Small Models Have Arrived
calv.info
calv.info
There's a sort of "revelation" I had in ~early '24 when I used a 7B local model with a library called Guidance (initially out of MS, then the team moved) to create a flow where the model would receive pseudocode for tests, first write the tests, and once I approved then started writing code until the tests passed. This was before "thinking" models, and yet using that library I was able to "guide" the model in the required "prompt / instruct" context such that it was working towards completion, and I saw the first things like we see now in the thinking traces "oh, test x doesn't pass because blah, I need to..." and so on.
Anyway, the revelation was "even if the models never improve, I'll have years of fun finding out all the ways I can use these things". And, obviously, the models improved a lot since then. But I think that revelation can still be applied, as a sort of "truism". We have, right now, access to things that 10-20 years ago would be considered magic. We are still finding ways of cobbling together systems with glue, duct tape and prayers and find new things they can do.
I think the "good-enough" stage has come not just for API models (cheap, fast, etc) but for local as well. Even if slower, even if clunkier, but they are good enough for a set of ever increasing tasks, and what's more it's incredibly fun to work with them.
For code, they are great, but for creativity for NPC controllers, they leave something to be desired, but work well enough for testing, so I don't burn tokens until I'm actually playing my games.
But nothing one-shots a prototype better than Fable 5. I can have a prototype built in 30 minutes, hooked up to my local LLMs and Claude Code is very good at testing the interactions and even tuning the prompts of the NPCs for better experiences.
I get that a lot of people don't have them. And a single one can be VERY performant. And the smaller models like a 7B can run on much smaller hardware like a mid-range [3|4|5]060.
My entire AI Dev Box cost $4500 in parts. 128GB RAM, i7-10700, 1TB and 2TB SSD, and 2x 3090s. Today's prices and inflation have definitely made that price tag seem a lot better than it was, but it was an investment in all things GPU that were happening in 2020 (crypto, blender, image gen), then LLMs exploded.
I'm not saying everyone has to run local LLMs, because the APIs are in a race to the bottom, and my $10 of OpenRouter credits I bought months ago is down to $8.94 because most models give you MILLIONS of tokens for a US Quarter.
This is tunnel vision. The percentage of people who could afford the hardware you could at the time you back it so vanishingly small. I do not know a single non-tech person who has multiple graphics cards in a single computer.
My personal expectation is closer to 5 years than 10, which is why I wouldn't touch Anthropic or OpenAI stock with a ten-foot pole, personally, no matter how high their theoretical valuation is. Because their business model is doomed in the long run.
Which means it's inevitable that eventually, even the consumer game market will be buying GPUs with 32 or 64 GB of RAM. And there are decent models that will run at that size. Even the "normies playing games" market, as you call it, will end up with the capacity to run local models. It'll take a few more years than it would have if the data-center companies weren't trying to buy up all the GPUs, but it's not like gamers are going to stop wanting to play games. So in the long run, Anthropic et al are still going to have to figure out how to deal with competition from local models that run on your gaming video card. Which won't ever be at parity with the models that take terabytes of VRAM to run, but are very rapidly approaching "good enough for what most people want to do".
Don't get me wrong, there are advantages to a fully local model in that, I can have agents looping 24/7 even when my internet is not working. But this is niche enough that if I had to price the advantages they don't seem worth it.
If I'm willing to pay the Openrouter tax, I can fire up Openrouter today and just get access to whatever model I want, and still pay a fraction for tokens as what I'm paying with the big guys.
3090 pricing is something of a wild card. Since the only big-mem consume cards are the xx90s, and a 5090 is pushing $5000, resale value has gone way up. The bottom hit ~$700 last year. It's still a very good GPU, if power hungry.
It was a 96 core gen 4 epyc+supermicro board build with consumer NVMe drives on 1x16->4x4 "dumb" bifurcation cards. I had to get a few MCIO-> PCIe adapters as well to get the full lane coverage. Mounted in a standard EATX compatible consumer case with a consumer PSU and a lot of Noctua fans - surprisingly cool and quiet for what it is.
Motherboard+CPU I got from Ebay. Rest from the best MicroCenter/Amazon/Walmart deal of that day. Bought juuuuust before the AI pricing apocalypse, largely by pure chance.
It’s not unfathomable that if a personal, generally intelligent local AI provides enough utility and doesn’t require you to tweak CLI flags millions of Americans would want one.
Americans by and large don't do that. Much of the population engages in discretionary spending with debt instruments. Combined with mass innumeracy, they're all oblivious to the true cost of their purchases because they only think of the monthly payment.
What matters is you've got the Duramax HD King Ranch TRD Big-Boy machine. Doesn't matter the cost. You can tow anything, drive anywhere, do anything, and do it all in comfort. Other than parking in a normal parking spot comfortably. Or even park it in your own garage at home.
I've seen this exact scenario many times personally.
You could sell those and have enough money to pay for hosted inference for years.
You can do each of those at various hosts and own nothing. Or own a couple "over priced" cards and do it all at home on battery power for a few hours while the power is out.
Your comment is like a meta comment of "LLMs are generating everything, after a while the ouroboros will eat itself. (Which I agree with)" If people aren't hacking on this shit just because, you have completely conceded control of software to a handful of sociopaths, and open source software is dead.
From a quick search a 3090 looks to go for about 1500-2000 USD. So let's say $4K for two.
I'm spending far over $1K/month (employer-paid) on cloud AI, so if that could be anywhere near comparable we're only looking at less than a few months break-even.
Less really, because some months are more expensive. This month I'm up to ~$500 and it is only day 4 of this month.
I'm sure most of it comes down to prompts, and all of them run over 100tps on a 3090. Smaller cards will likely be slower, but Qwen3.5 9B is small enough to fit on most consumer cards.
It will be interesting to track the improvements of these 7B model over time.
