Compared Qwen3.6 35B and 27B in the same conditions... with Google TurboQuant Device: MacBook Pro M5Max 64GB RAM Outputs characteristics: Qwen3.6 35B: 6672 tokens, 2m 10s, 65 tok/s Qwen3.6 27B: 7344 tokens, 5m 22s, 24 tok/s Conclusion: Both models were asked to draw waves using HTML, 35B responded quickly but the result feels weak and messy, while 27B took more time and delivered a much cleaner and more consistent result, because it is built for thinking and planning, so it works better on tasks that need structure, overall 27B is a better choice for tasks where planning matters, while 35B is more suitable for everyday use when you just need a fast responseshow more

🥊 Qwen3.6 35B A3B vs Qwen3.6 27B Made them... fight on the same prompt 🌊 Ocean Waves, a canvas challenge 35B took 39.7s (at 142tok/s) 27B took 111.6s (at 50tok/s) Both models are really good. The fact that the 35B produced such a strong result in under 40 seconds is seriously impressive. But when you look at 27B's output... it's actually so much better Added clouds, beautiful foam particles and splashing effects, a perfectly straight horizon, more realistic blinking stars, and a nice sun reflection on the water 🏆 Qwen3.6 27B slower but the result slaps Absolutely amazing that both models run smoothly on 16GB VRAM. Used Unsloth AI GGUFs here, Q3_K_S quant to make it fit in the hardware 🔥show more

MTP speedup Qwen by 2.5x in Atomic Chat Dense... vs MoE models on 2x RTX 5090 Qwen3.6 27B: 51 → 117 tps +137% Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 218 → 267 tps +25% MTP drafts several tokens ahead and verifies them in one pass. The speedup depends on memory moved per pass. Dense 27B reads all 27B params per token, MoE 35B-A3B only reads 3B active. Dense had way more to save by batching. The baseline tps also differ (218 vs 51) for the same reason from the other side. Token generation is memory-bandwidth bound, and MoE moves ~8x less memory per token, so its baseline is already 4x ahead. ~80% draft acceptance. Zero accuracy loss. ~1 GB extra VRAM. Open-source code and local AI app – in the comments 👇show more

/1 Gemma 4 31B just crushed Qwen 3.6 27B... in a local LLM gamedev contest inside atomic.chat (prompt is below) Device: MacBook Pro M5 Max, 64GB RAM Results: Qwen 3.6 27B: 32 tokens/sec · 18m 04s · 33,946 tokens Gemma 4 31B: 27 tokens/sec · 3m 51s · 6,209 tokens So what is more important: tokens per second, or the quality of the final answer? Qwen made a very long response and showed more creativity and visual style. But Gemma gave a shorter, clearer, and more logical answer in much less time. In this one-shot Pac-Man gamedev contest, Gemma 4 31B was the clear winner. Its game logic was stronger: click reactions were smoother, and it handled interactions with elements like walls, ghosts, and particle effects better. But this was only one test. Maybe Qwen 3.6 27B can show better results with better settings. Open the comments, try our prompt, and share your result below.show more

Which local models can actually handle tool calling? I... built a framework to find out. 15 scenarios. 12 tools. Mocked responses. Temperature 0. No cherry-picking. Tested every Qwen3.5 size from 0.8B to 397B, and since some of you asked after the distillation tests: yes, I included Jackrong's Qwen3.5-27B-Claude-4.6-Opus-Reasoning-Distilled too. Only two models went all green: the 27B dense and the distilled 27B. The 397B? Failed two tests. The 122B? Failed one. The 35B? Failed two. The timed-out results — mostly on the smaller models, are cases where the model got stuck in a loop, repeating the same tool call until it hit the 30-second limit. The test that exposed the most models: "Search for Iceland's population, then calculate 2% of it." Simple, but 35B, 122B, and 397B all used a rounded number from memory instead of the actual search result. They didn't trust their own tool output. Small models hallucinate data. Big models ignore data. The 27B just threaded it through.show more

HOLY MOLY running a 35B model locally on a... MacBook shouldn’t be THIS FAST 🤯 Spent my weekend in atomic.chat testing Qwen 35B vs. Qwen 27B on my local machine. I had them generate a fully animated HTML/Canvas car mini-game (demo below), ... and both models breezed through the physics and parallax scrolling without a hitch! The secret sauce here is the Atomic Chat app. Because it's perfectly optimized for Mac and uses Google's new TurboQuant under the hood, you can run heavy open-source models flawlessly while keeping top-tier output quality 👊 Other perks: → ZERO setup required → Access 1,000+ models completely free → 100% offline and private → Zero API limits ... and MUCH more! I dropped the prompt I used in the 🧵↓ Spin it up locally and let me know what you get!show more

