GLM Built Its Own Inference Infrastructure
138 points by whiteros_e 4 hours ago | 102 comments
  • dada216 3 hours ago |
    We built a complete production-grade inference service from scratch on a cluster of more than 100,000 Chinese-made AI accelerators. All production inference for GLM-5.3-Flash runs on this system.
  • embedding-shape 3 hours ago |
    I was gonna ask how people found their coding plans, and realized, have they massively ramped up the prices? Seems the middle plan is ~$80/month now, didn't that used to be like $20/month? Cheapest plan is ~$20/month currently.

    They must have hit really hard scaling limits if the prices were hiked so much so quickly.

    • broodbucket 3 hours ago |
      Yeah it went from a great deal to unviable compared to other providers imo. They really need to find a healthy middle ground
      • lompad 2 hours ago |
        It just gives a taste of what we are all going to have to pay soon, once the model providers actually have to make money. And the era of "let's charge a dollar for every 10 dollars running the infra actually costs" is rapidly coming to an end.

        And you can bet GLM is still ridiculously subsidized, just not as ridiculously as Anthropic and OpenAI.

        • chobbledotcom 2 hours ago |
          This isn't true, you can pay for GLM 5.3 from a provider like Neuralwatt or Friendli who have no incentive to subsidize or loss-lead their inference APIs
          • jdiff 2 hours ago |
            This introduces other incentives to cut corners and over-quantize.
          • breakingcups an hour ago |
            They didn't pay for training
      • pyrophane 2 hours ago |
        What provider are you using currently?
    • bbor 2 hours ago |
      It's hard to know, since no one advertises the actual token limits (partially cause they're prolly complex / adaptive). So it seems much more likely that they just offer different pricing tiers than you're used to. Like, the $80 plan is still ~$80 of subscription quota, regardless of what else is offered.

      For [API usage](https://openrouter.ai/z-ai/glm-5.3-flash#providers) they charge a bit more than the very cheapest providers of GLM-5.3-Flash, but not so much that a big price difference would make sense.

    • Daviey 2 hours ago |
      I paid $360 annual for Max plan and currently averaging about 1BN tokens a day with their frontier GLM-5.3 model. This was clearly unsustainable for them and they've dropped this package.
      • disiplus 2 hours ago |
        I also have a legacy pro plan and the only limitation is if you are trying to work in the morning from Europe because you are in the 3x usage overlapping China time but after 12 or so you basically can run it at least for me at least 3 parallel sessions all the time.
      • world2vec 2 hours ago |
        1 billion tokens a day?!! I've done a lot of work these past 2 weeks with GLM-5.3. Like, a lot. And I've just passed 300 million tokens in total.

        Can I ask where are you using all those tokens?

        • wartywhoa23 2 hours ago |
          Something like this I guess: https://youtu.be/U-Rqv9dOB1U
          • p2detar an hour ago |
            This is such a good video. Instant sub. Next to tech bros, we should also put AI-cringe bros.
        • tokai 2 hours ago |
          300M for two weeks is surprisingly low. What are you doing that need so few tokens?
          • world2vec 2 hours ago |
            It's not my main model (that would be Fable 5.1 Extra) but it's been doing agent-driven search and optimisation of a cross-trading ranking model (it's for work).
            • disiplus an hour ago |
              I would suggest you to hook fable or 5.6 to check it regularly and its work because it gets lost easily on stuff it was not trained on. I'm doing some custom inference engine optimization and it's a workhorse but it can easily lose its way and if you don't recheck it you will get wrong answers in the end.
              • world2vec 18 minutes ago |
                Yeah that's what I already do. Fable writes the plan and checks things at certain milestones. Otherwise it does get lost indeed.
        • _0ffh 2 hours ago |
          Well, there's essentially two major ways to use these models: Pair programming or fully autonomous fire-and-forget code generation. The second strategy needs essentially zero input, so the number of tokens you can blow is practically only limited by API speed.
          • rubslopes 23 minutes ago |
            There's also a third way that can spend the most tokens: if the AI is used as part of the product, and not just a tool to build the product.
        • buckle8017 an hour ago |
          That's easy to do with many agents independently told to find bugs in a large codebase.
        • Daviey 34 minutes ago |
          I have 3-5 agent harnesses with large context windows working on different applications concurrently.
    • asp_hornet 2 hours ago |
      The way I look at it, their coding plan doesn’t retain data or use it for training making it one of the cheaper plans for me.

      https://docs.z.ai/legal-agreement/privacy-policy

      • andy_ppp 2 hours ago |
        You believe any of these companies care about the law? They care about winning and building the self improving AI as quickly as possible.
        • asp_hornet 2 hours ago |
          I too am sceptical but I’ll take my chances. At least it’s helping the open weights.
        • criley2 2 hours ago |
          I believe the that the companies who claim to not train on my data are more likely to not train on my data than the companies who refuse to even claim they won't.

