https://swelljoe.com/post/will-it-mythos/: "Poor performer here, only found the one bug that almost every model found, despite its performance on other benchmarks being excellent for its size. […] It also performs poorly in a chat without tools, exhibiting an ehthusiasm for hallucination. I’m currently working on a replication of this with full tool access, including bash/Python, which may allow this model to be competitive."
> It also performs poorly in a chat without tools, exhibiting an ehthusiasm for hallucination. I’m currently working on a replication of this with full tool access, including bash/Python, which may allow this model to be competitive.
How is that a serious phrase in '26? I mean I have no idea if this fine-tune is good, haven't tried it, but testing a (clearly) agentic model without tool access and expecting it to work is crazy, no? What was he even testing?!
Maybe expecting it to recognize it's limitation without tools instead of hallucinate. But yeah, not wholly useful. It's performance (and proclivity to hallucinations) with tools is what really matters.
This is the first Qwen fine-tune that is not immediately rejected by the local LLM community, and in some cases even being recommended. Based on my limited usage, it is good, gives creative solutions to coding problems. I don't expect 9-35B models to one-click create full apps. Most people who were complaining did so .
It has been this way since the beginning, unfortunately. There is certainly no harm in trying on local models on local workloads with modest guardrails.
Like most of these models (Qwen, Gemma, Llama, gpt-oss), finding all the little gotchas like, special tokens and prompt structure, model preference are a PITA right now. The reward are really nice models that run exceptionally well in agentic harnesses tuned with the prompts and parameters you fought so hard to learn.
We must be in different communities... Qwen models are the most recommended ones that will actually run on local hardware that is accessible to the masses!
It doesn't self-improve, that's a misleading headline.
As far as I can tell they trained it by running their own reinforcement learning on top of Qwen and Gemma 4 (not sure how they combined weights from both, or if they used Qwen as the basis and Gemma 4 to help train?) - so the "self-improving" is about their training process, not how you use the weights.
Do you think we will get a self-improving model in 26 or 27? Maybe not a native one but some kind of hack so a model will learn something without loosing part of the context window?
I think the 9b and 31b dense are Gemma models and the 35B-MoE, and 397B-MoE are Qwen models since these are model sizes covered by each of them respectively
Self-Improving bullshit. It is just Qwen 3.5 finetune benchmaxxed . Nothing spectacular . even fails at benchmarks.
Long session tool calls sucks and hallucinate a lot with that too. Just use Qwen 3.6 and 3.5 122b.
https://swelljoe.com/post/will-it-mythos/: "Poor performer here, only found the one bug that almost every model found, despite its performance on other benchmarks being excellent for its size. […] It also performs poorly in a chat without tools, exhibiting an ehthusiasm for hallucination. I’m currently working on a replication of this with full tool access, including bash/Python, which may allow this model to be competitive."
How is that a serious phrase in '26? I mean I have no idea if this fine-tune is good, haven't tried it, but testing a (clearly) agentic model without tool access and expecting it to work is crazy, no? What was he even testing?!
It gave a fancier looking answer, but did a worse job following the prompt.
However, it's much more inclined to do web search unprompted, which is fascinating in its own way.
It has been this way since the beginning, unfortunately. There is certainly no harm in trying on local models on local workloads with modest guardrails.
Like most of these models (Qwen, Gemma, Llama, gpt-oss), finding all the little gotchas like, special tokens and prompt structure, model preference are a PITA right now. The reward are really nice models that run exceptionally well in agentic harnesses tuned with the prompts and parameters you fought so hard to learn.
How does it self-improve, does the model change on disk - or just during a single context run it gets better?
As far as I can tell they trained it by running their own reinforcement learning on top of Qwen and Gemma 4 (not sure how they combined weights from both, or if they used Qwen as the basis and Gemma 4 to help train?) - so the "self-improving" is about their training process, not how you use the weights.