There will be a turning point in the next few years where it attract enough consumer attention to create yet another Smartphone and PC super cycle.
The people involved at the leadership, in this wave, or incredibly toxic individuals. When the leaders behave a certain way, it tends to be reflected by those following after - intentional or not.
- ingesting all the current knowledge without regard for intellectual property or the work of people that went into it; then
- claiming that AI would make all those people who put in the work redundant
It's not really surprising that when the sales pitch is "this will eliminate human creative work in all writing and illustration centric industries", people got angry.
The infancy phase of this technology is represented by the pursuit of making wildly grand, wildly expensive, all-purpose models that somehow discern a user's full accurate intent from a lazy, underdeveloped, vague idea that they ambiguously and poorly express in a couple dozen words.
The adolescence will arrive as those outsized and ill-considered ambitions collapse and we instead see a cambrian explosion of restrained but efficient model+harness-tuples that have been distilled, finetuned, and rigged to deliver on narrowly scoped but idiosyncratically-shaped tasks with incredible efficiency and erogonomics.
http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html
Recent comment touching on this in relation to LLM's in more depth: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49322695#49323341
Secondly, the bitter lesson is predicated on compute being cheap. There was a period where a hand-tuned algorithm informed by human expertise would outperform a raw alpha-beta search at Chess. Then compute got cheaper, and DeepBlue ascended to the top. Compute is now expensive again relative to the tasks being performed. We are absolutely still in a period where human expertise in training LLMs will outperform a naive approach with more raw compute.
In the latter case, the chess example would tend to support the Bitter Lesson, rather than refute it.
I would also be VERY slow to claim that general-purpose models will never be competitive at chess. It wasn't so long ago that transformers couldn't add two-digit numbers reliably without resorting to tool use. They are now as good at "mental arithmetic" as any human savant. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see someone come up with a model that just happens to be really, really good at leveraging the portions of its general training data having to do with chess.
In fact you could argue that AGI demands such a model, if we are to assume that LLMs are a guidepost in that direction.
And in 2020 Stockfish 12 adding some NN evaluation. And then in 2023 Stockfish 16 entirely removing the classical position evaluation code.
> I would also be VERY slow to claim that general-purpose models will never be competitive at chess.
This is not the claim. The claim is that for the same amount of compute, a general-purpose language model will never beat a Chess model. I'm dubious, but allow for the possibility that a language model could eventually compete at a top level against humans with enough compute. However, it will never compete with a dedicated Chess model with similar resources. Training a model for a specific task with the same amount of compute will outperform training a general-purpose model with the same amount of compute. This should be common sense, right? The bitter lesson was only about compute over human algorithms, not at throwing compute at a generalised domain over throwing compute at a specific domain.
You made arguments against two claims that I did not make (that I was trying to refute the bitter lesson or that I claimed that LLMs could never be competitive against humans at Chess), so I'd like to ask you read my statements a little more carefully this time.
I see arguments like this all of the time in ML. There is a large branch of statistical theory that can cast some doubt on this.
Stein's paradox: when three or more parameters are estimated simultaneously, there exist combined estimators more accurate on average (that is, having lower expected mean squared error) than any method that handles the parameters separately.
This goes deeply against "common sense", but is mathematically proven, empirically proven, etc.
If you are just taking a chess model vs. an LLM, you are right.
But if you want a chess model, a medical diagnosis model, and customer service chat model, at a high level the intuition of Stein's paradox is that one combined model will get you better performance than three task-specific models.
Most practitioners don't get this because what amounts to graduate-level stats theory is often brushed aside, and we keep relearning it the hard way.
Bitter lesson #1: don't waste time optimizing code when a faster processor is around the corner.
What countered it: Moore's law stopped working.
Bitter lesson #2 similarly relies on scaling laws that might have diminishing returns wrt model runtime vs intelligence. Runtime matters for turnaround on the problem you're solving.
However, what most people think of as Moore's Law--CPU speed doubles every 18 months--broke somewhere between 90nm and 22nm.
And even the actual Moore's Law--2x the transistors every 18 months--doesn't hold for all types of chips anymore. Memory only gained 2x density over 10 years.
The actual argument of the Bitter Lesson essay is pretty limited but people's interpretation of it has gradually drifted until it's seen as prediction that current LLM will reach AGI at a large enough scale.
VibeThinker 3B constitutes extraordinary evidence, IMO. The first such evidence I've seen myself. Very small model, very low literacy, almost no world knowledge, but it is as good at math and logical reasoning as models a hundred times larger.
The Bitter Lesson is a valid and trenchant observation about how about we got here, but I think it's a mistake to assume it tells us very much about where we're going. Too much has changed recently and is still doing so.
Any similar model aimed at coding?
A >10B model for mass spawning/swarming and reporting back to a larger model
I wouldn't use it for anything important without heavy supervision, as it's very weak outside its specialty. Not ideal for instruction-following tasks.
Is this whole thing than maybe a read vs write optimisation again? Spent more time and effort training more knowledge into the model upfront and get it out in a single question instead of training a small model and needing more steps to answer the same question?
Commenter below gets it absolutely correct: stockfish, which runs on your 5 year old phone, is dramatically better at chess than Fable. Like, so much better that it’s not even remotely comparable. The theory of the Bitter Lesson, and it’s only a theory, is that LLMs could eventually outperform stockfish. It’s not true today and it remains to be seen whether it will ever be true. For now, specialized models are absolutely better at specialized tasks.
I can't find the comment you're referring to, but the latest versions of stockfish are based on neural networks trained on millions of games, so if anything the Bitter Lesson turned out true here.
The common mistake is to think “maybe if we use a blend of raw data and hand-crafted heuristics, we’ll get the best of both worlds!” But the bitter lesson says no, beyond a certain point it’s better just to use the data.
