Please tell me Qwen3.8-Flash-Next can be made to be better than this
Summary
A user shares frustration with Qwen3.8-Flash-Next's verbose, meandering responses on general research questions when run locally via llama.cpp, questioning whether the model can be improved beyond coding tasks.
Similar Articles
Is Qwen3.8-Flash-Next too trigger happy or is it just me?
A developer evaluating Qwen3.8-Flash-Next for coding and a voice-agent use case reports it is overly eager to act, running excessive tool calls and taking actions (like creating GitHub issues) when only analysis was requested. They compare it to DeepSeek v4 flash models and note MiMo-V2.6-Flash-MOPD behaves more sensibly as a coding agent.
@QuixiAI: My experience with Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is that it can't even keep track of a multi-turn conversation. It answers questio…
Users report issues with Qwen3.8-Flash-Next, such as poor multi-turn conversation tracking, compared to the better-performing Qwen3.8-27B.
Are you running Qwen 3.8 27b or Qwen Flash Next?
The user discusses preferences between Qwen 3.8 27b and Qwen Flash Next models on Apple hardware, comparing speeds, and inquires about improving performance with MLX and harnesses without reasoning.
Qwen 3.8 Flash-Next compared to GLM 5.3 Flash
An anecdotal comparison of Qwen 3.8 Flash-Next and GLM 5.3 Flash, noting QFN feels more conversational and collaborative while GLM tends to skip discussion and immediately start implementing, plus a request for prompting tips to make GLM more interactive.
Qwen3.8: 27b vs flash next. We all know the benchmarks, but at least to me, the reality is a different story
A developer compares self-hosted Qwen3.8-27B-GGUF (Q4_K_XL via llama.cpp) against cloud Qwen3.8 Flash Next, arguing that despite worse benchmarks, the dense 27B delivers better code quality, fewer rework iterations, more concise reviews, and far lower token consumption for their spec-to-PR workflow.