          Also why Meta gets a +1, just charge less money on the training path.

          • orf 2 hours ago |
            I’m not sure that follows. You’re assuming that all those claims have the same weight, without considering the size, jurisdiction, reputation or even the general vibe of the company making that claim.

            If you factor that in, then there are clearly different tiers: one you can trust, and one that may well just be saying that to increase market share with little reputational or legal consequences if they are found to be lying.

            These are not equal.

            • asp_hornet an hour ago |
              > I’m not sure that follows

              To be fair, none of us are sure of anything and I think that’s the part that’s most irritating

              • orf an hour ago |
                It’s more a polite way of saying “that’s crap”
                • asp_hornet 17 minutes ago |
                  And mine a polite way to say “you are equally uninformed”. We’re not getting anywhere. All the best.
                  • orf 12 minutes ago |
                    FYI it’s helpful to actually say your point during a discussion. And if you don’t want a discussion then why did you comment?
    • Havoc 2 hours ago |
      >I was gonna ask how people found their coding plans

      Very good - but I'm on a legacy plan. And coming up on a renewal that would put me on the watered down current plan. But with 50% legacy discount think it may be worthwhile. If I go to a competitor I'd be paying market rate.

      >They must have hit really hard scaling limits if the prices were hiked so much so quickly.

      Not really scaling - their plans were initially comically subsidized even more so than what the western providers are doing. More advert for an upstart than commercially priced.

    • probst an hour ago |
      Way to restrictive in terms of tokens provided. I am on their largest plan, and quickly run into their limits. And that is using it selectively in addition to codex.
    • _aavaa_ 23 minutes ago |
      Their plans are still worth it if you use their models. You can see how many tokens you can except to get based on plan here: https://docs.z.ai/devpack/overview#estimated-token-allowance

      The max plan will provide ~1,100 USD of GLM-5.3 or ~260 USD of GLM-5.3-flash per month for 168 USD. I can personally attest to these numbers through omp (~97% cache hit rate).

      Unless you are able to highly parallelize (your work, you won't be able to hit your hourly or weekly quota using the flash model simply because it's so slow.

      They give you ~3x more flash tokens, which maybe comes out to ~2x more actual work after accounting for the extra thinking it does to achieve the same result. The mental model, for not getting angry, is 5.3 is fast mode by default, and you can disable fast mode for 2x the work output at 1/3-1/10th the speed.

      They're serving me 5.3 at ~40 tok/s and 5.3-flash at 30 tok/s (according to omp).

      • Schlagbohrer 15 minutes ago |
        That table assumes cache hit rate of 95% or better. Am I understanding this correctly that people really are doing such repetitive prompts (compared to each other, across the concurrent user base at that time) that only 5% or less need actually be computed by the intended LLM?

        That is shocking. Is it per-token I wonder?

        • workbreak 5 minutes ago |
          Every tool call is essentially entire prompt so far sent again with the response and that's why cache rates are so high for agentic workloads. This really bites when using expensive models since most models are 1/10 for cached input.
  • bbor 3 hours ago |
    Well, other than the infrastructure they got from illegally routing millions of paying customers' requests through Anthropic's Opus 4.8 in a distillation attack...
    • jensb1 2 hours ago |
      What is "illegal" about it?
      • bingud 2 hours ago |
        breaking Anthropic TOS and misleading users
        • drbscl 2 hours ago |
          Breaking TOS isn't illegal per se. It just allows for denial of services, and may define terms by which the provider can reclaim costs.
      • bbor 2 hours ago |
        Are you joking...? Sorry if so! Just in case: It's illegal in both the PRC and the USA.

        In the PRC, they[1] leaked tons of national secrets on the PRC's latest AI campaigns, the inner workings of their "opinion monitoring" (read: performative panopticon) and "stability" (read: violent oppression) departments, Chengdu's whole CCTV network, direct-energy weapons plans, espionage activities in Syria to hunt down Uyghur refugees, and god knows what else that Anthropic didn't divulge to us common folk.

        In the US, it's very clearly an attempt to rip off a competitor. I'm not sure how else you could possibly see it. Even if you're a distillation fan in general (which A. why and B. plz don't), they did this through a network of Japanese and Signaporean shell accounts, presumably at least some of which were abusing Anthropic's subscription service in a ToS double-whammy, as it would be exorbitantly expensive otherwise. They also had to hack around Anthropic's API to get CoT traces, which seems impossible to explain away as anything innocent.