Thinking that an LLM might be able to improve on purely “big data” machine learning seems to me to be the same incorrect idea. Its “intelligence” is no more useful than human intelligence. The LLM is based on a massive data corpus, sure, but the amount of data specifically about chess in there pales in comparison to just playing billions of games of chess.
> maybe if we use a blend of raw data and hand-crafted heuristics
I don't follow. They're suggesting giving raw chess data to the LLM, no heuristics involved.
The conclusion of the bitter lesson would be that a large language model trained on chess commentary as well as being trained on millions of chess games would outperform stockfish which is only trained on millions of chess games.
If you can draw any lessons from chess commentary, I think it’s very reasonable to call it “hand-crafted heuristics.”
And raw games plus raw commentary is all the data you have. You can make more games but those can be fed to both stockfish and the LLM competitor. So it seems like a valid interpretation of the bitter lesson to me.
The key point I was trying to get at is that the human insights don't contain anything that can't be mined from vast amounts of gameplay. Every human insight can eventually be rediscovered and made rigorous by data (in chess, at least!) In the short term, those insights are useful, but in the longer term, they add nothing at all.
Note also that "raw gameplay" here can mean new games -- you can generate as much data as you need, you don't need to rely on real recorded games.
But isn't that the bulk of what we're shoving into LLMs, and it makes them much smarter? If it's useful there but not in a chess AI then that seems like a significant crack in the bitter lesson.
> Note also that "raw gameplay" here can mean new games -- you can generate as much data as you need, you don't need to rely on real recorded games.
Yeah I mentioned that, generated games are useful. But if we're being fair and letting both AIs use generated game data, does the more general LLM ever actually overtake the specialized stockfish like the bitter lesson suggests?
Another way to look at this is that giving the LLM the commentary is a way to avoid complaints of hiding data from the LLM, since it'll have strictly more info than stockfish. But if we cut that from the training data and only give it a basic description of chess and lots of raw game data then it's going to get even worse than it already is at chess. Meanwhile stockfish never had that commentary, just actual hand-crafted heuristics and training on game data, and it's very strong.
Just kidding of course
Not really, if anything it's closer to the opposite. The Bitter Lesson essay literally has this as an example:
> These researchers wanted methods based on human input to win and were disappointed when they did not.[1]
and
> Enormous initial efforts went into avoiding search by taking advantage of human knowledge, or of the special features of the game, but all those efforts proved irrelevant, or worse, once search was applied effectively at scale[1]
The actual bitter lesson is this:
> breakthrough progress eventually arrives by an opposing approach based on scaling computation by search and learning. The eventual success is tinged with bitterness, and often incompletely digested, because it is success over a favored, human-centric approach.[1]
Applying to the "LLMs-for-chess" example the bitter lesson approach would be to put many, many more games into the LLM.
Does this work? People have trained fairly small LLMs that are competitive Stockfish at the ELO 1500-2000 level, eg: https://github.com/kinggongzilla/chess-bot-3000
This seems to be evidence that large LLMs probably don't have as much chess training data as Stockfish does.
[1] http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html
This was/is basically a strawman though. Like maybe "human input winning" was desirable for chess masters but for computer science wonks? Not the point or the disappoint. It's always neats and scruffies fighting about using some kind of recognizable method (logic) instead of magic (ML).
> breakthrough progress eventually arrives by an opposing approach based on scaling computation by search and learning.
More to OP's point I think: nowadays when someone wants to beat you over the head with the bitter lesson, they aren't as careful to include learning and search. They want to say learning leads to intuition (magic) whereby we can avoid work (logic/search), and maybe argue or assume from there that neats and scruffies is settled. TBF, something like reasoning in latent space does resemble intuition!
But the real lesson is confirmed every time we bother to check, and not very bitter for anyone. Search/learning/logic are ALL always necessary on any sufficiently difficult problems, and hybrids that interleave always outperform everything else. Stockfish being the example in this thread that different camps of absolutists would like to claim, but also all the MCTS examples, evolving examples, and new hybrids all the time. My favorite lately: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.08983
Oh no!
The whole field was full of people whose entire career was built around the idea of developing smart priors.
To quote Wikipedia:
> For computer vision in particular, much progress came from manual feature engineering, such as SIFT features, SURF features, HoG features, bags of visual words, etc. It was a minority position in computer vision that features can be learned directly from data
This undersells the change though! David Lowe's reputation as the best image researcher in the world was based on his SIFT patent[1]
This approach worked until 30 September 2012.
That was a bitter day for many, many computer science researchers.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale-invariant_feature_transf...
But as it relates to more/less magic, maybe the more modern lens on this is e.g. https://arxiv.org/html/2505.11581v1 . Is manual feature-engineering more like what you'd evolve, or more like what you'd get from SGD ? Feasibility and performance is always a question, there are others like what is robust, stable, adaptable, predictable, explainable. Maybe the manual-features people were interested in something besides the manual part? Maybe the story isn't so simple, and maybe it's not finished yet.
The bitter lesson is that simply scaling training on more games—including self-play—trumps any hand-crafted human input, whether that's fine-tuning on human commentary or clever engineering tricks.
Current models are just high-dimensional interpolation engines. The denser the data sampling, the more accurate the interpolation gets. Given a choice between denser sampling and anything else, denser sampling always wins. That is the bitter lesson.
Computer chess is the canonical example of this.
In the case of stockfish, the harness is a tree search around the neural network evaluations.
It would be better to compare models at how well they can write the code for chess engines, otherwise it's just saying that Fable is not a good CPU emulator, which is obvious.
Stockfish is the best chess search engine we've got, and you can learn some good heuristics for chess search policy that will make time-limited chess search a lot more powerful. That's perfectly in line with the Bitter Lesson.
In contrast, LLMs playing chess are relying solely on learned behavior. The inference harnesses surrounding them aren't designed to do chess things, they're designed to do autoregressive token decoding, which isn't a search process. Reasoning traces can resemble a search process, but they're far less efficient - the LLM would have to work out each legal move, test each one, calculate a score, and simulate minimax over all of that. Assuming the LLM is smart enough to even do all that.
