Live data from Hacker News

LM Studio 0.4

lmstudio.ai

11–20 of 134 posts

Re: LM Studio 0.4

#11

I’m really excited for lmster and to try it out. It’s essentially what I want from ollama. Ollama has deviated so much from their original core principles. Ollama has been broken and slow to update model support. There’s this “vendor sync” I’ve been waiting (essentially update ggml) for weeks.

[deleted]

Re: LM Studio 0.4

#13
post #8

edit: disregard, new version did not respect old version's developer mode setting

woah dude, take it easy. There are no missing features, there are more feature. You might just not be finding them where they were before. Remember this is still 0.x, why would the devs be stuck and not be able to improve the UI just because of past decisions?

Re: LM Studio 0.4

#14

What’s the main use-case for this? I get that I can run local models, but all the paid for (remote) models are superior. So is the use-case just for people who don’t want to use big tech’s models? Is this just for privacy conscious people? Or is this just for “adult” chats, ie porn bots? Not being cynical here, just wanting to understand the genuine reasons people are using it.

Yes, frontier models from the labs are a step ahead and likely will always be, but we've already crossed levels of "good enough for X" with local models. This is analogous to the fact that my iPhone 17 is technically superior to my iPhone 8, but my outcomes for text messaging are no better.

I've invested heavily in local inference. For me, it's a mixture privacy, control, stability, cognitive security.

Privacy - my agents can work on tax docs, personal letters, etc.

Control - I do inference steering with some projects: constraining which token can be generated next at any point in time. Not possible with API endpoints.

Stability - I had many bad experiences with frontier labs' inference quality shifting within the same day, likely due to quantization due to system load. Worse, they retire models, update their own system prompts, etc. They're not stable.

Cognitive Security - This has become more important as I rely more on my agents for performing administrative work. This is intermixed with the Control/Stability concerns, but the focus is on whether I can trust it to do what I intended it to do, and that it's acting on my instructions, rather than the labs'.

Re: LM Studio 0.4

#16
lmster is what was lacking in lmstudio (yes, they have lms but it lacks so many functionalities that the GUI version has).

but it's a bit too little too late. people running this probably can already setup llama.cpp pretty easily.

lmstudio also has some overhead like ollama; llama.cpp or mlx alone are always faster.

Re: LM Studio 0.4

#17

LMStudio introducing a command line interface makes things come full circle.

For context, LMStudio has had a CLI for a while it just required the desktop app to be open already. This makes it where you can run LMStudio properly headless and not just from a terminal while the desktop app is open. `lms chat` has existed, `lms daemon up` / "llmster" is the new command.

> This makes it where you can run LMStudio properly headless and not just from a terminal while the desktop app is open

Ah, this is great, been waiting for this! I naively created some tooling on top of the API from the desktop app after seeing they had a CLI, then once I wanted to deploy and run it on a server, I got very confused that the desktop app actually installs the CLI and it requires the desktop app running.

Great that they finally got it working fully headless now :)

Re: LM Studio 0.4

#18

man they really butchered the user interface, the "dark" mode now isn't even dark, it's just grey, and it's looking more like a whitespacemaxxed children's toy than a tool for professionals

Right now it looks like as VS Code (give or take). Pretty sure both are\will be used by many professionals.

"looks like a toy" has very little to do with its use anyway.

Re: LM Studio 0.4

#19

What’s the main use-case for this? I get that I can run local models, but all the paid for (remote) models are superior. So is the use-case just for people who don’t want to use big tech’s models? Is this just for privacy conscious people? Or is this just for “adult” chats, ie porn bots? Not being cynical here, just wanting to understand the genuine reasons people are using it.

TL;DR: The classic CIA triad: Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability; cost/price concerns; the leading open-weight models aren't nearly as bad as you might think.

You don't need LM Studio to run local models, it just (was, formerly), a nice UI to download and manage HF models and llama.cpp updates, quickly and easily manually switch between CPU / Vulkan / ROCm / CUDA (depending on your platform).

Regarding your actual question, there are several reasons.

First off, your allusion to privacy - absolutely, yes, some people use it for adult role-play, however, consider the more productive motivations for privacy, too: a lot of businesses with trade secrets they may want to discuss or work on with local models without ever releasing that information to cloud providers, no matter how much those cloud providers pinky promise to never peek at it. Google, Microsoft, Meta, et al have consistently demonstrated that they do not value or respect customer privacy expectations, that they will eagerly comply with illegal, unconstitutional NSA conspiracies to facilitate bulk collection of customer information / data. There is no reason to believe Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, xAI would act any differently today. In fact, there is already a standing court order forcing OpenAI to preserve all customer communications, in a format that can be delivered to the court (i.e. plaintext, or encryption at rest + willing to provide decryption keys to the court), in perpetuity (https://techstartups.com/2025/06/06/court-orders-openai-to-p...)

There are also businesses which have strict, absolute needs for 24/7 availability and low latency, which remote APIs never have offered. Even if the remote APIs were flawless, and even if the businesses have a robust multi-WAN setup with redundant UPS systems, network downtime or even routing issues are more or less an inevitable fact of life, sooner or later. Having local models means you have inference capability as long as you have electricity.

Consider, too, the integrity front: frontier labs may silently modify API-served models to be lower quality for heavy users with little means of detection by end users (multiple labs have been suspected / accused of this; a lack of proof isn't evidence that it didn't happen) or that the API-served models can be modified over time to patch behaviors that may have been previously relied upon for legitimate workloads (imagine a red team that used a jailbreak to get a model to produce code for process hollowing, for instance). This second example absolutely has happened with almost every inference provider.

The open weight local models also have zero marginal cost besides electricity once the hardware is present, unlike PAYG API models, which create financial lock-in and dependency that is in direct contrast with the financial interests of the customers. You can argue about the amortized costs of hardware, but that's a decision for the customer to make using their specific and personal financial and capex / hardware information that you don't have at the end of the day.

Further, the gap between frontier open weight models and frontier proprietary models has been rapidly shrinking and continues to. See Kimi K2.5, Xiaomi MiMo v2, GLM 4.7, etc. Yes, Opus 4.5, Gemini 3 Pro, GPT-5.2-xhigh are remarkably good models and may beat these at the margin, but most work done via LLMs does not need the absolute best model; many people will opt for a model that gets 95% of the output quality of the absolute frontier model when it can be had for 1/20th the cost (or less).

Re: LM Studio 0.4

#20

What’s the main use-case for this? I get that I can run local models, but all the paid for (remote) models are superior. So is the use-case just for people who don’t want to use big tech’s models? Is this just for privacy conscious people? Or is this just for “adult” chats, ie porn bots? Not being cynical here, just wanting to understand the genuine reasons people are using it.

To justify investing a trillion dollars like everything else LLM-related. The local models are pretty good. Like I ran a test on R1 (the smallest version) vs Perplexity Pro and shockingly got better answers running on base spec Mac Mini M4. It's simply not true that there is a huge difference. Mostly it's hardcoded overoptimalization. In general these models aren't really becoming better.

I agree with this comment here.

For me the main BIG deal is that cloud models have online search embedded etc, while this one doesn't.

However, if you don't need that (e.g., translate, summarize text, writing code) probably is good enough.

Post reply on HN