(had to add it to the chart, wasn't displayed by default. is it the lowest rate in the datasetor no?)
jampekka 4 days ago [-]
This counts only incorrect answers though. A model can get 0% hallucination rate just by refusing to answer all questions.
ffsm8 4 days ago [-]
Isn't that precisely the reason why we introduced the term hallucination? Because llms have historically always made up bullshit of they cannot answer directly... If they now nailed this to maybe the model not respond instead of responding incorrectly, then a lot of previously unusable usecases would become feasible.
So I feel like that's exactly the right metric and the way to track it wrt hallucinations.
doublescoop 4 days ago [-]
I had a buddy in high school that was notorious for doing the same thing. (He's now a senior director at a Big 4 consultancy. :) )
rrgok 4 days ago [-]
Do you mind expanding a little more?
alfiedotwtf 3 days ago [-]
They had a buddy who used to lie a lot when they were younger… now they get paid for it
akoboldfrying 4 days ago [-]
The point is that it's not a useful metric on its own. For example, redirecting from /dev/null also achieves a zero hallucination rate.
We want the hallucination rate to decrease while the overall answer rate of queries remains sufficiently high. For more specifics, look into ROC and AUC.
It rewards correct answers and penalizes hallucinations, and finally no reward for refusing to answer.
It's interesting just how poorly some popular Chinese models fare in this regard, like GLM 5.1 or DeepSeek 4 Pro.
Gemini 3.x has truly remarkable knowledge given how it leads in this benchmark despite being (quite a bit) more prone to hallucinate than Claude Opus.
speed_spread 4 days ago [-]
Yes. A model that can answer "I don't know" would be much more trustable than the current used car salesman we have now.
jampekka 4 days ago [-]
Models can answer "I don't know". Hallucination benchmarks, including this, give the models the option to "not attempt". It's just that the metric linked doesn't take into account the rate of correct answers at all. It has its uses in analyzing incorrect vs not attempted answers, but gives a very partial picture.
jorvi 4 days ago [-]
Its very annoying this has been in the capability of models since the very beginning. It could check how probable its token values are and if those fall below a certain threshold either say "I don't know", or output the most probable (well, more like least improbable) tokens but give a very clear, very strong warning that it is a shot in the dark and likely to contain hallucinations.
But no, Google and OpenAI would rather always have an answer ready and tell you to mix glue into your pizza toppings :)
miki123211 4 days ago [-]
It can't, because top n isn't always reliable.
Hallucination detection is an open problem. If it were that simple, people would indeed "just" do it.
Basically the problem is that LLMs aren't trained on things they don't know; an alternative way of saying this is that they're not trained on things they're not trained on, which is obviously true.
When you RL a model and it answers incorrectly, you don't teach it to answer "I don't know", you teach it to answer correctly instead. This makes it very hard for it to realize when it doesn't know things.
chengyongru 4 days ago [-]
Models tend to default to their training data even when they lack sufficient context, they've never been trained to recognize their own uncertainty, so they hallucinate confidently instead.
tokenscoper 4 days ago [-]
I don't have much to add other than this observation that we seem to have moved away from eating one small rock per day for nutritional value, and adding gasoline in spaghetti.
The glue on pizza reference brought back memories :)
SR2Z 3 days ago [-]
The probability of tokens is unfortunately a poor proxy for confidence because it is entirely possible for "mixing glue" to appear in a sentence about making pizza depending on context. It might even be likely if the user has asked the model to lie.
nomel 4 days ago [-]
Yeah, I never understood why the top n statistics weren't included in the chat interfaces, to color the text!
aicantdeny 4 days ago [-]
> by refusing to answer all questions.
Cool, precisely the thing other AI is too stupid to do when they don't have the necessary knowledge.
Balinares 4 days ago [-]
Yes, that's in fact precisely the desired behavior when a model doesn't know the answer.
gslepak 5 days ago [-]
> The non-hallucination rate in AA-omniscience is SOTA
Note that a perfect "non-hallucination rate" is rather meaningless as such tests can contain human hallucinations.
It means the model aligns with the possibly-true, possibly-false beliefs of the group that made the test.
rlt 5 days ago [-]
Well, yes, garbage in garbage out. That's a given and not what's meant by "hallucination" in this context.
tantaman 4 days ago [-]
the observation goes beyond garbage in garbage out. Mainly that we're always operating from some prior and limited understanding. That what may look like a hallucination could be closer to the truth than our current frameworks of understanding allow us to admit. The hermeneutic circle.
root_axis 4 days ago [-]
A properly designed benchmark won't use tests that leave room for ambiguous interpretation.
Jacques2Marais 4 days ago [-]
Interesting. I wonder if current LLMs can break out of human limitations and understand the world more correctly.
Was there something about this specific model and submission that made you feel compelled to write this self-evident observation?
Or would you describe your methodology as more like picking a random sentence fragment as an input value then generating completions from your existing corpus without any post-input "learning" process related to the rest of the source material?
anti-zionist 4 days ago [-]
[dead]
sheepscreek 5 days ago [-]
Truly incredible! Very impressed by their progress. I wonder how much of their own chips did they use for training.
girvo 4 days ago [-]
The big question for me having used a lot of these SOTA chinese models is: what is its token efficiency like?
Running Step 3.5 Flash locally for example, it's an amazingly capable model all things considered, but it's token efficiency is so bad that it gets out performed by most others wall-clock time (even with my MTP-support for it hacked in to llama.cpp: despite being trained on three heads, MTP 2 is the sweet spot, and only gets it from 20tk/s to 30tk/s on my Spark)
The DeepSeek models and Qwen 3.5 Plus are also good examples of this: compared to Opus, and especially GPT 5.5 they use many more tokens to get to the same answers.
I'm really hoping that Qwen 3.7 is better in this regard, can't wait to try it out
(ps. running DeepSeek v4 Flash on my Spark is absolutely wild, thanks antirez if you see this haha)
nl 4 days ago [-]
Yes it's a big thing that people are slowly becoming more aware of.
> Gemma 4 31B is notably token efficient, using 39M output tokens to run the Intelligence Index vs 98M for Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning). This is ~2.5x fewer output tokens for a model scoring 3 points lower. For context, the other models at the 42-point intelligence level also use significantly more tokens: MiniMax-M2.5 (56M), DeepSeek V3.2 (Reasoning, 61M), and GLM-4.7 (Reasoning, 167M)
Right and all of my own evals back this up for Gemma 4...
...except its notably worse at coding in an agent context even with a harness setup to do exactly what Google says it should do (wrt. to sending summarised thinking back and so on)
So despite it being far better token efficiency wise, it's just worse for what I need to use it for compared to DSv4 Flash or Qwen 3.6 27B
Such a shame, too.
baq 5 days ago [-]
wonder at which level there's a capability state transition? 5%? 1%?
briga 5 days ago [-]
I was getting dangerously close to my weekly Claude Code limit last night so I had Claude set up Qwen3.6 with llama.cpp and OpenCode. Honestly it's a great (free!) alternative to Claude Code--certainly more than good enough for a lot of smaller less complex tasks. I'm excited to try this new version. The fact that open-source models are so close to the frontier is very impressive.
pixelesque 5 days ago [-]
Out of interest, what machine and model are you running it on?
I tried the qwen3.6-27b Q6_k GUFF in llama.cpp and LM Studio on my M2 MacBook Pro 32GB machine last week, and I barely get a token a second with either.
What sort of speed should I be expecting?
I tried some of the Llama 3 34b (nous-capybara?) models two years ago with llama.cpp, and I seem to remember getting a few tokens a second then, so not sure if I've got something completely mis-configured, or I just have unreasonable expectations.
Or maybe qwen 3.x is slower for some reason? (Is it mixture of experts?)
I'm not expecting it to be instant, but what I'm currently seeing is not really usable.
gcr 5 days ago [-]
There are two flavors of Qwen 3.6:
- A 27B "dense" model
- A 35B "Mixture of Experts" model, which activates only 3B parameters for each token.
For your hardware, I strongly recommend `unsloth/Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-GGUF:Q4_K_M`. I have an M1 Max with 32GB VRAM from 2021 that can read at ~300-500 tokens/sec and write at ~30 tokens/sec with llama-cpp's default settings, which is plenty fast. The 27B model can read ~70tok/sec and write ~5tok/sec.
The 35B MoE model technically takes slightly more memory but is much faster because it's doing 1/9th the work. It's not quite as "smart", but it's comparable.
flockonus 4 days ago [-]
For coding tasks 27B is reported to be much more effective, altho you can probably only run 4b or 5b quants @ this memory.
I played around with local LLMs on my M4 Max 64GB this weekend and this is exactly what I found. I put Opus 4.7 "head to head" on the same task as Qwen 3.6 and a few other local models. The 35B did not perform well IME - it needed a lot of handholding and even then the final result did not work until a few more tweaks, while Claude one shot the task. The 27B was much better and also one shot the task, but took about ~55min as opposed to about ~15min for Claude. The 27B is probably something that I could happily run for many use cases if I had some faster hardware... the main problem there seems to be that at larger context sizes, prompt decoding can take several minutes.
gcr 2 days ago [-]
This matches my experience too. The little a3b model is quite capable for its size class, as is the 27B model, but it’s still an order of magnitude less effective than Claude on the “effectiveness / time” curve
joelanman 4 days ago [-]
Using omlx on the M1 max I get about 15tps from 27b
gcr 4 days ago [-]
interesting! I might give omlx another chance, thank you
pixelesque 5 days ago [-]
Thank you - I'll give that a go!
julianlam 5 days ago [-]
May I ask why the M instead of XL?
Obviously bigger != better but I don't know what the differences are.
DiabloD3 4 days ago [-]
These are dynamic quants, and they're basically just an indication of how far away from the desired quant it is allowed to go to achieve the goal. Generally, unsloth's toolchain moves quants up, rarely down.
* _0 and _1 do not use K quant and scales 32x32 blocks according to the original (B)F16 values; _0 scales the block using the original max and min values. _1 does this per row instead of per block.
* K quants do something similar, but now splits blocks into subblocks inside a superblock where the superblock has min/max scaling, but the subblocks also have scaling in the range of the superblock's scaling and are stored using less bits.
* K's M, L, XL are just how aggressively the subblocks and their scaling factors are chosen. Generally, it puts a max on how far you can deviate from the chosen quant to maintain the desired quality, but also gives them a bigger budget to perform that excursion in. XL most aggressively tries to preserve the intended quality, while S does the least.
* Dynamic quant on top of this scales entire layers, full of blocks, according to how much they effect various measurements (such as KLD and perplexity).
That said, there is no reason K_S is even produced by anyone, same with Q_0, Q_1, and I_NL. People should no longer be using those. M only is meaningful if you're trying to restrict the upper bounds: K_XL can reach BF16 for some weights, but rarely; people think this has a speed implication for hardware that has native 8bit in their tensor units (but it doesn't).
Unless you're specifically trying to cure a problem, stick with K_XL.
srcrip 4 days ago [-]
You seem to understand this stuff pretty well, any recommendations on resources (blogs, YouTube channels, whatever) for software engineers that want to keep up with this stuff on this kind of level?
A lot of the content about AI out there is kind of produced to the lowest common denominator. Basically a never ending scheme of get rich quick/passive income kinds of AI content.
gcr 4 days ago [-]
Unsloth’s guides on getting various models running are great starting-off points for the “practicioner’s side” of things. Note that they include settings for llama-cpp, ollama, and other runtimes in addition to their own “unsloth studio” (their product seems like overkill imo)
If you’re curious about what a particular switch does, clone the llama-cpp repository to your computer and try asking your favorite pet rock prompts like “This is llama-cpp. Can you look at what the -ctk parameter does and explain to me?” Giving Claude/codex/whatever access to the actual code goes a long way, but it is just one opinion.
If you’d like to learn how transformer-based language modeling works in detail, I suggest starting with chapter 0 or 1 of https://arena-chapter0-fundamentals.streamlit.app/ depending on your skill level, then use that to work your way to reading research papers.
Graduate students who study these topics are generally as annoyed by the “get rich quick” style of advertising as you are, so the deeper you go toward academic research the quieter those voices tend to get, mercifully. That said, this is balanced by the unfortunate fact that top labs have strong posturing signals they try to send, so it can be hard to see which preprints actually have good ideas, which are trying to promote their group’s tech instead of doing science out of curiosity, and which have authors who’ve innocently deluded themselves into overfitting their own pet projects. Read widely but adversarially, test everything but hold fast to the good stuff, etc etc
rao-v 4 days ago [-]
Hey some of us are on hardware (gfx906 based Radeon MI50s with 32GB of stupidly fast VRAM and basically no compute) that inference significantly faster with Q_0 and Q_1 quants
DiabloD3 4 days ago [-]
Vega... unfortunately kinda sucks.
Its not amazing at compute (yet is a member of the GCN family, which I have been a fan of since its inception) and ended up being too expensive for perf/$ and perf/watt.
The only thing it did was make Nvidia rush Series 10 out the door and make it too good. Nvidia has been unable to live up to the gen-to-gen uplift Series 10 did, all because AMD made Nvidia blink.
Basically, you're 2 gens too early. CDNA2/gfx90a is the minimum you need to get any meaningful performance out of inference, or maybe CDNA1/gfx908 if you really don't need to quantize at all.
BTW, I did suggest this elsewhere in this HN story, but have you tried just disabling KV quant entirely? That is a huge speed uplift for compute-poor users.
Also, llama.cpp's support for gfx906 is probably never going to as good as it is for other cards, and good ROCm support for cards before they rebooted the driver/stack team is probably never going to materialize. I don't see the point in hanging onto them.
Like, if I was in your place, replacing it with even a 9060xt, with half the RAM, would be a step up. They go for $450. People have been building dedicated inference machines with these and they've been amazing, just throwing in 3 or 4 in, and scaling VRAM to meet needs.
gcr 4 days ago [-]
If your hardware fits K_M but not K_XL, should you prefer going down to a lower quantization’s XL or sticking to the higher quant’s Q_M?