A hand-crafted approach can absolutely beat data if your approach unlocks more search and/or learning than the general solution.
Now let's look at the bitter lesson again. It says that general methods that leverage computation are ultimately the most effective, and by a large margin.
That's different from just saying to leverage computation (which is how I would interpret "unlocks more search/learning"). If the lesson is "more computation wins, when sufficiently channeled" you're basically looking at a truism. Of course more computation beats less when it's used right. The bitter lesson is about abandoning specialization in order to get more computation, and while there's a couple ways where that helps with chess, there's a lot more ways where it's counterproductive. It looks like it's more true for Go than it is for chess, and that it's not universally true. It probably correlates with the state space.
The Bitter Lesson is about general-purpose algorithms vs. specialized algorithms. Historically, chess engines were programmed to look at a chess position and use positional understanding (imparted by the human programmers) to decide what the best move is. But eventually, the chess engines that actually became stronger than humans were instead programmed to just check every possible move and countermove and see which ones lead to a win. (I'm oversimplifying, but you get the point.) So even before Stockfish contained a neural network, it was considered an example of the success of the Bitter Lesson.
As it applies to AI agents, the Bitter Lesson would predict that the best possible agent would simply possess A) a way to do anything it wants, B) a way to evaluate whether what it did was correct, and C) a ton of compute. Then just turn it loose on your task. (The fact that the "brain" of the agent is an LLM is kind of irrelevant - you could also imagine the brain just being a program that generates random syntactically-correct code. What the LLM achieves is that, the random generator would take millions of years whereas the LLM is much more efficient at creating plausibly-working code. This is analogous to a chess engine's pruning heuristics.)
The hard part here is B. We've seen some great agentic successes when rewriting an existing project in a new language, since the agent can just use the project's prior test suite as its evaluator. But when developing a new project, you're still figuring out the finer details of how everything is supposed to work. As the old saying goes - writing a spec that perfectly describes how a program should work, is equivalent effort to just writing the program.
Dumb AIs are needed for customer service. Most of that industry is still at "press 1 for sales, 2 for billing..." and needs something that will run locally on a 1U server.
Needs? Customers want something that immediately answers their question/solves their problem, but that’s far away, even ignoring the “run locally on a 1U server” and that that may not be in the company’s interest.
For many companies, that support line is a cost center, not a PR mechanism.
Also “Press 1 for sales, 2 for billing...” has the big advantage that it handles all accents, speech impediments, etc.
Long term I think a solution where a user’s agent trained on their voice, running on their phone communicates with the support agent of a company is where we will end up, and support phone lines will cease to exist.
And perhaps at the end it all gets a single pass by a god-tier model for overall sanity and congruence, but the actual work, planning, coordination, and even user interaction was done by cheaper and faster agents of much more limited capability.
It really is absurd to ask programming questions to a model also trained about the lifecycle of a fruit fly.
Instead of building small models from scratch, we train an enormous model and use ridiculous amounts of GPU memory. In the end, the whole thing is shoved into RAM because we don’t know where the useful parts are…
We certainly would know where they were if they were just in smaller models in the first place!
The correct analogy here is Fable as a second tier player assisting a SuperGM in running stockfish, then assessing its output to identify promising variations.
There might be a limit somewhere that prevents the bitter lesson being axiomatic - for instance where simulations for anything can be exhaustive - so that judgement isn't needed any more as an arbiter. But while there are problems sufficiently complex or large to require a breadth models don't currently have, greater scale and compute will continue to convert to better decision making, and the bitter lesson will remain true (true enough).
GP isn’t suggesting that focused narrow model(s) will be more capable than large model, but that many small focused models can have sufficient capability while being more optimal.
Also, the bitter lesson is just wrong. The bitter lesson is about hand tuned AI vs computational general methods. However in truth today’s AI uses both. We have general compute heavy models which require narrow expert instructions (eg tools internet docs).
LLMs would not be as good without expertly written context, and expert context without LLMs aren’t as good either.
The models are not even really trained bitter lesson-style anymore. That concept peaked during the era of pre-train scaling, back when it was thought that making a bigger and bigger GPT-3 would automatically solve all problems through prompting. In 2026, the most important part of training is post-training, which uses vast quantities of niche, hand-curated data to fit the models for specific tasks in domains like tax law.
If you look at value as purely the LLM output, then there's a valid argument that the best frontier models will always be better than fine tuned specialists. (I'm not convinced personally, but it's a defensible claim)
But that misses two dimensions: 1. The cost of acquiring that output 2. What is actually "good enough" for that specialist domain
Not every output needs to be the best to produce value.
And as specialist models increase in cost, their cost/value proposition goes down.
At some point, there's a threshold where cheaper, fine tuned models are "good enough" at the task and also substantially cheaper than the expert models.
That's where fine tuning helps.
Personally, I became a believer in fine tuning after fine tuning a 1B Qwen model as a second pass over my local voice transcription app, achieving excellent accuracy at ~zero token cost and waaaay lower latency than if I'd invoked my Claude subscription under the hood.
Absolutely false. At least when it comes to multimodal inputs, even a simple classifier will outperform the largest LLMs who still hallucinate details or don’t describe audio and images accurately.
And there’s also the issue of cost/inference speed. Running a trillion parameter model for all tasks will be incredibly costly, require a cloud API, while a tiny CNN can be run locally or at a cost multiple orders of magnitude lower.
When you're doing something "at scale", you want smaller models, weaker heuristics and rules written in code, as they're much cheaper, much faster, much more predictable and much easier to reason about.
If your task is "tell me which pages on the internet are most relevant to this search query", running Claude Fable to evaluate every single page would be ridiculous. You may run something like it at the end, to synthesize information from a small result set for example, as that's a "human-sized" task.