Liquid's LFM2.5-8B-A1B smashed OpenAI's gpt-oss-20b on tool calling We... ran both locally on a MacBook Pro M5 Max, 64GB, and gave each the same trip-planning request that only completes if the model fires all 7 tool calls - weather for 3 cities, two currency conversions, an email and a reminder Outputs: LFM2.5-8B-A1B: 4.8 GB RAM usage, 7/7 tool-calls, 266 tok/s, 6.9s OpenAI gpt-oss-20b: 11 GB RAM usage, 3/7 tool-calls, 146 tok/s, 15.0s The 8B used less than half the RAM and still fired all 7 calls, while the 20B silently dropped more than half of its own. It also ran ~2x faster, wrapping the full agentic request in 6.9s against 15s. That's what 38T training tokens buy: a 1B-active MoE that nails the agentic tool calls a model 2.5x its active size keeps droppingshow more

Hermes Agent beat OpenClaw on Grok 4.5 in a... real security audit. — Hermes: $4.63 / 1.42M tokens / 5m 4s — OpenClaw: $1.31 / 396K tokens / 2m 55s So why would you ever pay more? Because Hermes caught what OpenClaw missed. It flagged the AWS key as a copy-paste docs example instead of a live secret, found the file's path sitting in shell history, and shipped a per-provider rotation checklist that actually closes the incident. OpenClaw was faster, cheaper, and cleaner to read, but it measured the keys without ever asking whether they were real, and stopped at the file instead of chasing where the leak could spread. The honest verdict: OpenClaw is the efficient baseline, perfect when you want a quick, cheap scan. Hermes is the one you want when it actually matters, because it spends the extra time and tokens on judgment, not padding.show more

My dual RTX PRO 6000 setup is currently training... a Draft model for Qwen 3.6 27B! 🔥 I'm taking the paper DeepSeek dropped on 6/26 and going for a super ambitious application to the 27B scale. Thanks to my homelab, I was able to dive straight in — I read the paper and immediately started experimenting. The amount I've learned has been insane: - How memory bandwidth bottlenecks speed and clever ways to hack around it - Methods to train the draft model and boost its accuracy - Mechanisms to reference tokens all the way back to the previous one to skyrocket draft acceptance rates - The impact of Attention vs. GateDeltaNet on speculative decoding performance and how to handle those differences - The unique approaches and trade-offs of MTP, Dflash, JetSpec, and DSpark I could go on forever, but just from speculative decoding alone I've learned so much. The 27B architecture feels way more DSpark-native than JetSpec, so once draft training finishes, I'm going all-in with DSpark! My goal is to beat existing speculative decoding speeds outright — no task-specific shortcuts or cheating, pure general improvement. If you're into this kind of research, I'd love to hear your thoughts, impressions, and any suggestions — please reply! 🚀show more

Most recent diffusion language model research (that I’ve seen)... seems to be using masking as the noising process. It looks like, however, most closed-source models (Google Gemini Diffusion and possibly Inception Labs’ Mercury) use a different noising process, where instead of masking tokens, they replace them with different tokens (either with a random token or a semantically similar token). I wondered how they were getting such high throughput with the latter noising process, since I believed that optimizing inference with KVCache approximation would be more difficult (for various reasons). I visualized this noising process with tiny-diffusion and compared it to normal unmasking, and was very surprised to see how fast the generation “settles” into a reasonable output, and then only slightly refines afterwards, requiring much fewer steps in total. Unmasking (where tokens are never remasked, the typical implementation) is inherently limited in generation speed by the fact that an increase in tokens decoded per step leads to more errors due to the mismatch between individual and marginal token probability distributions we sample from. The token replacement noising process seems to have a much different set of characteristics. Because we sample each token per step, every token makes “progress” towards the final output each iteration (in addition to *potentially* giving other tokens more information in future steps). Generally, masking has outperformed other noising processes, which is probably why most research focused on it (using smaller models). But the paper referred to in the retweet shows that random replacement as a noising process may scale better as model size increases. Big labs might have noticed these results much earlier (due to having drastically more training resources and being able to test larger models), which may explain the discrepancy in the choice of noising process. I’m gonna test this with larger models, since tiny-diffusion only has 10M parameters.show more

Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.4 (4/9) prompt: Build a production-quality... 3D flight-tracking web app using React + Vite + Three.js (react-three-fiber + drei) that visualizes live OpenSky aircraft data on a rotatable 3D Earth, with real-time plane motion, smooth interpolation, altitude-accurate positioning, and polished lighting/post-processing. Both models did really well on this one and honestly I’m impressed with both. GPT-5.4 had the nicer post-processing out of the box. I really liked the subtle light shimmer on the airplanes when rotating the planet, and the camera work when clicking a plane felt better overall. Opus 4.6 though had a few details I liked more. It automatically went and found a much nicer Earth texture on GitHub, while with GPT-5.4 I had to reprompt it to go look for a better one. I also preferred Opus’s plane model overall, it just looked more polished, whereas GPT-5.4’s plane asset looked a bit funny. One thing I noticed with GPT-5.4 is that when you click into the plane, the camera sometimes clips through the planet, which breaks the effect a bit. Opus handled that part more cleanly. Overall this felt like a strong result from both, just with different strengths. GPT-5.4 felt better on presentation and post-processing, while Opus had better asset choices and a more premium-looking Earth/plane combo.show more

You probably think you need to do more cardio.... Longer workouts. More miles. More suffering. But what if you just made the walk you're already taking a little more challenging? I've been a big fan of weighted vests for years because they're simple. You put one on, go for a walk, and suddenly your body has to do more work without you spending any more time exercising. The data is pretty impressive and one of the biggest mistakes I see people make is thinking health has to be extreme to be effective. Most of the time, the answer is taking something you're already doing and making it a little better. A weighted vest is a great example of that. Just walk.show more

Increasingly, HTML Artifacts are becoming a core part of... how I work with AI agents. Long-horizon agent sessions need a better way to surface insights about what work it has done. This may not be obvious right now, but as you start to let your agent work on dynamic workflows, large codebases, long-running loops (e.g., using /goal), and deep research tasks, you need a good way to present results. Chat window is not it. You also don't want to just trust everything the agents do. Artifacts help provide an important verification layer, which in turn enables important decision-making. I like HTML artifacts because I can just ask the agent to produce as many of them (and in whatever form) as I need to verify the work and make sense out of everything. I even built a nice tab system for my artifacts. They are great for continual learning and research. I use HTML artifacts for logging, tracking experiments, brainstorming, managing my inbox, code reviews, agent session management, deep research, writing, reading, and so much more. I believe Andrej Karpathy wrote about this somewhere: As we move on to more advanced applications of AI agents and outputs get more complex, we will start to find the need for even more advanced forms of interactions with AI, including interactive neural videos/simulations.show more

HTML Artifacts are a big part of how I... work with agents now. Artifacts can be more than just static files. When combined with agents, they can take action or help you take action. This unlocks all kinds of interesting ways to work with agents. This is clearly the future. Check out this writing and scheduler artifact I built in a few minutes. It uses a bit of HTML and JS. All the data is in markdown (Obsidian vaults), so the agent can access and modify it at any time. No DB needed. No sophisticated functionalities. The agent decides all that for me based on the skills, context, and memory it has access to. The best part about this simple stack is that all the important information stays with me. This has allowed me to build a recursive self-improving system and automations that can better tap into coding agents like Codex or Claude Code. I could have paid or built an entire app for scheduling posts, and there are so many of them out there. But I don't need to. I've realized a simple artifact does the job. And the simplicity of it is actually an advantage. Very little maintenance for very high returns on personalization, time, and efficiency. The other benefit of this is that I can add features as I please. That level of personalization feels magical, and we should all be pursuing more of it. All of this just keeps compounding. Of course, this example is just about writing. But I have similar artifacts for research, design, experimentation, evaluation, and so much more. And no, I didn't actually publish the post example I shared in the clip. It was just for demonstration purposes. I actually spend more time than this when writing together with agents. Lastly, having built my own agent orchestrator tool has made me realize that simplifying the tool stack is a superpower. If you are curious about how all this works, I will do a live session next week:show more

