> I wouldn't make either one the top-level coordinator by default.
But I do not agree with the follow-up sentence:
> The best shape is still a frontier coordinator or judge above them: GPT-5.5 or Claude Opus deciding what to delegate, checking the finished work, and rerunning narrow pieces when the answer looks wrong. These models make the worker layer much more serious, not the coordinator layer unnecessary.
For the coordinator or judge above them I would put myself, not a too expensive LLM under the control of an external entity, achieving thus simultaneously higher quality, lower cost and greater security.
A lot of LLM discussions is driven by people who cannot code themselves.
There are multiple AI influencers on youtube who can't code 5 lines of python to save their lives. But they do own 3 DGX spark and a stack of maxed out mac minis...
(Not complaining, AI is supposed to be democratic)
Yes, that's what I'm finding too. There seems to be a concerted promotional pricing campaign tied to M3's release across providers. Since their differences are subtle, it makes a lot of sense to fan-out to M3.
All software benchmark are bullshit currently because none mesure capacity of doing same tasks after 1000 first warmed commit of random stuff. It's always easier to build something from scratch but nobody rebuild their feature from 0 every day.
GLM 5.2 edges as the safer pick when tasks are more challenging from-scratch builds and the result needs to arrive as a complete, runnable project. MiniMax M3 is the value pick for a lot of worker traffic.
reply