If your task is "write a function to sort a list of 1mn entries alphabetically", a small coding model will exactly match the performance of a frontier model (it'll 1-shot it, with 100% accuracy). So the only differentiator is cost, and the frontier model will cost orders of magnitude more than the specialised model.
For most intelligence based tasks, you don't (and never have) needed the tool which "performs best at all tasks". You need the cheapest one which performs adequately for your immediate task.
This doesn't mean the bitter lesson is incorrect. At the frontier, it's still correct. It means that it's not applicable at all to lots of tasks.
document.body.style.cssText='margin:auto;width:600px;'
You don't necessarily need a bigger model to do this.
In engineering you learn from these mistakes and try never making them again. Do we want to go through this evolution every time we solve a software issue? Just because we can with an unlimited number of cheap tokens? I think not, I’d rather use the knowledge build up that also knows about the edge cases forgotten to test. Or better, use multiple models that evaluate each other, as Entropic describes it in their recent report https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49316271
> We expect that agents coordinating in the wild will act in higher variance ways than we see here, because they’ll have different backgrounds and therefore different contexts. They also, presumably, won’t all be Claudes.
For analysis, bug hunting, overview and some porting work to popular languages and so on I think the current SotA is fantastic, but they're still very disappointing for code generation past function or small module level.
Recently my employer hooked Claude into a bunch of SaaS services like a ticketing system and an asset inventory system, and I feel a big productivity boost is that I don't have to dig for their open browser tabs, remember their product name/URL/where I put the bookmark, find that my sessions have logged me out "for my protection" since I last looked, find my MFA code, approve sign-in on my phone, then use their mismashed/sluggish/poor-UX interfaces and slow searches to loko for things, and can instead ask Claude "search these systems for anything about <issue>" and it just does. It correlates between systems, summarizes things, and gives me references which system and where to look to check what it found. Internal search on a mess of acquired and disjoint systems.
This feeling reminds me of two classic Joel Spolsky blog posts below, and your comment here about the surprisingly useful tab-complete gives me a similar feeling. I wonder how many smaller candidates there are where LLMs are more helpful and less hyped, against the big vibe-coding solve-everything hype which are currently less helpful than their hype?
References [1]: "A lot of us thought in the 1990s that the big battle would be between procedural and object oriented programming, and we thought that object oriented programming would provide a big boost in programmer productivity. I thought that, too. Some people still think that. It turns out we were wrong. Object oriented programming is handy dandy, but it’s not really the productivity booster that was promised. The real significant productivity advance we’ve had in programming has been from languages which manage memory for you automatically. [...] Whenever you hear someone bragging about how productive their language is, they’re probably getting most of that productivity from the automated memory management, even if they misattribute it. Sidebar: Why does automatic memory management make you so much more productive? 1) Because you can write f(g(x)) without worrying about how to free the return value from g, which means you can use functions which return interesting complex data types and functions which transform interesting complex data types, in turn allowing you to work at a higher level of abstraction"
and [2]: "I have seen many language and programming fads come and go. But there’s only ONE, that’s right, ONE language feature I’ve ever seen that actually improves your productivity significantly. No, it’s not object oriented programming; no, it’s not intentional programming or assertions or programming by example or CASE or UML or XML or Java. The only thing that improves your programming productivity is using managed code – that is, using a language in which memory management is automatic."
[1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/06/13/how-microsoft-lost...
[2] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/10/17/working-on-citydes...
I agree that the mismatch between the expectations of OOP as a paradigm and this situation right now feel very similar. I suppose the many billions pumped into selling vibecoding and large-scale code generation via LLMs of other kinds is sort of like the massive amount of money pumped into marketing Java as a viable alternative long before it actually was.
One thing notable is that it makes a difference when I specifically refer to line numbers and variable names when I'm asking it to make changes. Meaning, I also read what it writes and understand what it's doing, and have specific queries where I already know what I'd like to change I add.
With the additional caveat that I don't know whether that specific card is supported by modern drivers.
You'd be looking at one in the 6B or 7B parameters range at FP8. Or smaller. It's been quite some time since a recognizable company in the AI space released a model that small. You can try larger model that has been quantized down to that size, but they don't always fare well with that.
Modern text-to-speech and speech-to-text models also fit well into modest amounts of VRAM.
An old nVidia brand card with 8GB is more than enough to see those models running at usable speeds and accuracy.
I use an 6bit quant and get around 20 tokens per second.
Can even run on a notebook CPU and comes in Base (best for FIM), Instruct and Thinking variants. mradermacher has imatrix quants for people who can't run it at Q8.
IQ4 should fit, but even if it doesn't, llama.cpp has options to partially offload models to system memory.
The cost isn't just what you're billed. There are security, privacy etc. concerns.
If Orang mane bans Claude, they've got their local models.
The latter has already happened too so I'd say their risk modeling is spot on.
A sales person sending a prospect email doesnt have a way to write a test harness for it. Yet these tasks dominate what humans do compared to writing a crud app . otherwise anthropic wouldnt have trillions dollar valuation
However, back then I was getting the AI to write individual functions or classes or a test suite. I was decomposing the larger task into smaller tasks, delegating some of them to the AI, reviewing the results and composing the codebase from those. I was also essentially the harness.
Today the models can write and test and deploy an entire project. In terms of the code quality, I actually don't think today's frontier models would have written it much better than the 2023 models did. So in terms of raw coding capabilities i.e. converting a high-level specification into working code, I think we hit the peak way back in 2024 itself.
What has changed is the AI has learned how to do the task I was doing (besides being the "harness"!), which was the mid-to-higher level "engineering" aspects like decomposing a task, specifying it to a reasonable level, reviewing the outputs, and course correcting as needed.
I'm not sure if that is something the AI labs explicitly focused on during training (which may be why Meta is having its highly paid engineers do annotation work), or an emergent property of "better reasoning" (which I believe Dario implied in a podcast), or some mix of both.
