I've noticed GLM 4.6-5.1 and all other models included in the subscription have recently plummeted in quality, to the extent that my local 12b models objectively outperform them in both writing quality, repetition, and ability to follow instructions. My only limitation is context on a local model, but I'm debating if it's worth keeping up the subscription if I can get better results locally.
Having experimented with hundreds of models over the past few years, GLM 4.6 was the best but it and all other GLMs seem to have been given severe lobotomies impacting performance to an extreme extent. To the point where I don't believe that any of the "200k context" models actually provide that context, nor do they use actual 40B or higher parameter models when actually processing responses. It's gotten so bad that I explicitly say "write at least five paragraphs" and all of them respond with two or less, acknowledges its' mistake, then proceeds to do the exact same thing again. No visual detail, no actions, limited dialog, extreme repetition once context exceeds 1k tokens, and plot skipping galore.
Would it be possible to include the following 12B model in the subscription listings for a trial run? It far out performs in my experience any of the current offerings in writing quality, and supports up to 1,024,000 token context according to LM studio, if you have to VRAM for it. I've used it locally for over a year now, and have found myself going back to it many times as Mistral, Llama, and other popular models never really measured up in their smaller models. It would also be much cheaper to host than a 40B model that doesn't behave like 40B.
GGUF/Quants:
https://huggingface.co/mradermacher/EtherealAurora-12B-v2-GGUF
Safetensors:
https://huggingface.co/yamatazen/EtherealAurora-12B-v2/tree/main
For more suggestions, I regularly use the following leaderboard for models that I test locally or on hosting services, although I primarily test models that can be run locally only on a high end PC.