121–130 of 189 posts
Running LLMs local is fun and powerful but if you want to get work done... it is a big headache. You have to pre-plan and plan, and make specs, etc... The big OpenAI, Claude models just get you with just a few sentences..
The main problem is finding the money :/
Running LLMs local is fun and powerful but if you want to get work done... it is a big headache. You have to pre-plan and plan, and make specs, etc... The big OpenAI, Claude models just get you with just a few sentences..
If you're already doing big boy stuff with big boy models, then... just carry on trucking!
Only place I'd differ is for vision/OCR tasks. Small/medium open weights models are as good as SoTa, and token prices for prefill are kinda very not worth it for larger batch tasks.
Other thing that people forget is, if you want to have even a smallish LLM as a reliable personal service, you've got to carve out 16-24 of (V)RAM and leave it permanently running.
These are my current results for my models:
┌──────────────────────┬───────────┬─────────────┐
│ Model │ Size │ Tokens/sec │
├──────────────────────┼───────────┼─────────────┤
│ gemma-4-e4b-it-mlx │ ~4B (MLX) │ ~10.5 tok/s │
├──────────────────────┼───────────┼─────────────┤
│ qwen3-8b-uncensor-v2 │ 8B │ ~6.3 tok/s │
├──────────────────────┼───────────┼─────────────┤
│ qwen3-14b-uncensored │ 14B │ ~3.5 tok/s │
└──────────────────────┴───────────┴─────────────┘
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gemma 4 IS good, I've literally had it get a thing right that Opus 4.7 missed, the edges are ragged and I'm reliably finding usecases where it's basically equivalent. Ultimately the metric is "what can I RELY on it to do". Opus definitely knows a lot more and can sometimes do much more complex tasks, but especially when you're good about feeding the context Gemma is amazing. The difference between the sets of things…
Re-posting this from a buried comment for visibility because it's just so fucking impressive to me. I went to the store to buy mixers and while I was out Gemma 4 31b got pretty far along with reverse engineering the bluetooth protocol of a desk thermometer I have. I forgot to turn on the web search tool, so it just went at it, writing more and more specific diagnostic logging/probing tools over the course of like 8 t…
Built a basic authentication handler for this test just so it wouldn't be in the training data of either model. It had deliberately planted bugs. One was a hardcoded secret, another was a wrap-on-0xFFFFFFFF bug as a result of a malloc(length+1).
Qwen 3.6 found both, alongside two other issues I hadn't even considered, and the location of the magic value. GPT-5.4, though, missed the malloc issue (flagging memory exhaustion as the only risk), it missed a separate timing bug (it explicitly said the function was safe), and it hallucinated the location of the magic value. Qwen correctly identified the integer overflow. GPT-5.4 did not.
I then compared basic research between them using SearXNG for web search. For example, the current status of MTP in llama.cpp. Qwen 3.6 27B found the current PR, but flagged a related issue that shows the current implementation can be slower than just using a draft model right now. GPT-5.5 Thinking found the same PR, but didn't flag the downsides.
In a similar comparison, I asked both models how I should get started with ESPHome as a total beginner. ChatGPT suggested an ESP32-S3 and a BME280, which is... just not a good idea. It also talked about the ESP32-P4 not having Wi-Fi, and installing with HA or Docker. Meanwhile, Qwen3.6 27B said regular ESP32, DHT22, and mentioned HA, Docker, and pip as installation methods. While GPT was good, it was just throwing out jargon for a prompt that explicitly requested it for a beginner.
It kind of blew my mind that in all three of these, Qwen landed it better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very different from my experience, Gemma 31b just solved a physics problem Opus 4.7 gave up on. I definitely don't think they're equivalent in general, Opus for sure is way smarter and way more likely to get things right on the edge, but it's still quite likely to get things wrong too it doesn't make it that useful for a lot of stuff. Conversely there are so many things that you would use an LLM for that they will bo…
Sure. Sample size = 1.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i use smaller model gemma e2b for most of my editing and it works surprisingly well. Workflow is planning with sota models and execution via small models. If you plan properly dont leave ambiguity for smaller model it works well.
Out of curiosity have you tried other small models? The e2b for me was unusable. Llama3.2 3b was better and that thing is a year old and I rarely use it now too.
I got qwen3.6:27B running on my 4090 (24GB) with ~128K context leveraging some of the recent turboquant/rotorquant memory optimizations for activations. Highly suggest going up to that. the q4_xl+rotorquant combo is pretty good. Some reference code if you want to throw your agent at it. https://github.com/rapatel0/rq-models
I assumed turboquant optimizations are already everywhere - in llama-cpp, or the quantization machinery of unsloth and the likes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very different from my experience, Gemma 31b just solved a physics problem Opus 4.7 gave up on. I definitely don't think they're equivalent in general, Opus for sure is way smarter and way more likely to get things right on the edge, but it's still quite likely to get things wrong too it doesn't make it that useful for a lot of stuff. Conversely there are so many things that you would use an LLM for that they will bo…
Sure. Sample size = 1.