But the fact remains that even the weaker models are more capable than we realize, and many being open weights, are here to stay.
I find that when I give an LLM my full handcrafted codebase, it does very well. It follows my conventions, sees the intent and can coherently build within its scope. It writes much better code than a 'vibe' prompt.
It is always tempting and I myself will continue pushing the boundaries, but when you keep an LLM in reasonable scope (that may be one line, function, file at a time, depending on your idea of reasonable), you, by definition, can get sound utility out of them.
These things would be considered magic even 4 years ago!
DeepSeek v4 flash has been dirt cheap and so fast that my development loop is;
- small prompt
- review
- small prompt
- review
I build software with the same quality I normally would but it's way faster to produce and I think more about architecture and flows than I do about implementation details. The small diffs let me accept / modify / veto diffs and if the model struggles, I just write it by hand. It prevents compounding defects from leading the model astray (like you see in vibe coding).
In some cases vibe coding is useful, like when the complete specification is available (e.g. creating a JavaScript engine that implements the standard) - but anything that requires iterative development sees vibe coding break down pretty quickly (you could argue that is the case for a JavaScript engine).
I feel energised by AI assisted coding rather than drained, as it's a force multiplier for my skills and it lets me build more than I could by myself.
That said, most of my team vibe codes and reviewing their work is like pulling teeth.
I think the muscle memory of doing those tiny problems is good for our minds, but solving larger-scale issues is also challenging.
I'm on vacation right now and getting claude to build a mostly-throwaway e2e testing harness (admittedly not small-prompt-review-repeat) for a backend API to speed up our existing e2e test suites which do click-ops to set up tests 8-10 years ago, we had a team who spent 3-4 months every year maintaining our E2E suite and people would do rotations on there to spread the knowledge.
I basically want an industry standard practice implemented on my team of 4 devs who are too busy doing other things.
What would consumer AI company even be? The frontier labs have declared they will eat everything and they have a head start.
Best bet would to be a contrarian and build products and services that people actually want or need. Fine to be AI powered or augmented, but consumer companies do the hard part of understanding specific consumer needs and wants and pursuing that.
AI is a utility that can abstract code to such a high level it is indiscernible from natural language.
I think there is more opportunity for consumer application of AI. Im surprised we dont see more models in game. Small models that do more purpose driven things not "this npc is just a chatbot with a personality in its system prompt." I mean we literally have systems in games called "AI" and we dont think these much more powerful AIs have a place?
Something that helps homeowners build anything on their property, for example https://myhomecat.com
Especially if I need to ‘consult an expert’ isn’t this just a customer company using AI?
You can say what you want, and the tool has appropriate guardrails to make sure what you're going to build is safe.
> But what if you want to add AI to your product? Well, now you have some real inference costs on every request!
Eventually, these companies just lower their costs by using more efficient models. There were consumer companies built on GPT-3.
I don't think anyone is doubting this, but were they any good? Remembering back my first interactions with GPT-3, it was fun, but hardly reliable nor "ready for production", besides making cool demos.
.. whether you want it or not!
We're at the point where it's becoming a product sticker like "fair trade" or "does not contain nuts" to say a product wasn't made with AI.
> 1. the "IQ 180" work. some mad scientist genius type comes up with some crazy solution you've never thought of.
> 2. the "token spewer" work. being ultra responsive, pushing the ball forward across dozens of different fronts.
Interesting comp to pg's Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule https://www.paulgraham.com/makersschedule.html
I'm curious about not only which of these roles models will fill, but also how they will empower us to be in the mode we prefer.
Now in many cases the "Guy" is an LLM. I know enough to know when the LLM is bullshitting me and when I need to consult an actual human.
> Thanks to Sam Altman, … for reading drafts of this.
Oh how times have changed!
Now I think Luna is plenty good for many applications inside a very good harness/scaffold. And I think there are a lot of those usecases. So I think these small models are really good for application developers.
But for entrepreneurial knowledge work all of my work still benefits a lot from more intelligence.
The word “most” is doing a lot of work here. On a percentage basis perhaps most tasks a typical SWE needs to do when they aren’t in meetings or writing docs are just glorified autocomplete. But that’s boring and that’s why people don’t usually talk about it.
People are addicted to chasing frontier models because they all have memories of spending a week on a deeply challenging algorithm problem or even have crazy complicated algorithms they cannot implement themselves and want to have the models achieve this technical breakthrough. It’s the kind of productivity boost from spending one week on a problem to spending one hour. In contrast the productivity boost from spending ten minutes to spending one minute just doesn’t occupy people’s mind.
I'm not sure I know very many engineers who would fall in this bucket. Or do you mean the business types who suddenly think AI can replace all the engineers?
In fact I noticed that this is the one place where people discussing AI on HN tend to talk past each other. On the one hand people are talking about supreme intelligence like designing new algorithms (on the same vein as finding counter examples for the Jacobian conjecture) and on the other hand people are just satisfied using AI to automate a few quotidian tasks that hitherto couldn’t be automated.
It's safe to say I didn't come to this conclusion because I was "addicted to chasing frontier models"
I think hoping for a locally hosted "smart" home is backwards. They have no other function than to invade your space. "Smart" objects are agents, and they don't work for you.
If this is a cost conscious company where I'm going to get a fairly limited amount of Sol, or a nearly unlimited amount of Luna, I'm probably choosing Luna.
Confidently wrong here. It's absolutely not across the board "more capable" than GPT 5 or Opus 4.1 or even Gemini 2.5 Pro. It's potentially better at certain specific tasks, mostly agentic coding implementation work. I.e. tool calling and usage of bash. It's worse at a large range of other tasks.
Sol already lacks judgement. It will absolutely add idiotic tests and comments. Luna is that but worse so if you account for things like going down wrong paths, producing bad results, overthinking then it could easily cost you more to get less.
