To me one shot prompting is as relevant as Strava's KOM is for cycling, i'm more interested in a good cycling performance after a 3 hours ride than a straight up 30 min record effort.

These style of comparisons are decent at showing capability but they don't really show me what I truly want - a sounding board and implementer with senior engineer-level execution. When I look back at all the teams that I've been part of, the best outcomes came from white-boarding (sometimes in the metaphorical sense) with one or two people, at times arguing, then finally compromising on a plan. Instead of synthetic benchmarks that try to be objective, I wonder if there's a way test this, or maybe I'm opining on a way of working that will soon be gone?

You should repeat this experiment but with progressively more detail in the initial prompt. Claude's secret sauce is taking weakly specified prompts and making passable things from them, but as the degrees of freedom in the prompt go down Claude starts to disobey while other models close in on the intent.

I was surprised today by how much better GLM-5.2 was than GPT-5.5 at aesthetic/UI work. I'll keep my Claude/Codex setup via Conductor for now, but this model got me to set up OpenCode, download their desktop app and do most of my work there today.

I used GLM 5.0/5.1/5.2 for some projects, and for me, the area in which they lag behind frontier models the most are user interfaces. They get really close to Opus when it comes to pure algorithms, but when I need something like web application or a mobile app that looks and works well, they are very noticeably worse than even Sonnet.

How are people running this locally? I just checked llama.cpp and it appears unsloth has a version but it hacks a bunch of things to make it work and isn't optimal.

https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/issues/24730

I know that running this locally is prohibitively expensive (for now), but what kind of cost would I be looking at if I wanted to rent the hardware and run the model by myself?

I signed up for GLM 5.2 yesterday to try it out because Anthropic kept throwing 529 Overloaded

I like it, but the lite plan ate 22% usage of my 5h reset window in a single session after 2 prompts on xhigh of GLM 5.2 [1m]

Result was satisfactory, I think stuff is decent, I'm happy to use either, wish there was a combined subscription plan where I could get both

My understanding was that n-shot prompting just referred to the number of examples included in a prompt, not the number of prompts to achieve the desired result.

"Build a 3D platformer game from scratch, in raw WebGL, with no game engine or 3D library" would be a zero-shot prompt.