alt Hacker NewsOne thing a lot of people don't seem to factor when hyping Qwen is how much models like this tend to 'overthink' with seemingly endless 'second guessing'. 3.8 seems no different from what I've tried thus far.
As capable as it is, it's hard to justify using it when a competing model (e.g. Gemma4:26b-a3b) can consistently achieve the same or similar response with only 1/10th as many 'thinking' tokens, achieve much higher tokens/second, and take a small fraction of the time. I suppose 'YMMV' depending on your use case.
Also, I haven't used it enough yet to see if it's prone to infinite looping, but its predecessors sure were.
Replies
Use 3.6 27b as a daily driver for months with charmbracelet crush. Gemma 26b-A3b is not even remotely comparable in terms of coding for me. YMMV depending on how you work, what harness you use, etc I suppose.
gemma4 can't hold a candle to 3.6
You can add a thinking budget thats not much effort in llamacpp. You can align the cut off message with your agent instructions.
What you describe is a engineering harness problem.
If you, and i mean the royal you, actually read tge thinking traces you can see and figure out where its stuck
This means an effective harness would observe when the model is overthinking and step in with reasonable redirection, like increasing logging.
Llamacpp can set reasoning budget and message per reauest, so it can be dynamic.
Your complaint is "skill issue" based and will be resolved by people who do something ither than vibe code react demos.
Reduce or turn off thinking:
https://huggingface.co/froggeric/Qwen-Fixed-Chat-Templates