        I've been beating the "China isn't necessarily an enemy, it's gonna take us all to handle AI" drum for literally years, but this attack was just... gross. Gross in scale and gross in arrogance. Not a good sign for the dawning alignment crisis, to say the least :(

        TL;DR: Use these services if you want, but know that you're supporting aggressive escalations and companies that very clearly don't give a flying fuck about violating the law, much less your ToS. So... buyer beware, I guess.

        [1]: For clarity, Z.ai was not alone in this, nor were they most egregious attack -- Moonshot.ai (kimi) took that coveted prize. DeepSeek was involved, too.

        • Bluestein 2 hours ago |
          Nulla poena sine lege?
        • dgellow an hour ago |
          What does any of this have to do with the legality of distilling Claude?
        • jLaForest an hour ago |
          Yes, wont somebody please think of the shareholders whose IP had been stolen...
        • podocarp an hour ago |
          Source for 1? Are we sure those aren't hallucinations?
        • pjc50 an hour ago |
          > alignment crisis

          Alignment is meaningless; as you've noticed, humans aren't all that "morally aligned".

          If the tool needs safety measures it should be kept in a safe enclosure like we do with CNC machines, furnaces, and so on.

        • tuesdaynight 27 minutes ago |
          You didn't explain why it's illegal or why distillation is bad.
    • woadwarrior01 2 hours ago |
      That is such a canard, IMO. FWIW, Anthropic and OpenAI encrypt "thinking" token outputs in their models, while Chinese labs don't. If anything, it's more likely that everyone is using open-weight models in their synthetic training data generation pipelines. It's way easier to distill from logits than it is to distill from hard tokens.

      https://x.com/EricSimons/status/2099252922098061714

    • phoghed 2 hours ago |
      We weep for Dario, that he had to suffer such a devastating attack against his Terms of Service.
    • butterNaN an hour ago |
      Eh, even if this was true, then they're merely stealing from thieves. Anthropic did break a ToS or two to get training data themselves.
    • pjc50 an hour ago |
      Anthropic infringed the copyright of basically every author on the planet: https://www.anthropiccopyrightsettlement.com/

      No real reason to respect any terms they might want to impose. Besides, if you want to break TOS, just have an agent do it; "everyone" running these things agrees there's no corporate or moral liability for what your AI does.

      • _aavaa_ 22 minutes ago |
        I'm not defending their actions, but we should be clear about where the law currently stands: Anthropic was found to infringe because of the torrenting, not because of the training.
  • rob74 2 hours ago |
    This article left me with one immediate question: "WTF is GLM?".

    Honestly, I have no idea what z.ai is either (I'm aware of an AI-enabled editor called Zed, but that's under zed.dev), so it's a bit presumptuous from them to assume that everyone is familiar with their product...

    • fxwin 2 hours ago |
      It's presumptuous for them to assume that a reader of their blog is familiar with their product?

      Also I feel like the obvious way to read the very first sentence is that GLM is a language model

      > As we develop GLM, the model sometimes exhibits capabilities that surprise us

    • jbonatakis 2 hours ago |
      z.ai is a fairly well known AI lab out of China and their GLM models are probably the most popular outside of Anthropic or OpenAI’s. I don’t think it’s presumptuous for them to not introduce themselves in a post on their own blog, I think you’re just a bit out of the loop here.
    • drbscl 2 hours ago |
      >As we develop GLM, the model sometimes exhibits capabilities that surprise us, and even unsettle us.

      Come on now

      Also, why would they introduce themselves on their own blog?

    • Mashimo 2 hours ago |
      A ai model family similar to Codex, Gemini or Claude.

      Where GLM-5.3-Flash is the newest "small / fast" model.

    • peri-cl 2 hours ago |
      It's only the top open-weights LLM in the world,

      https://artificialanalysis.ai/#intelligence-category-tabs

    • bogdan an hour ago |
      I don't get the outrage. Do you post this kind of stuff on every topic on hackernews that you are not knowledgeable about?
      • rob74 an hour ago |
        Maybe my post sounded harsher than I intended, and yeah, it's probably on me that I'm not familiar with GLM. Actually the other major Chinese LLM Kimi does ring a bell, maybe it's because three-letter acronyms are a dime a dozen and annoy me because I'm confronted with them regularly at work too (people at my company seem to love acronyms), but that's obviously on me too...
        • tokai an hour ago |
          It didn't read as harsh. Only unaware and you broadcasted that you don't have the decency to do basic searches.
    • HarHarVeryFunny 34 minutes ago |
      Ziphu, aka Z.ai, is the company that makes GLM (a very competitive Chinese LLM).

      Why would you be reading their corporate blog posts if you don't even know who they are?!

  • Argonautlabs 2 hours ago |
    Different angle on the same model: the full GLM-5.3 (744B MoE, 4-bit experts, 434 GB on disk) runs on a single MacBook Pro M5 Max with 128 GB by streaming the experts from NVMe SSDs instead of keeping them in memory.

