nisegami

>There's no amount of "nicer to use" that can replace security, at least certainly when selling to enterprises

We can lower our standards instead

>Do you use qwen for any coding?

No.

>Do you make a frontier model orchestrate it?

Also no.

>Are you running with llama.cpp?

Yes, on Arch Linux.

>Sorry for the barrage of questions

No worries.

My Qwen testing has been with Hermes trying to do mundane (to me) things that hosted models understandably refuse to do, even open-weight ones like Deepseek V4.1 Flash. Example: I tried to get it to find a torrent for $tvshow and add it to qbittorrent (connected to hermes via MCP already). It certainly tried and I think frontier models would have done better. My biggest issue was context space more than anything else. I had to drop down a quant level to increase it to 128k. On 64k it was constantly compacting.

There's this weird tension where small models are getting a lot better, but the gap between the frontier and "what I can run on my gaming GPU" at home isn't necessarily getting smaller. That said, Qwen-3.8-27B-Q3 runs on my 9700 XT and performs well enough for tool calling in agents, which is a critical floor in local model performance imo.

Yes, I like the phrase "you can't expect someone to put the time and effort in to read/etc what you didn't put the time or effort in to write/etc".

Alas, it will not. It will instead dramatically increase suffering in the world while leaving most humans alive.

I think the history of the FBI suggests this will continue long after Trump himself leaves office, effectively becoming a state run gang.

Adding complexity would imply you're doing both. In this case it would be more correct to say you're trading the complexity of key distribution and access control via keys for the complexity introduced by tailscale ssh.

Is there any reason not to take the buyout?

At least Gemini is an okay model independent of how Google is leveraging for consumer experiences.

>Google, Apple, and Microsoft are each in a stronger position to win consumer AI because they're guardians over the foundations of the user's experience.

From everything I've seen, they're all too large and dysfunctional to make a competent play in consumer AI. Anyone in there trying to work on it is too far removed from end product and is answering to too many masters.

>But what I wonder: can we legitimately grind on Physics or curing cancer?

If we can enable a feedback loop, yes absolutely. But feedback loops for things in the physical world like these are measured in months per cycle usually.

There are really fringe perspectives out there that imagine capitalism as a living entity of which we individual humans are simply parts of the whole. Governments that represent the economy over the people are exactly what you'd expect if that were true.

>"Information wants to be free".

I agree wholeheartedly and in keeping with that, I call upon frontier AI labs to release both their weights and training sets.

You're right, but the scandal is so upsetting that I personally cannot ever look at Fujitsu the same way even. Also, I think you're neglecting that a large part of why it became so bad was that Fujitsu claimed there was no issue with their software. Even if it were built by a company they acquired, the response to the developing situation was something that the parent company should have stepped in to oversee.