Now, if the debate is really about which option is more cost effective, then we could easily run an A/B test to find out. Though TBH my instinct is that that experiment is likely to cost more than the potential cost savings.
What I will say is that my own sense from experimenting around in a non-rigorous way is that the answer depends on how you use the tool. For actual vibecoding you should always go for the SOTA model because it will need less oversight. It’s also less likely to get stuck in a vicious loop that fruitlessly wastes tokens. But for a more hands-on approach where you move in small, carefully planned increments that you review and test in human-comprehensible chunks, smaller models may be preferable. SOTA ones don’t do that much better when working that way, and the slower inference adds a detrimental amount of friction to the work cycle.
I'd object to "easily". It's already hard to measure whether AI is generally worth the cost. Let alone compare models in such detailled ways. It's mostly handwaving and gut feeling Doesn't mean the conclusions are wrong, but biases are strong.
Sol medium has been a nice balance between intelligence and response time. Luna xhigh can achieve similar scores on the evals, but it takes noticeably longer. My impression is that the higher reasoning effort helps compensate for the lower base intelligence.
Cost is definitely a big factor, but latency and intelligence matter too. If I had the budget, I’d take Sol medium over Luna xhigh.
From using both on real scenarios, Sol is noticeably better at navigating around issues, exploring alternatives, and being creative when the obvious approach doesn’t work. That matters quite a bit when you’re investigating live alerts, where the path to the root cause isn’t always straightforward.
Yes. Categorically. Anyone who tells you otherwise and that luna is “just as good” does not know what they are talking about.
Going from sol to luna is a downgrade.
It is not a question, it is a fact.
> Is sol actually worth the extra cost?
Is a question only you can answer, because it has no generic answer.
Right now, for me, being able to use sol is worth the cost, but using it all the time is not.
I’m sure going from using it to using luna feels rubbish; but there are realities about costs you have to face sooner or later.
Maybe like… give your team credits and make them pick the right tool for the job; and if they burn their credits on sol in 20 minutes, well, tough luck buddy, looks like you're coding by hand for the rest of the month.
Team will quickly shift. People hate losing access to ai.
Sure a Lexus is better than a used Prius, until you include price
You cant just go “oh hey, I guess they're both cars so I’m taking your lexus away, catch a cab its cheaper” and expect people to just hug you be be like “yay, thanks! I still have a job I guess! :party:”
:P
Obvious to the meanest intellect they can tell the difference between the cars.
Don't complain to me if someone responds using a stupid metaphor that proves the opposite of the point they were trying to make.
Sometimes I will use Fable or Sol for large features/projects, or research/exploration.
I would not be at all happy if I were forced to use Luna, though. I’d probably start looking to leave. I don’t want to work somewhere where I don’t have choice over my tools.
As long as there is no cost involved there is little reason to restrict such tooling, but expecting your employer pays non-trivial sums is likely to raise questions about whether that extra cost is worth it. In this case, is the delta from luna to sol worth the extra order of magnitude in cost. If it's $2 a day vs $20 a day then there should be little discussion, but at $50 a day vs $500 a day, the question seems relevant.
It is not reasonable for a company to pay a fully loaded engineer >$40k/mo and then ask them "why did you need $500?" on some odd days where they are doing difficult work, large refactors, experiments, etc.
I think AI is an underused capability in applications. People come up with all these big plans to build agents. But even a simple button to "calculate a color palette that takes into account these symbolic names the user entered" is a simple prompt that comes back quickly and doesn't require a lot of reasoning. We use that with Luna and we give it some more context.
Image based stuff is more expensive but still quite reasonable. We do some things with Sol that work on images. It's not fast but the result is worth waiting for. These are features that save the user time and feel a bit magical. They just click a button, wait 20-30 seconds and then magic happens. Beats them clicking around for half an hour.
Local model hosting would force me into higher cost and overhead for less intelligence. That's only a good tradeoff if you are really going to use lots of tokens or you need this for other reasons (e.g. data security). But otherwise you just end up paying for underutilized GPU capacity.
Gosh, watching paint dry has been a better value than reading The Economist in the last 5 years or so.
That aside, I had good results with Luna. I'd be interested in hearing about a comparison that takes into consideration response time (not TPS), cost and performance of the popular models at different settings. That chart has some of that. For instance, is Luna Max a better value than Terra Medium?
- Linux, general use case, balance - 16 GB RAM - 10 GB VRAM
Recommendation: Kimi-K3
This checks out.
64 or 128GB RAM, 6 or 64GB of VRAM....
Not sus at all.
Kimi-K3
I think the slop site is broken or compromised...
fitmyllm is much better
By the way own exploration sort of led me to qwen3.5:9b for the best case scenario balanced model considering almost 10-11GB of RAM is almost always gone anyway. Even with aggressive app quitting.
I question this choice. Coding models have improved significantly in the past 2 years.
For my anemic 6GB built-on 14GB Qwen seems to be the best bet, not great reviews but from my limited testing its pretty impressive.
I would try using ~1/2 your available ram and iterate from there.
If you have 32GB of RAM, I would give Qwen 3.8 a try. All you would have to do is run "ollama pull qwen3.8:27b" then "ollama run qwen3.8:27b". If you have 16GB of RAM, I would try Gemma 4.
[1] ollama.com
I know of SmolLM 2 which in Q4 is borderline regarding the size and rather dated. There is also TinyStories, which is also old and also focussed on children's stories.
Is there anything newer in this category? Or should I try to distill something down to this size?
I think with one more year or so of small model progress, that might just be possible to accomplish.
Bootstrapped it with fable, opus or sol 5.6 when I had extra usage to burn over the last month. Playtesting it solo as both DM and PC was fun too. Character consistency and originality is remarkably compelling.