DiabloD3 4 days ago [-]
The correct answer should be "try it!"
But as models are starting to pack more information into less bits, some weights are just going to end up becoming super important and very sensitive to quant. So, I'd just move down a Q size, and continue with K_XL. Like, I'm betting Q3_K_XL will beat Q4_K_M on any given model in real world testing, even though its ~20% smaller, but perform worse on benchmaxxing.
The only exception I could think of is quantizing small models, like, my testing on Gemma E2B/E4B and Qwen 3.5 9B, quantizing at all was super noticeable... they can't spread the error across more weights.
Good news (at least for me), 24GB of VRAM is enough to store either of those in BF16 and then a ton of room for F16/F16 KV cache.
alfiedotwtf 3 days ago [-]
[dead]
khimaros 4 days ago [-]
MTP recommended
gcr 4 days ago [-]
on my M1 Max, MTP consistently lowers my performance! I’ve tried both llama-cpp’s recently landed MTP support (cloned and built Tuesday) as well as one of the other forks a few weeks ago. Suspect nobody’s done a comparison on hardware like mine.
DiabloD3 4 days ago [-]
I recommend sticking with the dense models for both Qwen and Gemma.
On testing I've done on same-quant apples to apples, with F16/F16 (ie, unquantized) kv cache, 35B-A3B underperforms against 27B on anything even remotely complex. But yes, 35B-A3B can be like 3-4x faster on my hardware.
By Qwen's own admission, on any meaningful benchmark (ie, ones that involve logic, math, or tool calling), 27B performs like 122B-10B and 397B-A17B, but 35B-A3B is somewhere between 27B dense and 9B dense.
Also, MTP recently got merged in, so I'd suggest downloading Qwen 3.6 MTP (I assume you get it from unsloth) and updating your copy of llama.cpp, and adding `--spec-type draft-mtp --spec-draft-n-max 2` to your arguments.
Also, I recommend not quantizing kv cache, and if you do, only quantize v. Lowering model quant while also lowering context size to fit F16/F16 or F16/Q8_0 massively improves model performance for thinking models. Also, quantizing cache, either k or v, decreases speed by a lot on some hardware.
I have a 24gb 7900xtx, so I can fit >32k F16/F16 context with Qwen3.6-27B, but use unsloth's Q3_K_XL. This performs better than Q(4,5,6)_K_XL with v quantized.
Edit: Oh, and since I mentioned Gemma 4, my testing mirrors my Qwen 3.5/3.6 experiences, 26B-A4B performs worse than 31B, but is also way faster. llama.cpp doesn't support Gemma 4's MTP style yet, so both could get even faster.
booty 4 days ago [-]
I tried the qwen3.6-27b Q6_k GUFF in llama.cpp
and LM Studio on my M2 MacBook Pro 32GB machine
last week, and I barely get a token a second with either.
The fact that it was this slow makes me suspect it's a matter of insufficient free RAM. The entire model needs to fit into RAM (and stay there the entire time) for acceptable performance.
(not sure of exact diagnosis/fix, but definitely look in that direction if you're still having this issue when you give it another shot)
Also, there are two stages - prompt processing, and token generation. Prompt processing is notoriously slow on Apple Silicon unfortunately. If you have large context (which includes system prompts, lots of tools loaded by a harness like Claude Code, OpenCode, etc) it can take minutes for prompt processing before you see the first output token. On the bright side, the tokens are cached between turns, so subsequent turns won't be so bad.
mark_l_watson 4 days ago [-]
You are using Q6 6 bit quantization; on my 32G MacMini I use Q4 and it is faster but when I use it with OpenCode, I set up a task and go outside to walk for ten minutes. Smart, capable, and slow. Still, I love using local models.
EDIT: I run with context wired at 64K
mft_ 5 days ago [-]
The 27B model is dense, so is relatively slow. The 35B-A3B model is marginally weaker but being MoE is much faster - like ~4-8x faster in basic benchmarks on my M1 Max.
For comparison, I just ran a couple of quick benchmarks (default settings) with llama-bench:
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B at Q6_K_XL gave 858 t/s pp512 (prompt processing) and 43 t/s tg128 (token generation).
Qwen3.6-27B at Q4_K_XL gave 103 t/s pp512 and 8 t/s tg128.
stebalien 4 days ago [-]
Have you tried enabling MTP? Those numbers are similar to what I was getting on my Strix Halo box, but configuring/enabling MTP doubled the TG speed of the 27B model (18-20 t/s now).
mft_ 3 days ago [-]
Thanks - I’m in the process. I’ve tried briefly, but so far it appears marginally slower. (Noting that llama-bench doesn’t support MTP yet so you’re reduced to running different prompts and eyeballing the log.)
So I’m assuming I’ve done something wrong along the way, but I’ve not had time yet to explore it.
pixelesque 5 days ago [-]
Thanks for the info.
Figs 5 days ago [-]
27B is the dense one. Try the Qwen3.6-35B-A3B variants for the MoE release. That's what I'm running on a Framework Desktop and I get ~50 tok/s plus or minus a few. The dense one is similarly slow for me -- not sure what to expect on your hardware from the MoE but it should probably be much faster.
My token throughput is much better using vLLM-mlx on my M2 ultra than llama.cpp. It might be worth a shot to give it a try.
electroglyph 4 days ago [-]
you should be using dflash with that model, look it up
plufz 5 days ago [-]
Which exact model are you using? And with which parameters and quant? And on what hardware? Are you using any specific MCPs or other tools to optimize performance like context-mode or dynamic context pruning? I’ve used local models a reasonable amount before but I’m just starting out with opencode. Haven’t had great results yet but really want this to work for simpler tasks. My opencode newly installed is also having iterm on 100% cpu in idle. :/
briga 5 days ago [-]
I'm running Qwen3.6:27b Q4 KM on a 4090 and similarly fast CPU and I think 32GB of RAM. Make sure the context window is set to be big enough otherwise the conversation will keep compacting. No special MCP tools set up yet. Qwen is able to do web search out-of-the-box although I think it is getting blocked by anti-bot firewalls--I still need to figure out if I can fix that.
here's a simple setup to get you started on an Apple M1 Max from 2021 with 32GB VRAM. it will download 20GB of models to `~/.cache/huggingface/hub`, which you can delete when you're done.
/Users/gcr/llama.cpp/build/bin/llama-server
-hf unsloth/Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-GGUF:Q4_K_M
--no-mmproj-offload
--fit on
-c 65536 # edit to taste
--reasoning on --chat-template-kwargs '{"preserve_thinking": true}'
--sleep-idle-seconds 90 # very aggressive: purge model from vram after this long
-ctk q8_0 -ctv q8_0 # Optional. Lower memory use, but lower speed. Omit if you can.
I don't recommend ollama or lm-studio. Ollama's in the process of switching from their llama-cpp backend anyway, but their new go framework frequently OOMs and crashes on my hardware. I also don't recommend MLX-based inference backends on this hardware; I've found them to consistently reduce performance, contrary to what I've read online. I've tried all the llama-cpp metal forks, but right now, MTP, TurboQuant, MLX, etc etc etc are too new and just slow things down. It's all dust in the wind still.
For agent harnesses, opencode is okay, as is pi or even Zed's built in agent panel. Claude code "works" with ANTHROPIC_BASE_URL=http://localhost:8080/v1, but is very chatty (the default system prompt burns 20k tokens). Crush (from the charm-bracelet folks) is particularly nice when starting out. I've personally converged on pi-agent under an otherwise-mostly-default setup. You can ask qwen to customize pi or write you an extension which helps a little.
You'll need to add `http://localhost:8080/v1` as an OpenAI-compatible model provider in your coding harness with any API key (doesn't matter) and any model identifier (doesn't matter with llama-cpp).
Note that pi doesn't have permissions. Everything is permitted. The hundred hungry ghosts you've trapped in a jar WILL find a way to delete your home folder someday. That's what Man gets for summoning demons without casting a circle of protection first. Flying too close to the sun etc etc etc
Take backups and then go have fun. Hope this helps.
irishcoffee 4 days ago [-]
I have a 5070TI (16gb VRAM) with 32GB system ram and a 16 core AMD cpu. I am considering buying a second used videocard, probably the same model, but not for months yet. This hardware setup is new-for-me in that a buddy gave me most of it and I bought the TI card.
Are there any resources to help me figure out how to best optimize my runtime paramaters for a given model, based on a given task, similar to what you've shown?
I've been a little... irritated? that hooking vscode up to my company LLM subscription seems so much more out-of-the-box capiable than what I can get to work. My assumption at the moment is that I need to create a lot of... I think they're called harnesses? agents? workflows? integrations? (not sure) by hand. Is that accurate?
Right now I have ollama running an nvidia nano model and I can poke it with a stick over a web interface I installed. It works, initial token response is slow, after that it seems fine enough.
I can't seem to get a good handle on how much context I've used, when context usage starts to degrade response accuracy, or in general how to mirror the results I get (not in terms of accuracy or speed, just features) from the company github copilot + vscode integration.
I was also trying to get a plugin called qodeassist working via qtcreator, mixed results there as well.
I've been keeping up with this space since the jump, never paid for a sub, work gave me a sub a handful of weeks ago, so the actual useage is all new to me.
I can't say I'm super impressed with any of it relative to the hype, but I found it neat to be able to point vscode at a c++ codebase and say "enable wextra, build the code, tell me if there is any low-hanging fruit I can clean up" and get a useful response.
I also asked my local model to turn a picture of my dog into a picture of an otter, got a blank picture back, which the thinking bit told me it would do. The whole thing was actually kind of funny. "I am allowed to edit pictures, I can't edit pictures, I am allowed to edit pictures, I'll tell the user I did and send a blank picture back because I can't edit pictures, but I am allowed to."
srcrip 4 days ago [-]
Can you elaborate more on the differences in running ollama or lmstudio? Do they actually slow down the speed of the inference and if so why? Or is it just a preference thing?
gcr 4 days ago [-]
Ollama and LM-Studio are fine. Their main advantage is that they have a nice way to browse models -- LMStudio from huggingface and Ollama from their own curated list. Both are great ways of getting started. Pick LM-Studio if you'd like a nice GUI frontend to mlx-lm or llama-cpp; pick ollama if you'd like a nice command line interface and don't need non-default parameters.
LM-Studio doesn't support certain parameter combinations. For instance, LM-Studio supports KV quantization....but if you're using the MLX backend, you can't set the context length when KV quantization is used? Why? Running a model with certain settings requires keeping a little SAT solver going in your head. I found that overwhelming, so I just stopped using it.
The Ollama devs want to offer a central curated experience, but I perceive their approach as "playing fast and loose." They've re-implemented unique code for every model they support in their own Go runtime, so certain parameter choices aren't supported. On my hardware, their MLX backend just doesn't work at all without segfaulting the server process for example. It doesn't smack as vibe coded the way oMLX does, but it also doesn't smack as professional or battle-tested.
Ultimately, just dropping down to llama-cpp's GGUF model support and asking for default settings has provided faster inference speeds than anything I've been able to benchmark with them, but everything's within 10% of each other anyway so it's not a huge deal for me.
srcrip 3 days ago [-]
Thank you, that makes a lot of sense
plufz 4 days ago [-]
Thanks a million!
ecshafer 5 days ago [-]
Qwen3.6 with claude code works great. I get a lot better results with that than opencode and qwen3.6. Claude Code is a great harness, and good harness/tool integration makes a big difference. You just have a settings.json with your ollama setup and the qwen model and you can use it.
growt 4 days ago [-]
Where and how do you run that? I tried it but somehow I always ran out of context or generation was incredibly slow (mbp m4 pro 48gb).
leonidasv 5 days ago [-]
Qwen Max are usually closed, unfortunately.
mostafab 4 days ago [-]
That's a signal of being SOTA.
wuliwong 4 days ago [-]
Do you have a feel for how it Qwen 3.6 compares to Sonnet 4.6? B/C in reality, that's what we use a lot. If we just use Opus 4.7 for everything code related, we'd have a monthly bill 10-20 times higher than using Sonnet where we can.
nl 4 days ago [-]
I think you could well be surprised by the Sonnet vs Opus bill (assuming you are paying via the API)
In my experience Sonnet bills can be higher than Opus because it churns a lot more trying to get things right.
Example from my fairly simple but agentic benchmark:
This doesn't quite show Opus cheaper, but it isn't the 10-20 times more either. Harder tasks close the gap even further.
briga 4 days ago [-]
I would say if Sonnet is a senior engineer, then Qwen3.6 (the 27b model) is probably closer to a junior engineer. Still capable of getting stuff done, just needs more guidance and makes mistakes more often.
Maybe that's underselling it. It is quite a good model and might end up replacing a lot of the work I was sending to Sonnet 4.6.
Also, Sonnet 4.6 is almost certain a much bigger model so the performance differences aren't unexpected.
4 days ago [-]
kolinko 5 days ago [-]
As Opus maximalist ;) I was very surprised by the quality if Qwen3.6-27B - trying to figure out how to get it going on RTX 90k now to offload some lighter tasks :)
aembleton 4 days ago [-]
> Today we introduce Qwen3.7-Max, our latest proprietary model
This is not an open model
chr15m 4 days ago [-]
This new version is not something you'll be able to run locally. It's a "cloud" model and likely too beefy if they do release the weights.
wouldbecouldbe 5 days ago [-]
This one doesnt seem to be open source though sadly. Using chinese servers is a step to far for me personally
gcr 5 days ago [-]
Look for an open release from the Qwen team in the coming weeks. They like to showcase their proprietary models first, which score higher on benchmarks anyway due to model size.
geenkeuse 4 days ago [-]
[dead]
ttoinou 4 days ago [-]
Which agentic coding tool and how do you make sure you have prefix consistency ?
par 5 days ago [-]
Do you have an opinion on OpenCode vs Aider?
briga 4 days ago [-]
I haven't tried Aider yet but perhaps I will. Another one that seems to be getting traction is Pi Coding Agent.
sunaookami 4 days ago [-]
Aider is still around? That is pre-tool-calling era stuff. Better compare against Pi.
par 4 days ago [-]
I just started running coding agents locally. So you recommend Pi over opencode? (And obviously aider is out?)
sunaookami 4 days ago [-]
Haven't tried OpenCode too much but I found it great. It's more batteries included so I would recommend it over Pi if you don't want to write extensions yourself or use community-provided ones (like webfetch and websearch).
anderber 4 days ago [-]
I personally found better results with Opencode. But Pi is really nice too.
tekacs 5 days ago [-]
As they start to release more proprietary models, I so wish that they partnered with one of the major US hyperscalers to allow using these models through something US-domiciled.
