the Hub calls of a more efficient one. I'd love to see successful outcomes per 1,000 agent-tagged calls, segmented by harness, task class, model, and tool-error rate. Otherwise this tells us which clients are busy, not which ones are effective.