What We Learned Moving Our Agent Loops from Anthropic to GLM
dennispi
18 points
6 comments
August 18, 2026
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 51.4ms across 4,128 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
- GLM-5.3 Artificial Analysis Benchmarks apitman · 114 pts · August 18, 2026 · 52% similar
- Show HN: Getting GLM 5.2 running on my slow computer vforno · 513 pts · July 09, 2026 · 51% similar
- GLM-5.3: Frontier Coding with Emergent Cyber Capabilities pella · 124 pts · August 14, 2026 · 49% similar
- Patterns and problems in emerging multi-agent systems maxutility · 33 pts · August 16, 2026 · 48% similar
- GLM 5.2 is nearly as accurate as a human book keeper adamkurkiewicz · 196 pts · July 09, 2026 · 47% similar
Discussion Highlights (3 comments)
dongkeren
It makes sense to take cost per task more important than cost per token, but for long running tasks, are more appropriate indicator could be "cost per accepted outcome". Because for a task, it is hard to say: What is the boundary of the task? Do we count failure and retry as the same task? What if the result "looks" good but rejected by the user? How do we measure the extra human effort for verifying and resuming when using the cheap model? In my opinion, "cost" means more than the direct token usage of a finished task.
maurelius2
Finally an evaluation that go beyond benchmarks. Thanks for sharing details and takeaways. I wonder how you come you opted for GLM; how did the selection process look like?
quinncom
AI;DR > That distinction matters when you're debugging an agent, because "the answers got worse after the model swap" is not one failure, it's five