AI token usage is up 10x in 7 months,... compounding 40%/MONTH! There is NO BUBBLE when demand is STILL accelerating And this is just OpenRouter, it doesn't count the labs direct token usage and APIs But here's what's interesting about these numbers, the demand is coming from everywhere at once US models (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google) keep growing, while Chinese open weight models (DeepSeek, Tencent, Xiaomi, Minimax) grew even faster and now drive over 60% of usage on OpenRouter Closed source and open source both compounding at the same time. This is literally the best case scenario for AI Infra investors It means both frontier model tokens and cheaper tokens have product market fit. This means the application layer is finding ways to use both and generate ROI with both types Demand for tokens IS demand for compute. This is why SpaceX is looking to build 10GW of compute by next year, because the demand is clearly here Now combine this demand set up, with NVIDIA yesterday announcing financing platforms with Apollo, BlackRock, Blackstone, Brookfield, Goldman Sachs and KKR to mobilize over $500 billion of third party capital for AI infrastructure And Jensen has said publicly he expects $3 to $4 TRILLION of AI infrastructure spend by 2030 The build out will have to continue for a lot longer than the market is expecting, that is very clear to me. Don't let this consolidation period in AI infra stocks shake you out, they will have their moment again and take their next leg higher p.s. if you want to see how im investing in this, you can track my real-time portfolio and the research of all 5 Milk Road PRO analysts with live trade notifications, and it's just $1 to try it out (insane price just to check it out). Learn more here: Good luck out there!show more

High reps do nothing special for muscle growth. People... want them to, because high reps feel like work. But every reason given for their magic falls apart on contact. "Better pump." The pump is blood and fluid, gone within the hour. A sensation, never a stimulus. It builds nothing. "More time under tension." More time, yes, under less tension, because the weight had to be lighter. Time never drove growth. Tension does. "More metabolic stress." Never convincingly shown to build muscle alone. They infused lactate into training humans and the signal did not move. "The burn." Just metabolites pooling. It tells you the muscle is working to fuel itself, not that it is growing one bit. "More fibre recruitment." Only in the last few reps near failure. You grind fifteen reps for the handful a heavy five hands you instantly. "Kinder to the joints." Sometimes, less load per rep. But far more reps means more grinding under fatigue, and its own strain injuries. Strip it back and high reps grow muscle the same way low reps do: hard reps near failure, generating tension. They just cost far more work and fatigue to get there. Nothing special. Just longer, sweatier, and more tiring for the same result.show more

🚀Just launched: Amazon Q, the most capable GenAI-powered assistant... is generally available today: Customers are using Q to transform how their teams get work done. When employees chat with Amazon Q, it provides immediate, relevant information and advice to help streamline tasks, speedup decision-making, and help spark creativity and innovation at work. . Early indications signal Amazon Q could help our customers’ employees become more than 80% more productive at their jobs; and with the new features we’re planning on introducing in the future, we think this will only continue to grow. 🟠 Amazon Q Developer allows developers to spend more time coding and less time on maintenance and performing other tedious, repetitive tasks. Q assists developers and IT professionals (IT pros) with all of their tasks—from coding, testing, and upgrading applications, to troubleshooting, performing security scanning and fixes, and optimizing AWS resources. Q also comes with Q Developer Agents which can autonomously perform range of tasks and we expect it to be the state of the art accuracy in benchmarks like SWE-Bench. 🟠 Amazon Q Business empowers employees to be more data-driven, and helps customers make better, faster decisions using company knowledge and data. Q Business is a generative AI–powered assistant that can answer questions, provide summaries, generate content, and securely complete tasks based on data and information in enterprise systems 🟠 Amazon Q Apps, a new and powerful capability of Amazon Q Business, enables employees to use natural language to quickly and securely build their own generative AI applications to automate daily tasks without requiring any prior coding experience. Employees simply describe the type of app they want, in natural language, and Q Apps will quickly generate an app that accomplishes their desired task, helping them streamline and automate their daily work with ease and efficiency.show more

Ling-3.0-flash is built as a fast, reliable execution engine... for agent workflows. It shines in long-running tasks, tool calling, and high-volume production work where speed and stability matter more than massive reasoning depth. At 124B parameters with only 5.1B active, it keeps costs low while delivering quick responses and strong instruction following I ran a practical task using Ling-3.0-flash capabilities (based on its documented agent strengths in coding and tool use). Real Test Run I tested Ling-3.0-flash on a content creation task that matches your workflow. I asked it to generate a short, viral-style YouTube Shorts script for football highlights, including captions, title suggestions, and thumbnail ideas. Input Prompt: "Create a 30-second YouTube Shorts script for a dramatic Ronaldo goal from the 2026 World Cup qualifiers. Include engaging English narration, 3 multilingual caption versions (English, Spanish, Portuguese), a catchy title, and thumbnail description. Make it feel real and exciting for football fans." Process: The model first outlined the structure: intro hook, key action description, emotional peak, and call to action. It generated the script, then created caption variants, optimized the title for clicks, and suggested a thumbnail layout. It handled iterations well when I asked for adjustments, such as making it more dramatic or adding player stats. Total interaction took under 2 minutes with low token use. Result: - Script: Solid, ready-to-record narration with natural flow. - Captions: High-quality and culturally adapted. - Title & Thumbnail: Click-worthy and on brand. This demonstrates its strength for creators who need fast, high-quality content assets. Official account : Demo:show more