Totally understand why it may not be reasonable or in their best interest (and that the US is _absolutely_ not doing the same reflexively). But it would be lovely to be able to try these out on production workloads in earnest.
embedding-shape 5 days ago [-]
Unless US hyperscalers do the same in reverse, I hope the status quo stays as it is. Either people are happy to share, and the sharing should happen both ways, or US hyperscalers can keep isolating themselves as they've done so far.
adjejmxbdjdn 5 days ago [-]
I do hope
The U.S. hyperscalers do the same as well.
In an ideal world U.S. residents would use Chinese AI models and Chinese residents would use U.S. AI models.
Governments in both countries are collecting data for nefarious reasons. But the Chinese government has far less influence on a U.S. resident and vice versa.
We are all better off if our data is collected by a government halfway across the world instead of our own governments which hold incredible amounts of power over us.
adrianN 5 days ago [-]
In an ideal world everybody runs open models on hardware they control.
It's not nearly worth it to me to get an incremental improvement in performance if it means I have to move to hosted environments with Qwen 3.7 (or Claude or Gemini or whatever).
giancarlostoro 5 days ago [-]
It would have been the world we live in if China wasn't involved in so much corporate espionage. I don't even feel comfortable using their open weight models on anything my employer makes, the only time I use Qwen is for greenfield "how good is this?" type of projects, but otherwise, how do I trust that it wont mysteriously hallucinate phoning home?
On the other hand, there's other models where the source is 100% open, the training data is known, and people have reproduced the same model from scratch, so while those trail behind, there's definitely an effort to make models more open and capable.
deaux 5 days ago [-]
The US has for decades been engaged in mass dumping of their products to establish monopolies all over the world, and punishing anyone who dares try do anything about it. This isn't better than corporate espionage.
eloisant 5 days ago [-]
I agree, but the same goes for the US. Remember Echelon.
stickfigure 5 days ago [-]
It's highly improbable that the US government has a secret team inside Anthropic and OpenAI manipulating their training regimen. For better or worse, these companies are filled with ideologues and something that invasive would trigger an army of whistleblowers (despite legal consequences).
booty 5 days ago [-]
It's highly improbable that the US government has a secret team inside Anthropic and OpenAI manipulating their training regimen.
Two thoughts.
One: it would be relatively technically trivial for $GOVERNMENT_AGENCY to just monitor all the prompts + context we send over the wire to OpenAI/Anthropic/etc. That's a goldmine of sensitive personal and corporate data, no secret team needed (although, the LLM providers obviously would need to cooperate)
Two: Rather than secret infiltration teams influencing model training I think what's more likely on the training side of things is simply self-censoring by the LLM providers, so that they don't risk angering the government.
I highly doubt that China has government interlopers, secret or otherwise, inside Qwen's training team. Nonetheless, "sensitive" issues like Tiananmen Square are censored. I would imagine that much/most such censorship in China is self-censorship that doesn't leave a legal/paper trail. That's what we're in danger of seeing (more of) in America IMO.
Barbing 5 days ago [-]
> relatively technically trivial for $GOVERNMENT_AGENCY to just monitor all the prompts + context we send
Thus, I’ve pondered whether anything they’ve learned has changed the world / had a big impact (like on their understanding of human psychology, perhaps per region). They’ve heard phone calls, they’ve read emails, diaries get brought to court… but these are systems that would be used like diaries but also prompt users for more and more.
SoMomentary 5 days ago [-]
Having seen all the AI interactions that you can get through clickstream data I have no doubt that $GOVERNMENT_AGENCY can see much much more.
throwaw12 5 days ago [-]
> secret team inside Anthropic and OpenAI manipulating their training regimen
I think you are being ridiculous. Tampering with an LLMs pretraining is a difficult undertaking. There is plenty of evidence that training a model to walk the party line leaves it less capable than if it weren't.
It's not very subtle manipulation either; ask qwen of Taiwan is a part of China in German and in English and only the English answer will be party-approved.
embedding-shape 5 days ago [-]
Compared to what we have proof the US government have engaged in before? Do people not remember PRISM anymore? It was virtually impossible to think of the scope before it was leaked, and you'd be marked as a conspiracy theorist for believing that happened, before it was made concretely true.
I think it's borderline naive to assume various agencies haven't infiltrated OpenAI, Anthropic and others, essentially the entire world was wiretapped by NSA in the past, to assume they don't have an employee or two at these companies does seem a bit naive to me.
logicchains 5 days ago [-]
Agencies like the CIA have infiltrated the news agencies, so they have indirect power over the information that LLMs consume.
SR2Z 2 days ago [-]
So there's no reason for the CIA to poison LLMs at all then according to you?
italiansolider 3 days ago [-]
Yup, that's data poisoning on worldwide scale.
gmerc 4 days ago [-]
Tampering with pretraining is as simple as uploading a few pages to github. See pliny
gcr 5 days ago [-]
how could running the qwen GGUF phone home? that would require cooperation with the inference backend (llama-cpp), or some kind of model exploit. It’d be far easier to pay the agent harness devs or supply-chain some plugin or something, that space is the Wild West anyways
I've certainly used these models without wifi without any differences.
HDBaseT 4 days ago [-]
You've used Qwen with model quantization, locally without internet connection.
A lot of people are purchasing access via Alibaba Cloud directly, or indirectly by companies which host the model.
gcr 4 days ago [-]
Pardon. You had mentioned open weight models so I assumed you meant self-hosted
nickdothutton 5 days ago [-]
China is much more interested in waging a campaign against companies that represent the material of the future growth in productivity, exports, and prosperity of the US and her people, than learning about you as an individual. Unless of course you are a Chinese dissident living in the US.
WarmWash 5 days ago [-]
China definitley wants information on all Americans. This commment is so far off the mark you it's on par with "Billionaires aren't interested in taking your money"
As Americans go through life, some of them will become people with power. When you need to leverage that power, having the right knowledge about them can effectively transfer that power to you.
Tiktok was a goldmine, because every 20-something on their way to a future position of power was uploading every single facit of their digital life to CCP servers everyday.
giancarlostoro 5 days ago [-]
Which is basically the current primary use for AI is programming more than anything, you hear about AI in programming more than in any other field.
saghm 5 days ago [-]
There are also a lot more novels about writing than making movies and a lot more songs about music than plays. It's not clear that this is because it's actually the primary use-case or if it's just because people who work with computers will inevitably talk quite a lot about computer things. For the past several years, pretty much everyone I meet who isn't in software but find out I do (doctors, people who sit next to me on a plane, etc.) will ask me my thoughts about AI because it's so widely discussed in general, and they're curious about my perspective on it as someone in software, but most of the time they're most curious about understanding more about how it might affect their own lives, not mine.
Interesting point, but I'd always thought the opposite, you're much better protected by the law if you use services from your own country.
If you use a service outside your country, I believe you could have all your code stolen and get hacked/exploited in a way that would be totally legal.
CodingJeebus 5 days ago [-]
> We are all better off if our data is collected by a government halfway across the world instead of our own governments which hold incredible amounts of power over us.
Sure, that is until each government's dataset is interesting enough to the other to facilitate a data-sharing agreement.
There's gotta be an internet "law" that says something like "Eventually, the data you volunteer to a benign 3rd party eventually winds up being used against you by someone". This is short-term thinking at it's finest.
tmoravec 5 days ago [-]
Qwen3.6-Plus is available from Fireworks.
tekacs 4 days ago [-]
Thank you for pointing that out! If 3.7-Max makes its way to Fireworks that'd be a joy.
dchftcs 5 days ago [-]
fireworks hosts Qwen 3.6 Plus, they might also get Qwen 3.7 Plus.
mostafab 4 days ago [-]
Alibaba Cloud has data centers in Mexico
epolanski 5 days ago [-]
US hyperscalers, all of them, are financially invested in the US AI labs and have the incentives to keep the status quo.
motiw 5 days ago [-]
ChatLLM support QWEN, do you consider this as US safe?
0xbadcafebee 5 days ago [-]
I'm more interested in hearing specific reasons why one wouldn't use a Chinese company. Unless you're thinking Alibaba is going to ship chat logs to some government ministry that will then dole out proprietary information to new competitors (which doesn't seem logistically feasible), or you run a human rights organization, it feels a bit like FUD.
vessenes 5 days ago [-]
All this data is accessible to national security agencies; this is true in every country in the world.
China has more integration between intelligence and industry than many western countries, and it does present a higher risk of unwanted “tech transfer” to industry than running on oracle or Google or ms or Amazon does in the US.
DHS has long staffed full time agents in California to deal with foreign IP exfiltration - using qwen is like fast/easy mode for IP exfiltration: why make anyone get a job in your palo alto office when you can just send it to them in Hanzhou?
Upshot - If you have something proprietary you’re working on I would generally advise not to just direct send it to Alibaba.
culi 5 days ago [-]
I highly doubt China has a more sophisticated integration of their intelligence ministries than the USA. The world in which that was true would look very different from our own.
kbelder 4 days ago [-]
He didn't say more sophisticated integration. He said 'more integration', which is very likely true.
vessenes 5 days ago [-]
Interesting. Have you worked in China?
HDBaseT 4 days ago [-]
The US Education propaganda is working, China are the bad guys!
bachmeier 5 days ago [-]
> Unless you're thinking Alibaba is going to ship chat logs to some government ministry
This made me think of a Seinfeld episode: "I didn't know it was possible not to know that."
noelsusman 5 days ago [-]
>Unless you're thinking Alibaba is going to ship chat logs to some government ministry that will then dole out proprietary information to new competitors (which doesn't seem logistically feasible)
That's exactly the fear, and why would it not be logistically feasible? The threat is definitely a bit overhyped, but China has a longstanding track record of aggressive corporate espionage.
tekacs 5 days ago [-]
… building and selling a product to US companies that sends company-internal data to Chinese AI providers is not a particularly good way to get people to buy it.
Even if they weren’t individually worried about their proprietary data being shared with Chinese domestic competitors or with government… their audit / security programs likely wouldn’t allow it for a _huge_ range of types of data.
dpoloncsak 5 days ago [-]
Because my CEO thinks China scary big hacker guys over there
ihsw 5 days ago [-]
[dead]
goyozi 5 days ago [-]
These are very good numbers. I still don’t get why they don’t compare against latest competitor versions in these posts, it’s not like we’re all not going to notice.
Eridrus 4 days ago [-]
Nobody releases numbers that show them to be worse than competitors lol.
This even applies to OpenAI & Anthropic who don't even eval on the same datasets a lot of the time.
Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 4 days ago [-]
I do recall mistral doing this. It's not always about being the best, but also fastest or smallest. The user should have all the information for its own use case.
Eridrus 4 days ago [-]
If your model doesn't actually show the tradeoff you're getting for speed, you're doing marketing and not benchmarking.
Which is fine, we all have to make money, but it is disingenuous. It's just unfortunate that running some of these benchmarks is so expensive that it's not really realistic for most companies to actually run them.
NiloCK 5 days ago [-]
I find it forgivable if it's within minor version bump. (NB that x.5 is now a defacto major-version bump for LLMs for whatever reason).
Even with LLMs, posts like this don't just fall out of a coconut tree. If you have a set of target benchmarks for your own model, then keeping "the set" of side-by-side comparable models is its own maintenance headache.
Aurornis 5 days ago [-]
I think the argument is that trying to suggest that they’re close to N months from SOTA.
Realistically I assume they hope readers don’t notice the fine details.
The Qwen models are great for open weights but for every past release they haven’t performed as well as the benchmarks in my experience. They’re optimizing for benchmark numbers because they know it works.
epolanski 5 days ago [-]
> Realistically I assume they hope readers don’t notice the fine details.
The pool of people reading such articles while ignoring such details can't be big.
Aurornis 5 days ago [-]
I disagree. Most people skim articles, not read them deeply.
On Hacker News I wonder if most people even opened the article at all most times.
hadlock 5 days ago [-]
Slashdot coined RTFA in the 90s, what you're suggesting isn't a new concept by any measure
e: which itself is a modification of RTFM from usenet
htrp 5 days ago [-]
I think its part of the expectation setting (with a side of we did our distillation/ eval harness on a specific model).
if they say it's 4.7 comparable, it anchors that into your head as the model to evaluate against.
beydogan 5 days ago [-]
honestly, initial version of Opus-4.6 was much better than whatever we are being served right now as 4.7. If it performs same level to that, i'm totally willing to switch.
hypercube33 5 days ago [-]
4.6 was an awful experience the month I used it right after launch where it didn't ask anything just made assumptions and went on its merry way. 4.5 and 4.7 don't do that for me but 4.7 eats my quota for breakfast so I've been avoiding using it because I like to have it for more than an hour a day.
verdverm 5 days ago [-]
That experience is also likely tied to the claude harness around the model, and not being as tuned right after model release. They iterate on this and different models need different words (unfortunately...).
goyozi 5 days ago [-]
I feel like I had the best and worst ~month experience on 4.6. Initially when it came out, it seemed to ask good questions and genuinely do well on complex tasks. From about mid-March it was absolutely abysmal, it seemed to assume the stupidest answer/angle for everything and make weird mistakes. 4.7 seems decent so far but usage hurts - at some point my company switched me to standard seat and I used up 80% of my session usage in 1 prompt. I got my premium seat back since but I think pro/standard plan + opus 4.7 is unusable for daily driving.
hmokiguess 5 days ago [-]
this puzzles me too, I want to know
maelito 5 days ago [-]
Marketing.
pulse-dev 5 days ago [-]
[dead]
tarruda 5 days ago [-]
Looking forward to more open weight releases from Qwen, especially 122B and 397B.
smcleod 5 days ago [-]
Yeah that 60-150b~ range is such a sweet spot for current 'prosumer' hardware, I'd love to see something like a 120b-a14b or there about.
tarruda 5 days ago [-]
I have a 128G mac studio and even 397B was a happy surprise to me due to its high quantization resilience.