Upshot is that for the gaming hours that my friends have available, the social interpersonal gaming experience competes well for their AAA gaming time. There’s even some good async passive campaign continuation patterns that run in our signal thread to keep things going between sync sessions.
And players have requested features directly in the session transcript that have been direct implemented.
Are you going to publish yours somewhere? I'd love to play Cyberpunk 2020 with AI
However, you'll have to gauge for yourself how closely their tasks resemble your tasks.
Given sheer number of turns I can make with small models, I can do a lotta stufff
- cheaper, and faster
Harness makes differences: There have been many HN posts about how one made tiny models work better at certain tasks using harnesses.
These "small" models with right context, and guidance, they work wonders.
---
I've been saying Luna has been my go-to AI in previous comments and why Luna is still more compelling than GLM-5.3-flash.
Not trying to plug, but I do't know any other way. I wrote a piece couple of days ago on small models and memory usage on the edge devices- https://polign.com/blog-edge-agent-memory and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49450816 closing on the same problem.
Like Calvin stated, we built a simple dispatch service that worked with any harness (claude, codex, etc) that could delegate to the cheaper model family trivially.
After reading this post, I cleanup the project and decided to open source it.
Post: https://modiqo.github.io/spewer/
Code is here:https://github.com/modiqo/spewer
What most products need from a model is a pretty short list: the ability to make tool calls well, accurate recall, and the ability to follow directions without wavering (whether or not those directions are baked into the weights or provided in a system prompt). That covers 95% of inference utility in products.
We're nearly there, and I believe these capabilities will fit on small models.
Because of this though, I predict hardware demand will stay high despite demand for "hosted" inference dropping. Unless there's some regulatory shenanigans that step in to say otherwise.
This is a good insight broadly!
And it was correct. The results weren’t as good as they should have been for Sol. How am I going to trust Luna?
How much of this can be replaced with small models, and what changes to my workflow do i need to make?
oh-my-pi's Advisor feature can fill a lot of this gap (a smaller model told to reflect on its own output catches when it's doing a rush job and skips instructions).
Once the economics change and we see less bit model deployments there will be much more work optimizing models at the pareto front.
Also yes people need to be able to sustainably run these things to start running a business. Building a business on the model pricing today is as smart as building a retirement plan on a gambling schedule
That's great, but the thing that worries me is that many companies have billions invested in the AI bubble. It's around 1.5 trillion last time I looked. It's all circular spending between the companies building out the infrastructure, and the models. None of it is profitable. They will want to recoup that 1.5 trillion from consumers, which means using online-only pay-as-you-go cloud models. They will inevitably see that people using capable local AI are "lost customers" and they will try to kill the ability to locally host AI or somehow enshitify it enough to make paying a subscription more palatable.
I'm not saying I believe that will happen, I'm just worried that it will. Is anyone else worried about that as well?
At some point there will be a surplus of fast memory and even in a crash the current generation of SLMs are bounced to be plenty to build a lot of intelligence at home.
Goes to show that open source = cheap, closed source = expensive is wrong-headed. Closed source is going to beat open source on price point due to scale (try buying a few GPUs to run your own model on...) and labs innovating across the full inference stack.
That leaves the value prop of open source as privacy / customizability.
You can do this before an exit? Build and fundraise for multiple (3?) companies at the same time?
It sucks that we got to this point when it comes to our civilization. At least guys like this one here can be happy with their AI-sourced money.
replit is already leading the way with free luna usage
I will believe that smaller models have hit that bar empirically when I see them in production. At the moment, even frontier models are stuck in most of the scenarios I am seeing for high value tasks at the "not good enough" gate - so small models are not even close to being on the scene there yet.
I'm keenly interested in seeing super small (like 10's or 100's of mb) special purpose models starting to come into their own.
that might actually be transformational globally not just in rich countries.
the application Layer i.e having a good graph RAG & connecting it up together is the missing piece for most.
I don't have to be an automotive engineer to start my car and put it in drive.
e.g for a lot of small business - they generate invoices - feed that into a RAG system. Then have an agent etc do follow ups. for agents then the smaller models are enough.
[0]: https://help.getzep.com/graphiti/getting-started/overview
At first the results were hot garbage, and progress was slow. I hooked up the settings to download models from Hugging Face conveniently, so I could run experiments faster, and I massaged the prompts a bit. Last week this feature made a qualitative jump from science experiment to something I'd actually use.
The fact that all runs on the device means I've got no variable costs associated with adding this to what will be, at best, a pretty low revenue product. I've tested it on trailing edge devices like an M1 Mac and a Pixel 8, and performance is very tolerable.
The key is I'm not asking for open ended answers to open ended problems. When it proves to be useful it's not going to get less useful or more expensive.
There are vast domains of uses for LLM models with similar characteristics and likely similar results.
I just want the smartest, best, and most capable models. It feels smaller models for speed and cost are just transitions towards better hardware allowing the very best model.
Second, when cloud models become unavailable or otherwise deteriorate, these will be all you have. May as well prepare.
It's a bit like saying you always want the fastest and best car; Sure, you can have it if you keep paying for it. But a small car will also get you from A to B, will use less gas and will be much cheaper.
There are still tasks that even Fable is bad at doing. And many are just mundane things. Because of the fact that you have to steer it on those tasks, you might as well steer an 80% model that is 5x faster. And those do exist.
Naturally there’s a bit of a gap because the faster models need steering on tasks the slower models don’t so there’s no smooth transition but I find it worth it. Especially if you want to stay in flow.
Ironically this sometimes means starting a plan with a great model, planning with a worse model, iterating, then submitting it to a better model for review, and then having the better model do the implementation.
;D
One time, it said "You were right; I corrected the regressions and committed them."
It was still not fixed.
I do admit not hitting the five hour limit in two prompts is nice. However, I wonder if becoming an angry person because of cheap models is worth it.
now do the same for robotics, because itnernet trained vlm + action head was really a dumb take