    One drive gives about 2 tok/s; striped across four drives it reaches 3.5 tok/s with byte-identical output, and our best internal build with a not-yet-published patch does 4.2.

    Method and numbers: https://github.com/argonautlabsai/argodrive (built on antirez/ds4).

    • tipsytoad 2 hours ago |
      seems unusably slow, and is this for short context?
  • Havoc 2 hours ago |
    Interesting that the tone of announcements between US and Chinese providers is converging.

    GLM has in the past been more technical rather than speculation about future development on RSI etc.

    Also curious whether those 100k accelerators are entirely locally made. If that's genuinely end to end on all components including lithography, memory, design etc then that is quite a feat.

    • dude250711 2 hours ago |
      Any details on the latest approach to distillation would also be very interesting.
      • Schlagbohrer 17 minutes ago |
        I am surprised at the lack of open-weights models in the >35B, but <200B range. I keep thinking about devices like the NVIDIA Spark and AMD Ryzen Halo, which have their 128GB of combined memory, but there are so few models made for that range. Nearly all the open weights distillations are for larger customer bases with <24GB VRAM.
    • HarHarVeryFunny 38 minutes ago |
      Ziphu (who make GLM) use Huawei Ascend processors made by SMIC. Huawei use a combination of domestic memory from CXMT and leftover (pre-sanctions) memory from Samsung.

      Just like the rest of the world, including the US (Intel, Micron), SMIC are currently using ASML lithography equipment (DUV, not EUV), but Shanghai Aishengna are now moving into early production with their own DUV machines, with SMIC and CXMT as early customers.

      There is also a state sponsored Chinese EUV development underway.

  • jonstewart an hour ago |
    Necessity is the mother of invention. The shortsighted protections put on chips, etc., by the US has forced Chinese AI industry to adapt or die. Guess what their response to this fitness function has been? Kudos to Z.ai on their inventions and excellent write-up, which reads like humans wrote it.
    • HarHarVeryFunny 27 minutes ago |
      Wouldn't it be refreshing if OpenAI and Anthropic were this open, and spelled out how they were using their own models during development and rollout?!

      All I can recall reading from OpenAI about what they have actually done in the name of "RSI" is using one of their models to help automate the training process.

  • zicohacks 38 minutes ago |
    US chip export restrictions may actually be an advantage for China's AI Infrastructure. Chinese companies are forced to speed up developing their own AI chips
    • HarHarVeryFunny 16 minutes ago |
      China themselves recognize this. After Trump relaxed sanctions and allowed NVIDIA H200 sales to China on a case by case basis, the Chinese government stepped in to essentially block it!

      In addition to Huawei who make the Ascend series that Ziphu are using, there are also at least a half dozen or so other Chinese companies also making their own AI accelerators.

      • 0xbadcafebee 9 minutes ago |
        [delayed]
    • menaerus 9 minutes ago |
      It was evident that this will happen.

      > Compared with our initial baseline on the same hardware, we achieved a 3× improvement in end-to-end serving performance, reaching hardware efficiency and per-token cost comparable to mainstream NVIDIA GPUs. This demonstrates that Chinese chips can support frontier-model inference efficiently and economically at scale.

  • chung8123 32 minutes ago |
    I might be missing something but when I went to their site they are more expensive than Claude. Why would I pick GLM over Claude? Is it they just offer more tokens in their plans?
    • tokai 26 minutes ago |
      For one you would have to use Claude if you pick it. But seriously there is no way for you to determine if one is a better offer than the other, when the usage/tokens/credits are vague, detached, and won't tell you much without trying both.
    • gpugreg 7 minutes ago |

          > Why would I pick GLM over Claude?
      
      To support the company that makes their model weights available for download, while Anthropic lobbies to restrict access.
    • Bawoosette 3 minutes ago |
      What are you referring to? Given the audience, my instinct is to assume "plan" refers to the GLM Coding Plans, which are all cheaper than their Anthropic counterparts. As far as I can tell, the API costs are also all cheaper than their roughly equivalently capable Anthropic models.
  • throwa356262 21 minutes ago |

        "We implemented a series of aggressive memory optimizations, including..."
    
    
    This whole thing sounds like industrial scale auto-research, but done by people who actually know what they are doing.
  • 0xbadcafebee 11 minutes ago |
    [delayed]
  • KronisLV 6 minutes ago |
    Time to tackle consumer GPUs next, since I’m not getting that Intel Arc B770.
  • konart 4 minutes ago |
    If only this infrastructure could handle all the traffic. I've tried using glm via z.ai - and it's a snail kind of slow.

    And at the same time you have pretty strict limits to your usage, so in many cases you can't even let it work all night, as you will reach your limit faster than that.