I don't understand. If you have a model that can do bash examples already (your subagents), then why would you need to train a model?
Or are the subagents generating your training data using a closed/paid model?
Or are the subagents generating your training data using a closed/paid model?
For everyday work that happens frequently it's better to have a tiny specialized model instead of making billable API calls or turning your laptop into an 80W space heater for 20 seconds to run a general purpose model.
The large models can be used to generate synthetic training data. Tell them to make up 100,000 tasks paired with the resulting output as a 1-time cost. Then use that to train a small model.
Think of it as distillation, but focused on a specific task.
I think OP's point remains, if you generate 140k pairs, your local model would need to run that many to offset having just used the generator (SOTA or not) model to begin with.
I wonder if another approach if latency is a concern is just to do a two shot pass with Jev (perhaps given small context you'd want one to match command, then one to match args of given command) would be an extremely fast, and cheap way to do it - rather than training your own.
Not quite. One, because you save on the initial query being sent multiple times. Two, because the reasoning will be very similar at the beginning; "user asked me to", "let's check what's in this project already", etc. you'll get similar actual output cost, but input and reasoning will be shorter.
This particular example is maybe a niche, but 1400 people can use a few hundred queries in a reasonable amount of time.
Which 5$ is a pretty easy sell if its useful in any way, It's pretty easy to justify a purchase if its yours forever and doesn't use much CPU so is easy to run I mean people were spending 1000$+ on mac mini setups to run local llms or run remote agents.
They also used Astra for the coding, which they can't get on a $10 subscription. And then there's the actual training cost.