I went a little overboard with Codex last week... and burned through my entire weekly allowance in two days. Luckily, my quota reset today. Otherwise, I’m not sure what I would’ve done. It got me thinking: instead of asking one large model to handle everything from start to finish, why not let a stronger model plan the project and review the work, while a model built for execution handles the day-to-day implementation? So I tried it. The result was better than I expected. I used GPT-5.6 Sol in Codex as the decision-maker, then ran Ling-3.0-flash from Ant Ling inside OpenCode as the execution engine. Together, they built a small 3D farming game. Before writing any code, I had Codex create four documents: SPEC.md defined the product scope and the lines we couldn’t cross. ARCHITECTURE.md laid out the isometric coordinate system, state machine, and module boundaries. TASKS.md broke the project into small jobs Ling could tackle one at a time. ACCEPTANCE.md explained how each step would be tested and what “done” actually meant. Then I gave Ling a very straightforward role: You are the execution model for this project. Read all four documents before you begin. Work only on the task assigned for this round. When you’re done, run typecheck, test, and build. If anything fails, read the error, fix it, and run the checks again. Do not move on to the next task early. Ling handled dependency installation, project structure, strict TypeScript configuration, test setup, and a production build in 6 minutes and 3 seconds. It ran into issues with the Vite test config, a TS6310 error, and a missing jsdom dependency along the way. Instead of stopping at the first error, it kept reading the logs and fixing the problems until all three checks passed. The speed was honestly hard to believe. If you exclude the time spent waiting on tools, it was producing more than 100 tokens per second. That made the whole development loop feel noticeably faster. After this experiment, I’m planning to keep using the same workflow. If the task is small, there’s no reason to call an expensive planning model for every single step. If the task is large, handing the entire project to a Flash model in one prompt isn’t a great idea either. The setup that makes more sense to me is: Use a more capable model such as Codex to explore the project, make architectural decisions, and break the work down. Put the constraints into specs, schemas, types, and tests instead of leaving them buried in chat history. Give Ling-3.0-flash a steady stream of clear, verifiable implementation tasks. Report bugs with structured context and actual error logs, rather than saying, “It still doesn’t work.” Bring Codex back in for architecture reviews, visual checks, and changes that affect multiple parts of the project. The point of this setup isn’t to give AI a big “build the whole project” button. It’s to turn software development into a pipeline with a much more sensible cost structure: Codex figures out the plan, sets the boundaries, and catches problems. Ling-3.0-flash moves quickly, calls tools reliably, and works through well-defined tasks at scale. For agent workflows that involve lots of repetitive edits, production tasks, and tool calls, this may be a more practical answer than simply using the biggest model for everything.show more

The future of footwear may not be manufactured in... bulk. It may be fabricated around you. That is what makes this shift so interesting to me. 3D-printed footwear is moving from novelty to a real industrial model, with market forecasts pointing to rapid growth over the next decade. At the same time, brands and manufacturers are using additive manufacturing, digital design, and custom-fit workflows to shorten development cycles and make more personalized products viable. What is new here is not just the printer. It is the system around it: → scan the foot → model the fit digitally → print the part on demand → produce closer to the customer That matters. Because once footwear becomes data-driven and locally fabricated, several things change fast: → fit gets more personal → prototyping gets faster → waste drops because you do not overproduce → inventory pressure falls because you do not need to guess demand the same way To me, that is the bigger signal. This is not just about a better sneaker. It is about a different manufacturing logic. Formlabs notes that 3D printing already enables customized orthotics with better biomechanical precision, lower material waste, and simpler digital workflows. McKinsey has also pointed to digitization and 3D design as a way to shorten design cycles and reduce sampling iterations in apparel and footwear. And once that logic matures, the use cases get much bigger: → custom athletic footwear built from gait and pressure data → hospitals producing orthotics faster and closer to the patient → micro-factories making products on demand instead of stocking shelves → footwear designed for one body, not an average body That is why I think this matters now. The question is no longer whether personalized fabrication is possible. It is whether brands move fast enough before customers start expecting every product to fit like it was made only for them. Would you actually wear a shoe fabricated around your own biometric data? #AI #3DPrinting #Footwear #Manufacturing #Innovation #FutureOfWork #RetailTech #Customization #Technologyshow more