FULL STORY

Tang Jie's Scaling Law Essay Sparks AI Debate

Zhipu co-founder Tang Jie's essay on Scaling Law, arguing GLM-5.3 improves via post-training without added parameters, sparked heated debate on whether pretraining is saturated and whether scale drives intelligence.

2026-08-19 ~ 2026-08-21 · 2 episodes · 13 posts

Episode 1 · Zhipu's Tang Jie on Scaling Law: GLM-5.3 Gains Come from Post-Training, Not Parameters (2026-08-19, 10 posts)

On August 19, Tang Jie, Zhipu co-founder, chief scientist and Tsinghua professor, published "Thoughts About Scaling Law" on X, presenting GLM-5.3 as a controlled experiment: it shares the same base, architecture, total and active parameters as GLM-5.2, with one month of scaled long-horizon environments and RL post-training yielding non-marginal gains—evidence that scaling knobs exist beyond parameter count.

Confirmed

  • Tang argued that parameter count cannot be discussed in isolation from training data volume, compute allocation, and deployment conditions; the post also cited learning rate and other variables.
  • He reviewed the shifts in scaling strategy: Kaplan (2020) concluded parameters should grow faster than data (2.7:1), pushing the industry toward parameter over-expansion; Hoffmann/Chinchilla (2022) revised the compute-optimal ratio to 20:1 (data:parameters) with both growing at similar rates; once inference cost dominates, the trend shifts toward smaller models trained longer (e.g., Llama-2), with inference and MoE reshaping the optimal ratio.
  • He holds that total parameters matter until a threshold sufficient to contain the "world," after which gains come from scaling effective depth per forward pass and, most importantly, post-training.
  • GLM-5.3 was obtained with identical parameter configuration, scaling only long-horizon environments and RL post-training; officials describe the gains as non-marginal.
  • OpenAI researcher Liam Fedus reshared the post and added historical detail: in 2020, while exploring Switch Transformer sparsity, the team routed each token to 1 of 2048 experts, echoing the intertwined evolution of MoE and scaling.

Why it matters

  • This is an explicit statement from a leading Chinese lab executive against "parameter worship," hinting future releases may not prioritize larger parameter counts.
  • GLM-5.2 vs GLM-5.3 forms a rare controlled comparison isolating post-training, offering a reference for evaluating the scaling value of RL post-training.
  • natolambert endorsed the view that parameters matter only alongside data, compute allocation and operating conditions; samsja19 extended the discussion to independent scaling targets for active vs. total parameters, depth-compute trade-offs, and test-time compute versus parameter scaling.

Episode 2 · Debate Rages Over Scaling Laws as Pretraining Potential Called Far From Saturated (2026-08-21, 3 posts)

AI researchers debate whether scaling is still necessary for intelligence, with kalomaze arguing pretraining potential in DeepSeek-V3 checkpoints is far from saturated, amid doubts that Zhipu's new model is anything larger than GLM-5.3/5.4 Vision.