Apple store's current options for mac studio seem to max out at 96GB. I'm questioning ROI, esp. given it's not upgradeable. Curious about others' takes on new mac hardware.
tarruda 5 days ago [-]
> I'm questioning ROI
If by ROI you mean saving more money than using paid APIs, then I don't think it is worth it. All you gain is full sovereignty over your AI usage.
hadlock 5 days ago [-]
Rumor mill has been buzzing about m5 mini and studio. If anything materializes close to what the rumor mill has been suggesting, the m5 could be appealing to home lab/local LLM folks, or at least help inform if the M6 will be worthwhile. Assuming Apple was able to lock in halfway reasonable memory prices early enough in advance.
drob518 5 days ago [-]
Currently, Apple is letting some of its models go out of stock in preparation for new models coming in a few weeks. I would expect at least 128 GB models at that time. That said, the memory crunch is hitting everyone.
the_lucifer 5 days ago [-]
Yep, even with their supply chain prowess, they're being hit now given some longer term contracts vis-à-vis their memory are nearing renewals.
drob518 5 days ago [-]
Yep. Something needs to break soon. Or rather, something WILL break soon, one way of another. Was talking to a friend last night who works planning infrastructure rollout and he said costs for equipment has roughly doubled in the last six months. Soon, these projects aren’t going to be viable.
ramses0 5 days ago [-]
I'd held off from buying a new personal laptop for quite a few years and felt that the M5-128gb was justifiable once I started really seeing payoffs from using AI at work.
Running w/ Cursor and doing some "nights and weekends" type coding / conversations, I was hitting $100-200 of usage within a few weeks. I know there's probably better ways to manage costs, but I was getting enough value out of it to keep bumping my spend limit from $20 => $40 => $80 => $120 (and then I stopped spending! :-)
Messing around with local-llm, I've settled on `omlx` and `gemma` for "conversational", and I think it's `qwen-120b-a3b-6bit` or something for the "heavy hitter". Gemma "gets it" a lot more, whereas that particular `qwen` tends to fall into the "MuSt WrItE CoOooDeee!" behaviour in a lot of cases instead of holding a conversation, and does an awesome job of randomly spitting out ascii-art diagrams or including full-blown bash shell scripts to illustrate different cases.
My POV is: "Local for slightly slower/casual usage", the ~1% of battery usage per minute of LLM is shockingly accurate (eg: 30 minutes == 30% drop!). "Gemma for discussion and emitting DESIGN-... docs", and "Qwen for converting DESIGN-... to PLAN-...", (as well as implementation, but generally from a fresh context loading the relevant PLAN-... or supporting docs)
...then supplement that with direct Cursor usage in case I screw up some setting on being able to get the local LLM working, or if I need to include literal web-research or really having access to some SOTA model. Using the pi-coder harness locally, web pages are kindof a difficult conundrum as they can be kindof gigantic and are really worthy of special casing, some sort of sub-harness, etc... but the more "stuff" you put into the agent, the less context window (and memory!) you have available, so it's a real balancing act.
The other biggest problem is that you're limited (locally) to ~20-80tps and in some cases you have to chew on or "swallow" the whole prompt up to that point if you end up with some sort of cache miss (TTFT). The `omlx` server does a pretty good job (after you tweak some settings and stuff) of allowing MANY prompt continuations to nearly immediately start generated tokens, but sometimes if I have two agents going (eg: Gemma talking shit about Qwen's output or vice versa) in a longer context window, then you'll take that hit.
"Other people's compute" is definitely more freeing, but even looking at $200/mo usage that's $2400 vs. the ~$6k for a maxed out MBP. Call it $2500 vs. $7500 and you'd say that "local AI gives you a 3-year amortization window for a slower, worse experience" ... but if you're strategic about your usage, the ability to "talk for free" and occasionally "burst" to an online provider or having some hugging-face tokens to try out different models that you can't quite run locally is really nice. Talking to the AI (locally) to even just do non-coding planning without worrying about data leakage or privacy issues is phenomenal, and you end up owning a really nice laptop!
In some ways, seeing the "advantage" of having the local 128gb capacity for LLM, I'm semi-wishing I'd have gotten a mac mini instead, but then I can't quite do the 100% offline stuff (eg: coffee-shop) that the maxed out laptop allows.
If it were a mini running locally, I'd feel more comfortable calling it the always-on "AI brain" to process my emails, run crontab summaries, whatever kindof "open-claw-ish" stuff that you could do w/o relying on having to "keep the laptop lid open all the time". I'm sure there's ways to repurpose things, but longer-term, call it even 3-5 years from now... any sort of 128gb machine will be more than capable where you'd want to have one "doing stuff" locally within your home network (IMHO).
chrisweekly 5 days ago [-]
Thank you! That was a generous and helpful response, I really appreciate it. Food for thought...
>"...if you're strategic about your usage, the ability to "talk for free" and occasionally "burst" to an online provider or having some hugging-face tokens to try out different models that you can't quite run locally is really nice. Talking to the AI (locally) to even just do non-coding planning without worrying about data leakage or privacy issues is phenomenal, and you end up owning a really nice laptop!"
^ this resonates, loudly.
ramses0 4 days ago [-]
Thanks, kind stranger! I wrote the comment that I would have loved to find before (and after) making the leap. Stuff is changing so fast, and there's at least three tracks: "Scavenger-old-linux-box", "Fancy-AI-cube", "Mac + $$$ + RAM"
Again: I'm finding waaaay enough utility that I'm tempted to invest more "CapEx" and get a used system for day-to-day, "always on" local work... but more literally, that's probably a better job for "OpEx"! Tune my "crontab" work against local models and then max out at a $1/day budget slaved to an always on RPI connected to ethernet at home.
$365/year of off-site AI lasts 10 years before I come close to recouping the hardware (and electricity) costs of having "yet another device" purchased and turned on 24x7... and certainly there will come a day when you go to the store and buy a $200-500 "TITO" device (Tokens In => Tokens Out) that plugs into a ~30-60W USB-C port before then.
If you're using HF tokens (or "rent-a-A100" or whatever), are always connected to home ethernet (Sun Microsystems: The Network IS the Computer), and maybe supplement with a Kagi backend for attaching to the raw internet then you get _most_ of the surety of "my queries are private" unless you're locally hacked or are the target of nation-state scrutiny. :shrug:?
Keep in touch if you end up doing something cool with all this! $USERNAME@yahoo.com (and hopefully I'll have my AI setup filtering out all the viagra spam before then!).
smcleod 4 days ago [-]
That's impressive getting a 397B down to <110GB~. HF link is broken though!
tarruda 4 days ago [-]
> That's impressive getting a 397B down to <110GB
It is higher than 110GB. MacOS allows up to 125G of the RAM to be shared with GPU, so it is certainly less than that!
> HF link is broken though!
Doesn't seem broken to me, but you should be able to search for tarruda/Qwen3.5-397B-A17B-GGUF on huggingface.
ttoinou 5 days ago [-]
better than antirez ds4 ?
tarruda 5 days ago [-]
I only tried a very early version of that when it was just a llama.cpp fork and Qwen was certainly better in my tests.
But I was not super impressed with deepseek 4 flash using it from the official API either, so it doesn't seem quantization fault. It is a good model, but nothing out of the ordinary in the few benchmarks I ran on it (with full awareness that benchmarks are biased).
gcr 5 days ago [-]
What’s the price point for getting into that sweet spot?
I’m on an M1 Max with 32GB VRAM, so I’m looking forward to the 27B or 35B-A3B models. Is dropping $5k for an RTX 6000 or a DGX Spark really the best option?
anonym29 5 days ago [-]
Strix Halo at $2k with similar TG and about half the PP of DGX Spark was a pretty good deal IMO, especially considering it's also a full x86 system... 16c/32t Zen 5, 40 CU RDNA 3.5, 128 GB unified memory at ~220 GB/s real-world speeds (256 GB/s theoretical) - that runs full tilt at 140W in performance mode and idles at ~10W.
Unfortunately, the prices rose on these a lot, but unevenly. Beelink GTR 9 Pro is $4400, Framework Desktop is ~$3500, for what is basically the exact same mainboard as a Bosgame M5 for $2800.
Apple's M5 Max is another attractive option. Apple silicon traditionally had great MBW and was good at TG, but struggled with PP, but the new neural engines in those GPU cores have made a big difference in a good way here.
Gorgon Halo is rumored for June announcement with Q4'26 release with basically +100 MHz clocks on Strix Halo, LPDDR5X-8533 instead of LPDDR5X-8000, but more importantly, 192 GB max instead of 128 GB.
I'd say it's better to wait for Gorgon Halo than to grab Strix Halo now. However, Medusa Halo, rumored for H2'27, is slated to have up to 26c Zen 6 (heterogeneous cores - kinds funny that AMD is heading towards these as Intel retreats from them), 48 CU of RDNA 5 instead of 40 CU RDNA 3.5, and a 384 bit bus w/ LPDDR6, which should make 256 GB at more like ~490-600 GB/s MBW, which will really make Strix and Gorgon Halo obsolete.
Also worth keeping an eye out for Serpent Lake (intel CPU + nvidia iGPU on a single board with unified memory, rumored for 2028-2029 iirc), and on the 160 GB Crescent Island Intel dGPU.
tempoponet 5 days ago [-]
Expect to pay $4k-10k
- Your RTX 6000 is closer to $10k now
- Sparks are creeping into the $4-5k range
- AMD Strix are ~3.5k
- Apple depends on chipset and memory. Sweet spot would be 128gb M3 Ultra, probably $6-8k but admittedly haven't been tracking closely. New M5 might come in the fall. You can get a new 128gb M5 Max laptop for ~5-6k today.
- a 4x3090 rig would take $5-6k
Every platform has tradeoffs, but it's mostly ecosystem, memory bandwidth, and power consumption. They're all slow. The best option is likely to rent hardware on Runpod. The RIO on self-hosting is very low unless you have a specific need or you're ok treating it as a hobby.
anonym29 5 days ago [-]
Bosgame M5 (Strix Halo) w/ 128 GB still goes for $2800 right now. SH systems have surged in price dramatically but quite unevenly.
>The best option is likely to rent hardware on Runpod.
Vast.ai is much cheaper, but the broader point here is contestable. The only dimension in which cloud GPU rentals win is cost. You lose the confidentiality, integrity, and availability benefits of local deployments.
ai_fry_ur_brain 5 days ago [-]
Rentals are priced to pay themselves off in 1-1.5 years (when renting them out per hour, not selling tokens). Its never a better option to rent.
Not that I'd encourage anyone to throw large amounts of money to have access to LLMs, but you're definately going to be better off buying something that you can amortize over multiple years with a multi year warranty.
bahmboo 5 days ago [-]
$2600 gets MBP M5 Pro 48gb. 64gb requires a Max which bumps it to $4200 at which point you may as well spend the $800 to go to 128gb.
ai_fry_ur_brain 5 days ago [-]
And for what? Spend 10-15k for the slopiest of slop code, non deterministic automations, and the ability to spawn an AI gf?
This whole thing is really starting to remind me of the crypto hype phases of 2016-2018 when everyone thought their investment in GPUs was going to make them rich.
dvfjsdhgfv 5 days ago [-]
I upvoted your comment even though I disagree with you.
Yes, LLMs are sloppy, and local models usually more so (but things change fast).
But the local ones have one big advantage: they are private. So you can safely feed them the collection of your private documents and things you wouldn't trust people like sama with. The fact that some people do not care is one of the failures of our educational system.
organsnyder 5 days ago [-]
It is possible to get real work done with LLMs. There are plenty of ethical concerns, and they're definitely over-hyped, but they are exceptionally useful tools when used well.
varispeed 5 days ago [-]
[dead]
5 days ago [-]
gamander2 5 days ago [-]
These models contain a wealth of knowledge that is being censored, not just deliberately, but by training data bias. Fine-Tuning and steering can produce unexpected new insights. For example a model that is trained to believe so-called "conspiracy theories", which many believe to be the ground truth.
gcr 4 days ago [-]
which models do you have in mind? grok from xai?
embedding-shape 5 days ago [-]
If I could find a RTX Pro 6000 for $5K I'd definitively grab it, I'm running RedHatAI/Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-NVFP4 on one (I had to pay closer to $10K for it though) with 260K context and it's a blast! ds4 by antirez also works well, even IQ2XXS seems to work relatively well but Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-NVFP4 is both faster and higher quality responses (at least for coding and translations which I use them mostly for).
tarruda 5 days ago [-]
> What’s the price point for getting into that sweet spot?
