We desperately need to keep local models competitive with the hyper scalers. I won't want to be beholden to them and their whims forever. With anthropic now restricting game reverse engineering I think we're about to cross a Rubicon of censorship.

That's pretty interesting, because with the Bonsai 2 quantisations it is quite achievable to get Qwen 27B running at 50 t/s on reasonably priced gaming machine [0]. Which in turn suggests that Fable 5 coding performance can be achieved locally with a bit of clever harnessing.

Although the same harnessing should also improve Fable's performance. The important thing here is the cap for local performance looks like it could be quite high.

[0] https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw... suggests 16GB VRAM, 32 GB system.

Remember those gpus into chips https://inference-docs.cerebras.ai/models/qwen-3.8-27b , where you have this chip that implements a model that run at those extremely high speeds... the ones that people ask "why do we need that"... if this is true... one of those chips with the correct harness is all that's needed to get fable like intelligence in every single computer in this planet...

Happy hallowen Tax Ramltman and Amowhateverwayyournameiswritten...

GVS5H, which this is based on, was discussed here a week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50228167

There is something to say about the power of brute force approaches. Right now scaling multi agent is seemingly what is becoming the next important axis, though very strongly constrained by quality of communication protocol and compute. Even if one model is not strong enough individually, more models and more attempts as well as differing opinions may nudge the models into a better solution basins.

Kind of an extension of the effect where you talk to a model, it is super confident (but wrong), you correct it not directly but perhaps with a question and asking it to clarify. This then in turn leads to a better approach overall.

I'd wait for more benchmarks before making any conclusions since this benchmark has only "The first ten problems of their LiveCodeBench Hard list". And LiveCodeBench Hard is a several years old benchmark. Could be very saturated

Maybe slightly off-topic from the main article but is there a good resource or site that clearly helps understand which of the "open" models are good for programming tasks, like C, C++, Python, Java?

I've looked and there are tons of sites that aggregate models vs. benchmarks but I'm not sure how much of that is trust worthy.

This is good timing. My setup at home involves a two servers with 5080s each and an Rtx spark laptop with 128gb. I plan I have qwen flash next on the latter and the 27b variant on the former. I would’ve preferred to have purchased a dgx spark but everything is just ridiculously expensive now. My own setup would be 3x the cost to buy again.

I’m mainly trying to replicate Gemini flash and muse agent for my family of 4 without breaking the bank (already had a 5080 for gaming and the other for image gen).

It is unclear if this memdoor works for agentic tasks, e.g.: “check daily if dune 3 tickets are for sale and if they are buy tickets for 4 where all 4 seats are next to each other in the same row and as center as possible.”

There is a huge cliff once you go past 128gb. Basically you need either Rtx 6000 pros (20k+) or a cluster of dgx sparks (15k+)

This is probably not a novel idea but I wonder how it would work if you just stacked a bunch of smaller models on top of eachother and used that as the base to train a much much larger model. Maybe more efficient than starting from scratch?

This also appeared on HN last week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50228167, it's the other method they mention, GVS5H

Benchmarks are one thing, but I've yet to see anything substantial actually built with local models. Most of the posts on X are about benchmarks and tok/s. Has anyone actually built a quality production app or game with real users?

This working journal is so much slop it’s basically impossible to read. Perhaps the author could write a short human written and readable summary so we can evaluate if this is interesting or not.

I'd like to see this done with qwen 3.8-flash-next (Q8 or full precision) which beats 3.8-27B on just about every coding/command line use benchmark. In particular comparisons like terminalbench 4.0.

https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/comparisons/qwen3-8-fla...

So far, the comments have focused on hopes for the effectiveness of open-weight models versus proprietary frontier models. That's fine, but I'm thinking about the approach and the results, as opposed to the model.

Taking the results at face value, what is it about the "team" that makes the system so effective? That's the key here: presumably, the approach should work regardless of the model, open-weight or otherwise.

My guess would be that the division of labor makes the separate contexts more effective. This is an optimization around the limits of context. Some of that is simply the net amount of context brought to bear: each team member has a context, so the net amount of context is multiplied by the number of team members. Also, since the division limits the scope of each team member's focus, the context a team member has is used more effectively.

Fable 5 is not anymore frontier and even if, I hardly believe five very small 27b models can do like Fable 5. I think this is whishful thinking more than a fact

So someone used a small model with many requests & a massive amount of tokens, to eventually beat a large model with a single request & tiny amount of tokens. .....Cool? Were they not expecting that to work?

can it bet a team of 5 fable 5's?

Now do this for speed and correctness: https://gnosh.ai/head-to-head.html

[flagged]

Descargar 5!=</ Extractor CARTA-DE-AMOR-PARA-TI...XTS.VBS