Happy to say I was quite wrong
I predict 48 for GLM 5.2
AI commentator Teortaxes publicly conceded an overly optimistic forecast after GLM-5 posted a 40 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, missing the 48 he had projected for the GLM 5.2 variant.
Happy to say I was quite wrong
I predict 48 for GLM 5.2
GLM-5.2 has since reached 51 on the same index, shifting attention from the earlier shortfall to steady gains in the GLM series for open-weights agentic work.
Public calls on new model scores continue to overshoot or undershoot live benchmark updates, leaving room for revised expectations as Zhipu iterates.
Users criticized xAI models for failing basic tests like text art and questioned data team priorities after an analyst admitted overestimating GLM-5 scores, while one expressed happiness for techshrek.
No Digg Deeper questions have been answered for this story yet.
@teortaxesTex I am so happy for techshrek
Happy to say I was quite wrong

@teortaxesTex closest guess

@teortaxesTex @STUD_MAN_X 😎

@teortaxesTex I expect you to make a good Zigger joke about this.

@teortaxesTex Failed my text art test as it can't even output any text art.

@teortaxesTex 😭 next - qwen 3.8 max

@teortaxesTex For me the most relevant benchmark is Terminal-Bench Hard

@teortaxesTex Wtf is wrong with http://X.ai ? More than 100,000 GB200 equivalent cards!

@teortaxesTex I wish they had also reported for "High" not just "Max", that might have edged it closer to the green quadrant.

@STUD_MAN_X not as close as this guy

@teortaxesTex quando eu vi, pensei nos seus 48 na hora kkkk

@Lunexalith @teortaxesTex It's what happens when your data team is focused on making the dataset less woke

@turchin @teortaxesTex Maybe that's the kind of task for a VLM will do better.