In October/2024 I got my Mac studio M1 ultra with 128G, IIRC it was ~$2500. With recent prices explosion, it has certainly gotten more expensive. https://frame.work/ is selling 128G strix halo mainboard for $2700, but you have to add storage and case.
smcleod 4 days ago [-]
Really right now it's the M5 Max MacBook Pro 128GB, the RTX6000 is a nice card but you'd need more than one of them and you have to have a desktop to suit. The DGX Spark is slow and has pretty limited software support.
ttoinou 5 days ago [-]
M5 Max 64GB (sweet spot) or 128GB (only 1000 USD, better to keep it for the future) more are the best quality price ratio, future proof, reliable, resellable and flexible workloads. Harder to use as a server might be the only drawback
throwaw12 5 days ago [-]
What do you recommend for non-Mac setup? I am a Mac user, but its getting expensive, and not seeing reason to jump to the latest M5
barbacoa 5 days ago [-]
Try looking into Ryzen AI Max 395. AMD made a CPU/GPU soc with unified memory specifically for ai inference. Can buy mini PCs with up to 128gb ram.
krzyk 5 days ago [-]
Isn't CUDA/nvidia the go to solution for most local models, with the rest being second class citizents?
gcr 5 days ago [-]
Depends. ROCm is pretty well-supported for example.
Non-NVIDIA backends tend to get less support and new features land slower, or features that are expected to improve performance wind up hurting it instead. That sort of thing.
For basic “token in/token out” workloads without fine tuning, it’s probably fine ??
simple10 5 days ago [-]
The Ryzen AI Max 395 128gb is super cool, but not fast for inference. Order of magnitude slower than dedicated GPU but at half the cost. You can run larger models on it but it's slow. Great for local async work. Not great for daily chat or code agent driver.
throwa356262 5 days ago [-]
The latest NPUs are pretty fast, I think what is missing is more optimised software support.
plagiarist 5 days ago [-]
The vRAM bandwidth is at least as much a problem as compute on these ones, there is a lot of data to shuffle around
varispeed 5 days ago [-]
Probably a comparable non-Mac setup will be Threadripper, but it will become much more expensive. My view is that actually Apple products are the cheapest on the market when it comes to performance.
roger_ 5 days ago [-]
M5 Max 128GB for $1k?
tempoponet 5 days ago [-]
The memory upgrade is $1k on a Macbook Pro. The laptop is ~$5500.
smallerize 5 days ago [-]
I think they mean the upgrade to 128GB is +$1k.
tandr 4 days ago [-]
Don't mind me asking, but where did you find $5k RTX 6000? Even 48GB model (previous gen) shows minimum at 7k, and 96GB one (Blackwell) is ~10k on Amazon...
CamperBob2 4 days ago [-]
$5K is presumably what it costs to pay some local gangsters to break into an nVidia warehouse. That's the only you will pay $5K for an RTX 6000 for the next couple of years.
The server edition has gone up $2K in the last couple of weeks alone, at the outlet where I bought one previously.
tandr 3 days ago [-]
Man... Does it mean that buying RTX 6000 for 10k today is actually becoming an investment?
pulse-dev 5 days ago [-]
[dead]
KronisLV 5 days ago [-]
There definitely have been some options in the past, cool to see them.
Oddly enough, though, Qwen 3.6 35B A3B and Gemma got some really good reviews, despite being way smaller than any of these ones.
It's kinda weird that DeepSeek V4 Flash is supposed to be 284B A13B, but shows up as 158B in HuggingFace, probably some weird bug: https://huggingface.co/unsloth/DeepSeek-V4-Flash and that's not even just Unsloth but like the official source too https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4-Flash (so also doesn't fit the category unless you get a heavily quantized version to run, but cool regardless)
Personally even more a lower quantized model like 9B.
throwa356262 4 days ago [-]
Same here, the unsloth versions can run on a potato and are actually useful.
mixtureoftakes 5 days ago [-]
I'm more excited for qwen3.7 9b and 72b, these are usually so good for their size
Pxtl 5 days ago [-]
Ouch. I'm just getting into tinkering with these things - mine is running on a vanilla gaming desktop with a 12gb 3060 and 32gb of ram. Even going above Qwen 9B risks completely locking up the machine.
guitcastro 5 days ago [-]
I am still waiting for qwem image-edit 2.0 open weight
ndom91 5 days ago [-]
Is this one of those ones where they'll drop the huggingface release a week later? Or do we know for sure that this is staying proprietary?
Davidzheng 5 days ago [-]
someone correct if i'm wrong, but I think the max models are usually non-open
sroussey 5 days ago [-]
The plus and max models have never been open as far as I know.
zackangelo 5 days ago [-]
With the 3.5 release, the Plus model was just a rebrand of the open weight 397B. But I suspect that will change going forward. They haven’t released the weights for 3.6 but they did make it available through a few US providers.
flakiness 5 days ago [-]
I'm using pi agent and love to try qwen models (hosted). What are the good options? The official provider doesn't include Alibaba. Is OpenRouter etc. fast enough?
(As a reference, DeepSeek v4 is severely throttled on these proxy services.)
atilimcetin 5 days ago [-]
I use pi + openrouter (with qwen3.6-max-preview) a lot. I never hit any stability or performance problems yet.
flakiness 4 days ago [-]
Good to know. Thanks!
notatoad 4 days ago [-]
i use opencode zen as a convenient pay-as-you-go way to try out all these new models. it doesn't have 3.7 yet, but at the rate they usually update it probably will tomorrow.
I couldn’t say how throttled it is, but it seems fine?
cft 5 days ago [-]
Downloading this and cancelling Google Antigravity Pro at the same time:
I had a Google Pro account that I inherited from buying a Pixel 9 XL - it's free for a year after a flagship Pixel phone purchase. After a year they started charging for it, and i tolerated it, because Flash was usable in Antigravity for dumb auxiliary tasks that I did not want to waste GPT/Opus on. It had a separate generous quota from Gemini 3.1 Pro. Now with Flash 3.5 they combined the quotas with Pro, such that on a Google pro account you can work 4-5 hours per week in Flash. And by the way, 3.1 Pro is useless for programming, compared to Codex/Opus
bel8 5 days ago [-]
same boat. Google Pro AI quota became barely useful for anything meaningful.
I think they envision Pro plan as "just a taste of AI, enough to lure folks into the Ultra plan" but that won't work for me when Codex is half the price and DeepSeek 4 Flash is 1/10 of their price per task.
So I'll downgrade just enough to keep my Google Drive space. And use DeepSeek 4 as workhorse plus Codex or Copilot for advanced stuff.
How is that extension compared to, say, DS4 via OpenRouter and the usual VSCode Copilot panel?
bel8 4 days ago [-]
Good question.
I haven't tested openrouter but I expect it to be slightly less cheap because it charges per token and opencode Go plan is a $10/mo fixed price model. Economies of scale leads me to think that for heavy use, openrouter will be more costly since opencode Go can subside heavy users like me with money from light users (just like gyms do with people that pay but barely use it).
With that said, I find vscode native copilot chat more pleasant to use, but also more laggy for large sessions.
opencode configuration is less polished and you'll have to grok around for some things. For example opencode CTRL+p conflicts with VSCode CTRL+p. I changed opencode to use Ctrl+L instead.
maxdo 4 days ago [-]
No opus 4.7 , gpt5.5 , Gemini flash 3.5 in benchmarks
piyh 4 days ago [-]
TBF, Flash 3.5 was released 2 days ago
jdw64 5 days ago [-]
QWEN really hits the sweet spot
it's cheap, fast, and actually good.
bsenftner 5 days ago [-]
Any reports from people using their coding agent(s)?
rayboy1995 5 days ago [-]
I'm running Qwen 3.6 27B Q5 K M GGUF on a Tesla P40 and koboldcpp using pi.dev as the harness, I gotta say I am impressed. Took some setup and configuring but I already have some code it has made commited and pushed. It can be slow on my hardware at >50k tokens, but the fact I bought this one P40 for like $150 back when the LLM trend started I can't complain. (I have a second one too but I couldn't physically fit the card in my server unfortunately.)
The setup I had to do was important and I had to compile koboldcpp with a few special params for my hardware, I mostly just had Claude figure it out. I don't remember everything I did now but it was very slow and would often stop mid task, it seems it was mostly a parsing issue. It made the model seem broken/dumb, but once I had all that settled I actually am able to use this how I use Claude Code. Disclaimer, I am pretty explicit with requirements, I imagine this fails more when you leave it to figure out things on its own but for my flow its pretty rad.
Currently setting it up as an automated agent now to pull Trello cards, create PRs for them, and move the card to be reviewed.
Command I am using to run:
python koboldcpp.py \
--port 61514 --quiet --multiuser --gpulayers 999 --contextsize 262144 --quantkv 2 \
--usecublas normal --threads 4 --jinja --jinja_tools --jinja_kwargs '{"enable_thinking":true, "preserve_thinking":false}' \
--skiplauncher --model /data/models/Qwen3.6-27B-Q5_K_M.gguf --smartcache 5
lostmsu 5 days ago [-]
Qwen recommends to preserve_thinking: true for agentic/coding workloads.
rayboy1995 5 days ago [-]
Thanks!! I had disabled that previously while debugging, I can confirm this is helping accuracy from what I can tell so far. (And speed since the cache is preserved more often!)
Very interesting I'll have to check this out thank you. This is why I love HN.
vibe42 5 days ago [-]
I'm using the pi-mono coding agent (open source, free) without any extensions and very simple prompts. The 3.6 27B model (BF16, 250k context) uses 67GB VRAM on an RTX PRO 9000.
It's very capable on almost any coding task I've thrown at it, and very good for easy-to-medium hard scripts, new code bases.
It struggles on some complex tasks in larger code bases, e.g. using to debug and fix bugs in llama.cpp it gets close to working code but often introduces errors. For such tasks its still very useful as a search/explore tool and drafting fixes.
eleventen 4 days ago [-]
Checking openrouter (it's not available yet) and, uh, what's up with the spike in Qwen usage from early april here? https://openrouter.ai/qwen
Is this normal humans kicking the tires on a new model, or a few whales doing serious benchmarks?
d2kx 4 days ago [-]
Qwen 3.6 Plus released and they offered it for free
spaceman_2020 4 days ago [-]
personally seen a lot of people switch to Kimi and Qwen after Opus 4.7. Kimi 2.6 feels like Opus 4.6 which, to me, was a great model for 98% of coding tasks
wolttam 4 days ago [-]
Frontier: Need it done quick and I'm willing to pay.
Open-weight: Good enough for the majority of tasks, and I'm willing to spend a bit more time and effort steering towards my desired result.
spaceman_2020 4 days ago [-]
I've realized that in most of my workflows, I really don't need frontier-tier intelligence
95% of the work most of us do is mostly just plumbing - connecting X and Y together. A ton of grunt work - writing basic loops, fetch statements, importing libraries. You really don't need PhD level intelligence to handle these
The only time you need Opus 4.7+ tier intelligence is when you're quashing a nasty bug or refactoring something complex
bratao 5 days ago [-]
It is super strange that all last (3?) releases they keep comparing older models such as Opus-4.6.
vessenes 5 days ago [-]
Some of it’s probably timing. Some of it is wanting to look good. That said, I just went to the claw-eval site, and neither 4.7 nor 5.5 from oAI are listed on the benchmarks. So there’s also just the time from others to get benchmarking done and published.
varispeed 5 days ago [-]
Opus-4.6 was probably the best model so far before it got nerfed. 4.7 is nowhere near experience I had. In fact I stopped using it completely because more often than not its output is just dumber than local models.
leonidasv 5 days ago [-]
Same here. Can't stand 4.7.
solenoid0937 5 days ago [-]
Opus 4.6 was never nerfed, that's FUD. There were harness-level problems that were fixed.
4.7 is much better. But perception is a funny thing, once you think something is bad you start looking for it everywhere.
anonyfox 4 days ago [-]
Still anecdotal but the exact same coding task on the exact same repo (I clone from GitHub templates for projects) worked amazingly well in December with CC/Opus, couldn’t accomplish the goal anymore end of march, with essentially identical prompts, and 4.7 was just comically useless. But even these days I tried repeatedly and 4.6 still can’t do the thing it could in December.
kroaton 4 days ago [-]
Did you even use it? It was nerfed to hell and back. It stopped following instructions, forgot what sub-agents responded and so on. Stop spreading this pro-Anthropic narrative. They did a rug pull due to lack of compute.
arkadiytehgraet 1 days ago [-]
You are replying to an Anthropic shill, check their comment history. They likely never used AI in development, only LLMs for their comments on HN.
dyauspitr 5 days ago [-]
Because these can’t compete with the SoTA but they’re close.
XCSme 5 days ago [-]
Any info on pricing and latency?
mchusma 5 days ago [-]
I've looked like a dozen places, I don't see anything. :(
XCSme 4 days ago [-]
Found it on Alibaba's cloud, $2.5 in, $7.5 out
slicktux 4 days ago [-]
I just started messing with local LLMs and honestly I’m pretty impressed. I have a workstation laptop with an NVIDIA A1000 (6GB VRAM) and 96GB of RAM. I rarely used my gpu. Occasional CAD design or Machine Learning with OpenCV.
I ran llama3:latest and it ran pretty fast! I’m curious to see how Qwen would run on my system.
grumple 4 days ago [-]
When I click on the link to Alibaba Cloud Model Studio from the linked post, that page sends my CPU (9950X3D) to 100%. Which is just... impressive. Is this a js based crypto miner? Or some strange browser based particle display? Super weird.
aliljet 5 days ago [-]
Where can a user reasonably host this in an affordable way to access the local LLM revolution?
plagiarist 5 days ago [-]
I think their Max models are far bigger than fits on consumer hardware. People are typically using Apple, AMD Halo, or dGPUs if/when they do smaller versions. Those are all varying degrees of "affordable."
Trying to buy Qwen credits and get an API key is a challenge all in itself. So many site redirects.
nullbio 4 days ago [-]
Good. We want to incentivize them to release the weights.
esafak 5 days ago [-]
Does anyone have experience with the Alibaba Cloud Model Studio that serves these qwen models?
joshjob42 5 days ago [-]
I really like what Qwen are doing, and a lot of these Chinese labs, but until I can ask their models what happened during the student protests in 1989 or why human rights groups are upset about the Uighurs and the model gives me a straight answer I'm just not able to trust these models with anything of substance.
arcanemachiner 5 days ago [-]
Just download a heretic abliterated versionof the model you want to use. I believe those are the current state of the art for uncensored models.
mynameisbilly 5 days ago [-]
This is silly. Would you perform the same test against Western models in asking them whether Israel is a genocidal apartheid state? It'll give you the same roundabout explanations and "some say no some say yes" responses that you'll get from asking Qwen about Uighurs or the protests of 1989.
jaynetics 5 days ago [-]
hey Qwen, how many civilians were killed on Tiananmen Square in 1989?
> Oops! There was an issue connecting to Qwen3.6-Plus.
> Content Security Warning: The input text data may contain inappropriate content.
hey ChatGPT, how many civilians were killed in Gaza in the war since 2023?
> [one page of estimates from local and international sources with links]
HDBaseT 4 days ago [-]
Your account is now flagged and put on a watchlist.
Your ID has been passed to Israel and your internalized "threat" rating number increased 300 units. Every packet you produce on the internet is now earmarked for 100 year retention.
LAC-Tech 4 days ago [-]
[flagged]
xiaoluolyg 5 days ago [-]
congrats to qwen teams, remarkable
indigodaddy 5 days ago [-]
Is it multimodal/vision?
HardCodedBias 4 days ago [-]
Imagine being Google and paying billions to GDM just to get mogged.
nullbio 4 days ago [-]
Qwen will it be open-weights? Please.
eddyaipt 5 days ago [-]
[flagged]
_boffin_ 5 days ago [-]
Can you go into more depth about this
visarga 5 days ago [-]
[dead]
spacebacon 5 days ago [-]
[flagged]
wolvoleo 4 days ago [-]
[dead]
hydra-f 5 days ago [-]
[dead]
4 days ago [-]
jimmyhsu 4 days ago [-]
[flagged]
tonyspiro 5 days ago [-]
[flagged]
storus 5 days ago [-]
[dead]
kevinsimper 5 days ago [-]
[flagged]
DeathArrow 4 days ago [-]
[dead]
nikhilpareek13 5 days ago [-]
[dead]
hmaddipatla 5 days ago [-]
The tokenomics and value for capability, context and latency look like they could deliver super competitive offer - what would it take for you to switch??
howmayiannoyyou 5 days ago [-]
I can't bring myself to use any model that trains or sends telemetry back to my country's primary competitor/adversary. I don't care how much money is saved.
Mashimo 5 days ago [-]
That is understandable. Just don't do it. No need to announce it.
throawayonthe 5 days ago [-]
assuming that country is the united states, why not? seems like an honourable thing to do if anything, lol
mynameisbilly 5 days ago [-]
Yeah, I prefer my data to be used and trained by the very trustworthy and benevolent tech oligarchs in my home country.
plagiarist 5 days ago [-]
The Shanghai government surveillance drones are mobile, whereas the Flock government surveillance cameras are stationary! USA FTW, liberty and justice for all
HDBaseT 4 days ago [-]
Also on the front page
"Tennessee man jailed 37 days for Trump meme wins settlement after lawsuit" and "The FBI Wants to Buy Nationwide Access to License Plate Readers"
Gotta love how the US is the bastion of free speech, justice and liberty!
deepfriedbits 5 days ago [-]
On some level, it's the lesser of two evils. Both do suck as options, I agree.
InsideOutSanta 5 days ago [-]
As somebody in Europe, uh, that doesn't leave many options.
czottmann 4 days ago [-]
Look around for EU LLM routers. There are some, but none are as big as OpenRouter. Still, Cortecs (Austria) is quite good and offers a couple of recent models through its EU-based providers. Zero data retention, GDPR compliant, etc. Really nice.
This is the current European modus operandi: virtue signal and cry about tech that other countries produce, pass local laws that limit its use in their countries even though they have no viable local alternatives, brag amongst themselves about decoupling from US and Chinese tech, and then look on wistfully as the rest of the world moves on without a single fuck given.
Europe's sense of superiority and actual global importance/relevance is assbackwards.
deaux 5 days ago [-]
> as the rest of the world moves on without a single fuck given.
Hilarious thing to say when half this comment section is Americans giving so much of a fuck that they consider China-adjacent hosted models unusable due to the supposed risks. If what you were saying was true then those pragmatic Americans would just use whatever is most effective.
avazhi 5 days ago [-]
Americans have their own frontier models, that's the point. Europeans have quite literally nothing native, so they are forced to choose between the Americans or Chinese, and they dislike both and trust neither.
The Americans can cry about Chinese censorship and turn around and use Claude or Opus or Gemma or whatever, but the Europeans just throw a fit and then have to use one of the two anyway. And that whole crying about something while being completely helpless vis-a-vis doing anything about it is the definition of Europe so far this century. Globally irrelevant outside Germany.
dfansteel 5 days ago [-]
Can anyone check its knowledge base for me? I’m honestly not able to run it and the Qwen models I can run censor information critical towards the Chinese government.
Tiananmen Square is the first place to start.
Mashimo 5 days ago [-]
> I’m honestly not able to run it
What do you mean? This is not self hosted, it's closed source. And any website that targets China or is hosted in China will probably censor Tiananmen Square.
dfansteel 4 days ago [-]
My computer lacks the ram.
Mashimo 4 days ago [-]
Well if it had all the ram, you still could not run it because you can't download it. It's hosted by them, just like chatgpt or claude.
dfansteel 4 days ago [-]
Oh, how about that! I stopped checking because I maxed out long ago.
BTW - They’re still censoring human rights violations.
polski-g 5 days ago [-]
There is no reason why they couldn't license the model to Friendli/Fireworks/etc and have it hosted in the US to alleviate this concern.
SR2Z 5 days ago [-]
The reason is to create domestic demand for Chinese AI chips so they can eventually be free of NVIDIA.
slaw 5 days ago [-]
Replacing NVIDIA is not a problem, replacing ASML is.
SR2Z 2 days ago [-]
China can't do EUV lithography, but they have done a great job of pushing DUV to its limits. If they have the chip design talent they can still produce useful chips for their domestic markets.
Mashimo 5 days ago [-]
I don't know about this model specifically, but other china models did not have the limitation. It was purely on the hosted end, tacked on as a self check while the text was generating. Did that change?
wren6991 5 days ago [-]
Qwen models know about Tiananmen Square but they are post-trained to refuse to talk about it. The decensored versions will happily chatter away about it.
Similarly, try talking to Nemotron about Epstein and see how quickly it shuts down.
https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/omniscience?models...
(had to add it to the chart, wasn't displayed by default. is it the lowest rate in the datasetor no?)
So I feel like that's exactly the right metric and the way to track it wrt hallucinations.
We want the hallucination rate to decrease while the overall answer rate of queries remains sufficiently high. For more specifics, look into ROC and AUC.
https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/omniscience#aa-omn...
It rewards correct answers and penalizes hallucinations, and finally no reward for refusing to answer.
It's interesting just how poorly some popular Chinese models fare in this regard, like GLM 5.1 or DeepSeek 4 Pro.
Gemini 3.x has truly remarkable knowledge given how it leads in this benchmark despite being (quite a bit) more prone to hallucinate than Claude Opus.
But no, Google and OpenAI would rather always have an answer ready and tell you to mix glue into your pizza toppings :)
Hallucination detection is an open problem. If it were that simple, people would indeed "just" do it.
Basically the problem is that LLMs aren't trained on things they don't know; an alternative way of saying this is that they're not trained on things they're not trained on, which is obviously true.
When you RL a model and it answers incorrectly, you don't teach it to answer "I don't know", you teach it to answer correctly instead. This makes it very hard for it to realize when it doesn't know things.
The glue on pizza reference brought back memories :)
Cool, precisely the thing other AI is too stupid to do when they don't have the necessary knowledge.
Note that a perfect "non-hallucination rate" is rather meaningless as such tests can contain human hallucinations.
It means the model aligns with the possibly-true, possibly-false beliefs of the group that made the test.
Or would you describe your methodology as more like picking a random sentence fragment as an input value then generating completions from your existing corpus without any post-input "learning" process related to the rest of the source material?
Running Step 3.5 Flash locally for example, it's an amazingly capable model all things considered, but it's token efficiency is so bad that it gets out performed by most others wall-clock time (even with my MTP-support for it hacked in to llama.cpp: despite being trained on three heads, MTP 2 is the sweet spot, and only gets it from 20tk/s to 30tk/s on my Spark)
The DeepSeek models and Qwen 3.5 Plus are also good examples of this: compared to Opus, and especially GPT 5.5 they use many more tokens to get to the same answers.
I'm really hoping that Qwen 3.7 is better in this regard, can't wait to try it out
(ps. running DeepSeek v4 Flash on my Spark is absolutely wild, thanks antirez if you see this haha)
Nvidia models are even worse than Qwen! https://sql-benchmark.nicklothian.com/#token-efficiency-and-... (mouse over the cells for token counts and click for traces)
Gemma 4 is good for this, as AA notes:
> Gemma 4 31B is notably token efficient, using 39M output tokens to run the Intelligence Index vs 98M for Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning). This is ~2.5x fewer output tokens for a model scoring 3 points lower. For context, the other models at the 42-point intelligence level also use significantly more tokens: MiniMax-M2.5 (56M), DeepSeek V3.2 (Reasoning, 61M), and GLM-4.7 (Reasoning, 167M)
https://artificialanalysis.ai/articles/gemma-4-everything-yo...
...except its notably worse at coding in an agent context even with a harness setup to do exactly what Google says it should do (wrt. to sending summarised thinking back and so on)
So despite it being far better token efficiency wise, it's just worse for what I need to use it for compared to DSv4 Flash or Qwen 3.6 27B
Such a shame, too.
I tried the qwen3.6-27b Q6_k GUFF in llama.cpp and LM Studio on my M2 MacBook Pro 32GB machine last week, and I barely get a token a second with either.
What sort of speed should I be expecting?
I tried some of the Llama 3 34b (nous-capybara?) models two years ago with llama.cpp, and I seem to remember getting a few tokens a second then, so not sure if I've got something completely mis-configured, or I just have unreasonable expectations.
Or maybe qwen 3.x is slower for some reason? (Is it mixture of experts?)
I'm not expecting it to be instant, but what I'm currently seeing is not really usable.
- A 27B "dense" model
- A 35B "Mixture of Experts" model, which activates only 3B parameters for each token.
For your hardware, I strongly recommend `unsloth/Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-GGUF:Q4_K_M`. I have an M1 Max with 32GB VRAM from 2021 that can read at ~300-500 tokens/sec and write at ~30 tokens/sec with llama-cpp's default settings, which is plenty fast. The 27B model can read ~70tok/sec and write ~5tok/sec.
The 35B MoE model technically takes slightly more memory but is much faster because it's doing 1/9th the work. It's not quite as "smart", but it's comparable.
Recommend https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/ as a great source for this type of discussion.
Obviously bigger != better but I don't know what the differences are.
* _0 and _1 do not use K quant and scales 32x32 blocks according to the original (B)F16 values; _0 scales the block using the original max and min values. _1 does this per row instead of per block.
* K quants do something similar, but now splits blocks into subblocks inside a superblock where the superblock has min/max scaling, but the subblocks also have scaling in the range of the superblock's scaling and are stored using less bits.
* K's M, L, XL are just how aggressively the subblocks and their scaling factors are chosen. Generally, it puts a max on how far you can deviate from the chosen quant to maintain the desired quality, but also gives them a bigger budget to perform that excursion in. XL most aggressively tries to preserve the intended quality, while S does the least.
* Dynamic quant on top of this scales entire layers, full of blocks, according to how much they effect various measurements (such as KLD and perplexity).
That said, there is no reason K_S is even produced by anyone, same with Q_0, Q_1, and I_NL. People should no longer be using those. M only is meaningful if you're trying to restrict the upper bounds: K_XL can reach BF16 for some weights, but rarely; people think this has a speed implication for hardware that has native 8bit in their tensor units (but it doesn't).
Unless you're specifically trying to cure a problem, stick with K_XL.
A lot of the content about AI out there is kind of produced to the lowest common denominator. Basically a never ending scheme of get rich quick/passive income kinds of AI content.
If you’re curious about what a particular switch does, clone the llama-cpp repository to your computer and try asking your favorite pet rock prompts like “This is llama-cpp. Can you look at what the -ctk parameter does and explain to me?” Giving Claude/codex/whatever access to the actual code goes a long way, but it is just one opinion.
If you’d like to learn how transformer-based language modeling works in detail, I suggest starting with chapter 0 or 1 of https://arena-chapter0-fundamentals.streamlit.app/ depending on your skill level, then use that to work your way to reading research papers.
Graduate students who study these topics are generally as annoyed by the “get rich quick” style of advertising as you are, so the deeper you go toward academic research the quieter those voices tend to get, mercifully. That said, this is balanced by the unfortunate fact that top labs have strong posturing signals they try to send, so it can be hard to see which preprints actually have good ideas, which are trying to promote their group’s tech instead of doing science out of curiosity, and which have authors who’ve innocently deluded themselves into overfitting their own pet projects. Read widely but adversarially, test everything but hold fast to the good stuff, etc etc
Its not amazing at compute (yet is a member of the GCN family, which I have been a fan of since its inception) and ended up being too expensive for perf/$ and perf/watt.
The only thing it did was make Nvidia rush Series 10 out the door and make it too good. Nvidia has been unable to live up to the gen-to-gen uplift Series 10 did, all because AMD made Nvidia blink.
Basically, you're 2 gens too early. CDNA2/gfx90a is the minimum you need to get any meaningful performance out of inference, or maybe CDNA1/gfx908 if you really don't need to quantize at all.
BTW, I did suggest this elsewhere in this HN story, but have you tried just disabling KV quant entirely? That is a huge speed uplift for compute-poor users.
Also, llama.cpp's support for gfx906 is probably never going to as good as it is for other cards, and good ROCm support for cards before they rebooted the driver/stack team is probably never going to materialize. I don't see the point in hanging onto them.
Like, if I was in your place, replacing it with even a 9060xt, with half the RAM, would be a step up. They go for $450. People have been building dedicated inference machines with these and they've been amazing, just throwing in 3 or 4 in, and scaling VRAM to meet needs.
But as models are starting to pack more information into less bits, some weights are just going to end up becoming super important and very sensitive to quant. So, I'd just move down a Q size, and continue with K_XL. Like, I'm betting Q3_K_XL will beat Q4_K_M on any given model in real world testing, even though its ~20% smaller, but perform worse on benchmaxxing.
The only exception I could think of is quantizing small models, like, my testing on Gemma E2B/E4B and Qwen 3.5 9B, quantizing at all was super noticeable... they can't spread the error across more weights.
Good news (at least for me), 24GB of VRAM is enough to store either of those in BF16 and then a ton of room for F16/F16 KV cache.
On testing I've done on same-quant apples to apples, with F16/F16 (ie, unquantized) kv cache, 35B-A3B underperforms against 27B on anything even remotely complex. But yes, 35B-A3B can be like 3-4x faster on my hardware.
By Qwen's own admission, on any meaningful benchmark (ie, ones that involve logic, math, or tool calling), 27B performs like 122B-10B and 397B-A17B, but 35B-A3B is somewhere between 27B dense and 9B dense.
Also, MTP recently got merged in, so I'd suggest downloading Qwen 3.6 MTP (I assume you get it from unsloth) and updating your copy of llama.cpp, and adding `--spec-type draft-mtp --spec-draft-n-max 2` to your arguments.
https://huggingface.co/unsloth/Qwen3.6-27B-MTP-GGUF/ https://huggingface.co/unsloth/Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-MTP-GGUF/
Also, I recommend not quantizing kv cache, and if you do, only quantize v. Lowering model quant while also lowering context size to fit F16/F16 or F16/Q8_0 massively improves model performance for thinking models. Also, quantizing cache, either k or v, decreases speed by a lot on some hardware.
I have a 24gb 7900xtx, so I can fit >32k F16/F16 context with Qwen3.6-27B, but use unsloth's Q3_K_XL. This performs better than Q(4,5,6)_K_XL with v quantized.
Edit: Oh, and since I mentioned Gemma 4, my testing mirrors my Qwen 3.5/3.6 experiences, 26B-A4B performs worse than 31B, but is also way faster. llama.cpp doesn't support Gemma 4's MTP style yet, so both could get even faster.
(not sure of exact diagnosis/fix, but definitely look in that direction if you're still having this issue when you give it another shot)
Also, there are two stages - prompt processing, and token generation. Prompt processing is notoriously slow on Apple Silicon unfortunately. If you have large context (which includes system prompts, lots of tools loaded by a harness like Claude Code, OpenCode, etc) it can take minutes for prompt processing before you see the first output token. On the bright side, the tokens are cached between turns, so subsequent turns won't be so bad.
EDIT: I run with context wired at 64K
For comparison, I just ran a couple of quick benchmarks (default settings) with llama-bench:
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B at Q6_K_XL gave 858 t/s pp512 (prompt processing) and 43 t/s tg128 (token generation).
Qwen3.6-27B at Q4_K_XL gave 103 t/s pp512 and 8 t/s tg128.
So I’m assuming I’ve done something wrong along the way, but I’ve not had time yet to explore it.
That's the dense model, you probably want a mixture-of-experts (MoE) one.
Here's what you probably want instead: https://huggingface.co/unsloth/Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-GGUF
For agent harnesses, opencode is okay, as is pi or even Zed's built in agent panel. Claude code "works" with ANTHROPIC_BASE_URL=http://localhost:8080/v1, but is very chatty (the default system prompt burns 20k tokens). Crush (from the charm-bracelet folks) is particularly nice when starting out. I've personally converged on pi-agent under an otherwise-mostly-default setup. You can ask qwen to customize pi or write you an extension which helps a little.
You'll need to add `http://localhost:8080/v1` as an OpenAI-compatible model provider in your coding harness with any API key (doesn't matter) and any model identifier (doesn't matter with llama-cpp).
Note that pi doesn't have permissions. Everything is permitted. The hundred hungry ghosts you've trapped in a jar WILL find a way to delete your home folder someday. That's what Man gets for summoning demons without casting a circle of protection first. Flying too close to the sun etc etc etc
Take backups and then go have fun. Hope this helps.
Are there any resources to help me figure out how to best optimize my runtime paramaters for a given model, based on a given task, similar to what you've shown?
I've been a little... irritated? that hooking vscode up to my company LLM subscription seems so much more out-of-the-box capiable than what I can get to work. My assumption at the moment is that I need to create a lot of... I think they're called harnesses? agents? workflows? integrations? (not sure) by hand. Is that accurate?
Right now I have ollama running an nvidia nano model and I can poke it with a stick over a web interface I installed. It works, initial token response is slow, after that it seems fine enough.
I can't seem to get a good handle on how much context I've used, when context usage starts to degrade response accuracy, or in general how to mirror the results I get (not in terms of accuracy or speed, just features) from the company github copilot + vscode integration.
I was also trying to get a plugin called qodeassist working via qtcreator, mixed results there as well.
I've been keeping up with this space since the jump, never paid for a sub, work gave me a sub a handful of weeks ago, so the actual useage is all new to me.
I can't say I'm super impressed with any of it relative to the hype, but I found it neat to be able to point vscode at a c++ codebase and say "enable wextra, build the code, tell me if there is any low-hanging fruit I can clean up" and get a useful response.
I also asked my local model to turn a picture of my dog into a picture of an otter, got a blank picture back, which the thinking bit told me it would do. The whole thing was actually kind of funny. "I am allowed to edit pictures, I can't edit pictures, I am allowed to edit pictures, I'll tell the user I did and send a blank picture back because I can't edit pictures, but I am allowed to."
LM-Studio doesn't support certain parameter combinations. For instance, LM-Studio supports KV quantization....but if you're using the MLX backend, you can't set the context length when KV quantization is used? Why? Running a model with certain settings requires keeping a little SAT solver going in your head. I found that overwhelming, so I just stopped using it.
The Ollama devs want to offer a central curated experience, but I perceive their approach as "playing fast and loose." They've re-implemented unique code for every model they support in their own Go runtime, so certain parameter choices aren't supported. On my hardware, their MLX backend just doesn't work at all without segfaulting the server process for example. It doesn't smack as vibe coded the way oMLX does, but it also doesn't smack as professional or battle-tested.
Ultimately, just dropping down to llama-cpp's GGUF model support and asking for default settings has provided faster inference speeds than anything I've been able to benchmark with them, but everything's within 10% of each other anyway so it's not a huge deal for me.
In my experience Sonnet bills can be higher than Opus because it churns a lot more trying to get things right.
Example from my fairly simple but agentic benchmark:
Opus 4.7, 25/25, 81c: https://sql-benchmark.nicklothian.com/?highlight=anthropic_c...
Opus 4.6, 24/25, 61c: https://sql-benchmark.nicklothian.com/?highlight=anthropic_c...
Sonnet 4.6: 24/25, 41c: https://sql-benchmark.nicklothian.com/?highlight=anthropic_c...
I only tested the free OpenRouter version of Qwen 3.6 Plus, and it scored 23/25: https://sql-benchmark.nicklothian.com/?highlight=qwen_qwen3....
This doesn't quite show Opus cheaper, but it isn't the 10-20 times more either. Harder tasks close the gap even further.
Maybe that's underselling it. It is quite a good model and might end up replacing a lot of the work I was sending to Sonnet 4.6.
Also, Sonnet 4.6 is almost certain a much bigger model so the performance differences aren't unexpected.
This is not an open model
Totally understand why it may not be reasonable or in their best interest (and that the US is _absolutely_ not doing the same reflexively). But it would be lovely to be able to try these out on production workloads in earnest.
In an ideal world U.S. residents would use Chinese AI models and Chinese residents would use U.S. AI models.
Governments in both countries are collecting data for nefarious reasons. But the Chinese government has far less influence on a U.S. resident and vice versa.
We are all better off if our data is collected by a government halfway across the world instead of our own governments which hold incredible amounts of power over us.
It's not nearly worth it to me to get an incremental improvement in performance if it means I have to move to hosted environments with Qwen 3.7 (or Claude or Gemini or whatever).
On the other hand, there's other models where the source is 100% open, the training data is known, and people have reproduced the same model from scratch, so while those trail behind, there's definitely an effort to make models more open and capable.
One: it would be relatively technically trivial for $GOVERNMENT_AGENCY to just monitor all the prompts + context we send over the wire to OpenAI/Anthropic/etc. That's a goldmine of sensitive personal and corporate data, no secret team needed (although, the LLM providers obviously would need to cooperate)
Two: Rather than secret infiltration teams influencing model training I think what's more likely on the training side of things is simply self-censoring by the LLM providers, so that they don't risk angering the government.
I highly doubt that China has government interlopers, secret or otherwise, inside Qwen's training team. Nonetheless, "sensitive" issues like Tiananmen Square are censored. I would imagine that much/most such censorship in China is self-censorship that doesn't leave a legal/paper trail. That's what we're in danger of seeing (more of) in America IMO.
I take this for granted given Room 641A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A
Thus, I’ve pondered whether anything they’ve learned has changed the world / had a big impact (like on their understanding of human psychology, perhaps per region). They’ve heard phone calls, they’ve read emails, diaries get brought to court… but these are systems that would be used like diaries but also prompt users for more and more.
You don't need a secret team to manipulate whats coming from them: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/israel-chatgpt/
Are they? They don't behave like it.
It's not very subtle manipulation either; ask qwen of Taiwan is a part of China in German and in English and only the English answer will be party-approved.
I think it's borderline naive to assume various agencies haven't infiltrated OpenAI, Anthropic and others, essentially the entire world was wiretapped by NSA in the past, to assume they don't have an employee or two at these companies does seem a bit naive to me.
I've certainly used these models without wifi without any differences.
A lot of people are purchasing access via Alibaba Cloud directly, or indirectly by companies which host the model.
As Americans go through life, some of them will become people with power. When you need to leverage that power, having the right knowledge about them can effectively transfer that power to you.
Tiktok was a goldmine, because every 20-something on their way to a future position of power was uploading every single facit of their digital life to CCP servers everyday.
If you use a service outside your country, I believe you could have all your code stolen and get hacked/exploited in a way that would be totally legal.
Sure, that is until each government's dataset is interesting enough to the other to facilitate a data-sharing agreement.
There's gotta be an internet "law" that says something like "Eventually, the data you volunteer to a benign 3rd party eventually winds up being used against you by someone". This is short-term thinking at it's finest.
China has more integration between intelligence and industry than many western countries, and it does present a higher risk of unwanted “tech transfer” to industry than running on oracle or Google or ms or Amazon does in the US.
DHS has long staffed full time agents in California to deal with foreign IP exfiltration - using qwen is like fast/easy mode for IP exfiltration: why make anyone get a job in your palo alto office when you can just send it to them in Hanzhou?
Upshot - If you have something proprietary you’re working on I would generally advise not to just direct send it to Alibaba.
This made me think of a Seinfeld episode: "I didn't know it was possible not to know that."
That's exactly the fear, and why would it not be logistically feasible? The threat is definitely a bit overhyped, but China has a longstanding track record of aggressive corporate espionage.
Even if they weren’t individually worried about their proprietary data being shared with Chinese domestic competitors or with government… their audit / security programs likely wouldn’t allow it for a _huge_ range of types of data.
This even applies to OpenAI & Anthropic who don't even eval on the same datasets a lot of the time.
Which is fine, we all have to make money, but it is disingenuous. It's just unfortunate that running some of these benchmarks is so expensive that it's not really realistic for most companies to actually run them.
Even with LLMs, posts like this don't just fall out of a coconut tree. If you have a set of target benchmarks for your own model, then keeping "the set" of side-by-side comparable models is its own maintenance headache.
Realistically I assume they hope readers don’t notice the fine details.
The Qwen models are great for open weights but for every past release they haven’t performed as well as the benchmarks in my experience. They’re optimizing for benchmark numbers because they know it works.
The pool of people reading such articles while ignoring such details can't be big.
On Hacker News I wonder if most people even opened the article at all most times.
e: which itself is a modification of RTFM from usenet
if they say it's 4.7 comparable, it anchors that into your head as the model to evaluate against.
I've created a 2.54BPW quant that fit on my hardware with 128k context, 20 tps tg and 200tps pp, while maintaining high scores on many benchmarks: https://huggingface.co/tarruda/Qwen3.5-397B-A17B-GGUF/discus...
If by ROI you mean saving more money than using paid APIs, then I don't think it is worth it. All you gain is full sovereignty over your AI usage.
Running w/ Cursor and doing some "nights and weekends" type coding / conversations, I was hitting $100-200 of usage within a few weeks. I know there's probably better ways to manage costs, but I was getting enough value out of it to keep bumping my spend limit from $20 => $40 => $80 => $120 (and then I stopped spending! :-)
Messing around with local-llm, I've settled on `omlx` and `gemma` for "conversational", and I think it's `qwen-120b-a3b-6bit` or something for the "heavy hitter". Gemma "gets it" a lot more, whereas that particular `qwen` tends to fall into the "MuSt WrItE CoOooDeee!" behaviour in a lot of cases instead of holding a conversation, and does an awesome job of randomly spitting out ascii-art diagrams or including full-blown bash shell scripts to illustrate different cases.
My POV is: "Local for slightly slower/casual usage", the ~1% of battery usage per minute of LLM is shockingly accurate (eg: 30 minutes == 30% drop!). "Gemma for discussion and emitting DESIGN-... docs", and "Qwen for converting DESIGN-... to PLAN-...", (as well as implementation, but generally from a fresh context loading the relevant PLAN-... or supporting docs)
...then supplement that with direct Cursor usage in case I screw up some setting on being able to get the local LLM working, or if I need to include literal web-research or really having access to some SOTA model. Using the pi-coder harness locally, web pages are kindof a difficult conundrum as they can be kindof gigantic and are really worthy of special casing, some sort of sub-harness, etc... but the more "stuff" you put into the agent, the less context window (and memory!) you have available, so it's a real balancing act.
The other biggest problem is that you're limited (locally) to ~20-80tps and in some cases you have to chew on or "swallow" the whole prompt up to that point if you end up with some sort of cache miss (TTFT). The `omlx` server does a pretty good job (after you tweak some settings and stuff) of allowing MANY prompt continuations to nearly immediately start generated tokens, but sometimes if I have two agents going (eg: Gemma talking shit about Qwen's output or vice versa) in a longer context window, then you'll take that hit.
"Other people's compute" is definitely more freeing, but even looking at $200/mo usage that's $2400 vs. the ~$6k for a maxed out MBP. Call it $2500 vs. $7500 and you'd say that "local AI gives you a 3-year amortization window for a slower, worse experience" ... but if you're strategic about your usage, the ability to "talk for free" and occasionally "burst" to an online provider or having some hugging-face tokens to try out different models that you can't quite run locally is really nice. Talking to the AI (locally) to even just do non-coding planning without worrying about data leakage or privacy issues is phenomenal, and you end up owning a really nice laptop!
In some ways, seeing the "advantage" of having the local 128gb capacity for LLM, I'm semi-wishing I'd have gotten a mac mini instead, but then I can't quite do the 100% offline stuff (eg: coffee-shop) that the maxed out laptop allows.
If it were a mini running locally, I'd feel more comfortable calling it the always-on "AI brain" to process my emails, run crontab summaries, whatever kindof "open-claw-ish" stuff that you could do w/o relying on having to "keep the laptop lid open all the time". I'm sure there's ways to repurpose things, but longer-term, call it even 3-5 years from now... any sort of 128gb machine will be more than capable where you'd want to have one "doing stuff" locally within your home network (IMHO).
>"...if you're strategic about your usage, the ability to "talk for free" and occasionally "burst" to an online provider or having some hugging-face tokens to try out different models that you can't quite run locally is really nice. Talking to the AI (locally) to even just do non-coding planning without worrying about data leakage or privacy issues is phenomenal, and you end up owning a really nice laptop!"
^ this resonates, loudly.
Again: I'm finding waaaay enough utility that I'm tempted to invest more "CapEx" and get a used system for day-to-day, "always on" local work... but more literally, that's probably a better job for "OpEx"! Tune my "crontab" work against local models and then max out at a $1/day budget slaved to an always on RPI connected to ethernet at home.
$365/year of off-site AI lasts 10 years before I come close to recouping the hardware (and electricity) costs of having "yet another device" purchased and turned on 24x7... and certainly there will come a day when you go to the store and buy a $200-500 "TITO" device (Tokens In => Tokens Out) that plugs into a ~30-60W USB-C port before then.
If you're using HF tokens (or "rent-a-A100" or whatever), are always connected to home ethernet (Sun Microsystems: The Network IS the Computer), and maybe supplement with a Kagi backend for attaching to the raw internet then you get _most_ of the surety of "my queries are private" unless you're locally hacked or are the target of nation-state scrutiny. :shrug:?
Keep in touch if you end up doing something cool with all this! $USERNAME@yahoo.com (and hopefully I'll have my AI setup filtering out all the viagra spam before then!).
It is higher than 110GB. MacOS allows up to 125G of the RAM to be shared with GPU, so it is certainly less than that!
> HF link is broken though!
Doesn't seem broken to me, but you should be able to search for tarruda/Qwen3.5-397B-A17B-GGUF on huggingface.
But I was not super impressed with deepseek 4 flash using it from the official API either, so it doesn't seem quantization fault. It is a good model, but nothing out of the ordinary in the few benchmarks I ran on it (with full awareness that benchmarks are biased).
I’m on an M1 Max with 32GB VRAM, so I’m looking forward to the 27B or 35B-A3B models. Is dropping $5k for an RTX 6000 or a DGX Spark really the best option?
Unfortunately, the prices rose on these a lot, but unevenly. Beelink GTR 9 Pro is $4400, Framework Desktop is ~$3500, for what is basically the exact same mainboard as a Bosgame M5 for $2800.
Apple's M5 Max is another attractive option. Apple silicon traditionally had great MBW and was good at TG, but struggled with PP, but the new neural engines in those GPU cores have made a big difference in a good way here.
Gorgon Halo is rumored for June announcement with Q4'26 release with basically +100 MHz clocks on Strix Halo, LPDDR5X-8533 instead of LPDDR5X-8000, but more importantly, 192 GB max instead of 128 GB.
I'd say it's better to wait for Gorgon Halo than to grab Strix Halo now. However, Medusa Halo, rumored for H2'27, is slated to have up to 26c Zen 6 (heterogeneous cores - kinds funny that AMD is heading towards these as Intel retreats from them), 48 CU of RDNA 5 instead of 40 CU RDNA 3.5, and a 384 bit bus w/ LPDDR6, which should make 256 GB at more like ~490-600 GB/s MBW, which will really make Strix and Gorgon Halo obsolete.
Also worth keeping an eye out for Serpent Lake (intel CPU + nvidia iGPU on a single board with unified memory, rumored for 2028-2029 iirc), and on the 160 GB Crescent Island Intel dGPU.
- Your RTX 6000 is closer to $10k now
- Sparks are creeping into the $4-5k range
- AMD Strix are ~3.5k
- Apple depends on chipset and memory. Sweet spot would be 128gb M3 Ultra, probably $6-8k but admittedly haven't been tracking closely. New M5 might come in the fall. You can get a new 128gb M5 Max laptop for ~5-6k today.
- a 4x3090 rig would take $5-6k
Every platform has tradeoffs, but it's mostly ecosystem, memory bandwidth, and power consumption. They're all slow. The best option is likely to rent hardware on Runpod. The RIO on self-hosting is very low unless you have a specific need or you're ok treating it as a hobby.
>The best option is likely to rent hardware on Runpod.
Vast.ai is much cheaper, but the broader point here is contestable. The only dimension in which cloud GPU rentals win is cost. You lose the confidentiality, integrity, and availability benefits of local deployments.
Not that I'd encourage anyone to throw large amounts of money to have access to LLMs, but you're definately going to be better off buying something that you can amortize over multiple years with a multi year warranty.
This whole thing is really starting to remind me of the crypto hype phases of 2016-2018 when everyone thought their investment in GPUs was going to make them rich.
Yes, LLMs are sloppy, and local models usually more so (but things change fast).
But the local ones have one big advantage: they are private. So you can safely feed them the collection of your private documents and things you wouldn't trust people like sama with. The fact that some people do not care is one of the failures of our educational system.
In October/2024 I got my Mac studio M1 ultra with 128G, IIRC it was ~$2500. With recent prices explosion, it has certainly gotten more expensive. https://frame.work/ is selling 128G strix halo mainboard for $2700, but you have to add storage and case.
Non-NVIDIA backends tend to get less support and new features land slower, or features that are expected to improve performance wind up hurting it instead. That sort of thing.
For basic “token in/token out” workloads without fine tuning, it’s probably fine ??
The server edition has gone up $2K in the last couple of weeks alone, at the outlet where I bought one previously.
Oddly enough, though, Qwen 3.6 35B A3B and Gemma got some really good reviews, despite being way smaller than any of these ones.
Qwen 3.5, 122B A10B: https://huggingface.co/unsloth/Qwen3.5-122B-A10B-GGUF
Qwen Coder Next, 80B A3B: https://huggingface.co/unsloth/Qwen3-Coder-Next-GGUF
It's kinda weird that DeepSeek V4 Flash is supposed to be 284B A13B, but shows up as 158B in HuggingFace, probably some weird bug: https://huggingface.co/unsloth/DeepSeek-V4-Flash and that's not even just Unsloth but like the official source too https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4-Flash (so also doesn't fit the category unless you get a heavily quantized version to run, but cool regardless)
Mistral Medium 3.5 is interesting because it's 128B but dense, so probably too slow for most folks: https://huggingface.co/unsloth/Mistral-Medium-3.5-128B-GGUF
GPT-OSS, 120B A5B: https://huggingface.co/unsloth/gpt-oss-120b-GGUF
(As a reference, DeepSeek v4 is severely throttled on these proxy services.)
I couldn’t say how throttled it is, but it seems fine?
I had a Google Pro account that I inherited from buying a Pixel 9 XL - it's free for a year after a flagship Pixel phone purchase. After a year they started charging for it, and i tolerated it, because Flash was usable in Antigravity for dumb auxiliary tasks that I did not want to waste GPT/Opus on. It had a separate generous quota from Gemini 3.1 Pro. Now with Flash 3.5 they combined the quotas with Pro, such that on a Google pro account you can work 4-5 hours per week in Flash. And by the way, 3.1 Pro is useless for programming, compared to Codex/Opus
I think they envision Pro plan as "just a taste of AI, enough to lure folks into the Ultra plan" but that won't work for me when Codex is half the price and DeepSeek 4 Flash is 1/10 of their price per task.
So I'll downgrade just enough to keep my Google Drive space. And use DeepSeek 4 as workhorse plus Codex or Copilot for advanced stuff.
https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=sst-dev....
It adds a button to VSCode to open a tab with opencode loaded. It's a bit better than just opening the CLI because it has some vscode integration.
With their $10/mo opencode go plan: https://opencode.ai/go
For my use it's about endless use of DS4 Flash on high setting. I find high better than max because it's less chatty.
The best thing is the speed. So many tokens per second.
edit: This is how it looks in action https://i.imgur.com/RNDXr07.png
I haven't tested openrouter but I expect it to be slightly less cheap because it charges per token and opencode Go plan is a $10/mo fixed price model. Economies of scale leads me to think that for heavy use, openrouter will be more costly since opencode Go can subside heavy users like me with money from light users (just like gyms do with people that pay but barely use it).
With that said, I find vscode native copilot chat more pleasant to use, but also more laggy for large sessions.
opencode configuration is less polished and you'll have to grok around for some things. For example opencode CTRL+p conflicts with VSCode CTRL+p. I changed opencode to use Ctrl+L instead.
The setup I had to do was important and I had to compile koboldcpp with a few special params for my hardware, I mostly just had Claude figure it out. I don't remember everything I did now but it was very slow and would often stop mid task, it seems it was mostly a parsing issue. It made the model seem broken/dumb, but once I had all that settled I actually am able to use this how I use Claude Code. Disclaimer, I am pretty explicit with requirements, I imagine this fails more when you leave it to figure out things on its own but for my flow its pretty rad.
Currently setting it up as an automated agent now to pull Trello cards, create PRs for them, and move the card to be reviewed.
Command I am using to run: python koboldcpp.py \ --port 61514 --quiet --multiuser --gpulayers 999 --contextsize 262144 --quantkv 2 \ --usecublas normal --threads 4 --jinja --jinja_tools --jinja_kwargs '{"enable_thinking":true, "preserve_thinking":false}' \ --skiplauncher --model /data/models/Qwen3.6-27B-Q5_K_M.gguf --smartcache 5
It's very capable on almost any coding task I've thrown at it, and very good for easy-to-medium hard scripts, new code bases.
It struggles on some complex tasks in larger code bases, e.g. using to debug and fix bugs in llama.cpp it gets close to working code but often introduces errors. For such tasks its still very useful as a search/explore tool and drafting fixes.
Is this normal humans kicking the tires on a new model, or a few whales doing serious benchmarks?
Open-weight: Good enough for the majority of tasks, and I'm willing to spend a bit more time and effort steering towards my desired result.
95% of the work most of us do is mostly just plumbing - connecting X and Y together. A ton of grunt work - writing basic loops, fetch statements, importing libraries. You really don't need PhD level intelligence to handle these
The only time you need Opus 4.7+ tier intelligence is when you're quashing a nasty bug or refactoring something complex
4.7 is much better. But perception is a funny thing, once you think something is bad you start looking for it everywhere.
I ran llama3:latest and it ran pretty fast! I’m curious to see how Qwen would run on my system.
Good balance of intelligence and speed.
> Oops! There was an issue connecting to Qwen3.6-Plus.
> Content Security Warning: The input text data may contain inappropriate content.
hey ChatGPT, how many civilians were killed in Gaza in the war since 2023?
> [one page of estimates from local and international sources with links]
Your ID has been passed to Israel and your internalized "threat" rating number increased 300 units. Every packet you produce on the internet is now earmarked for 100 year retention.
"Tennessee man jailed 37 days for Trump meme wins settlement after lawsuit" and "The FBI Wants to Buy Nationwide Access to License Plate Readers"
Gotta love how the US is the bastion of free speech, justice and liberty!
https://cortecs.ai/serverlessModels
Europe's sense of superiority and actual global importance/relevance is assbackwards.
Hilarious thing to say when half this comment section is Americans giving so much of a fuck that they consider China-adjacent hosted models unusable due to the supposed risks. If what you were saying was true then those pragmatic Americans would just use whatever is most effective.
The Americans can cry about Chinese censorship and turn around and use Claude or Opus or Gemma or whatever, but the Europeans just throw a fit and then have to use one of the two anyway. And that whole crying about something while being completely helpless vis-a-vis doing anything about it is the definition of Europe so far this century. Globally irrelevant outside Germany.
Tiananmen Square is the first place to start.
What do you mean? This is not self hosted, it's closed source. And any website that targets China or is hosted in China will probably censor Tiananmen Square.
BTW - They’re still censoring human rights violations.
Similarly, try talking to Nemotron about Epstein and see how quickly it shuts down.