Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Continuous batching in LLMs, clearly explained: (a popular LLM interview question; bookmark this) In traditional ML inference, a batch is a matrix. Every input is padded to the same length, one forward pass runs, and every row finishes at the same moment. LLM decoding does not work that way....

_avichawla's profile picture

Avi Chawla

74,057 subscribers

16,060 görüntüleme • 9 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

A tricky LLM interview question: You're serving a reasoning model on vLLM, and it keeps running out of GPU memory on long traces. So you add KV cache compression and evict 90% of the cached tokens. VRAM usage stays as is and GPU still runs out of memory. Why? (answer below) Evicting 90% of the KV cache can free almost none of the memory it was using. This sounds counterintuitive, but it follows directly from how production servers store the cache today. The KV cache grows with every token a model generates. Each token appends its key and value vectors across every layer, and nothing is freed while generation continues. This is the dominant memory cost for reasoning models. If a 32K-token CoT caches ~32K tokens of KV vectors, a Qwen3-32B with 4-bit weights will run out-of-memory around 24K tokens on a 24GB GPU. One obvious solution is to keep the important tokens and drop the rest, since attention is sparse enough to allow it. But this does not solve the memory problem yet. The reason is paged attention, which is the memory manager behind vLLM and most production servers. Under the hood, it splits GPU memory into fixed physical blocks, each one holds the KV for about 16 tokens. This block returns to the allocator only when every slot inside it is empty. Since the eviction logic selects tokens by importance, and such tokens are scattered across blocks... ...so despite eviction, almost every block is left with at least some survivor tokens. For instance, if the logic evicts 14k of 16k tokens across 1,000 blocks, most likely every block will still have a token. This means the allocator frees almost nothing. Placing the new tokens into those freed slots is not ideal because it breaks the cache's layout. Say token 16,001 arrives, and it's placed in the slot the 40th token used to hold. The cache now reads position 38, then 16,001, then 41, so the cache is no longer in token order. Attention can still compute the right answer from that, but only if every slot now carries a separate note recording which position it actually holds. This introduces another bookkeeping cost that an in-order layout inherently avoids. So the cache is logically 90% smaller and still physically the same size. Many compression results miss this because they measure on pre-allocated contiguous tensors rather than a paged server. There's another problem. Eviction methods pick which tokens to keep by looking at the attention scores themselves (as expected). But fast attention kernels used in production, like FlashAttention, never save those scores. They compute attention in small pieces and throw the full score grid away as they go, which is also why they're fast. So the exact signal eviction methods need isn't available in memory. The workaround is to fall back to eager attention and build the full matrix, which gives up the speed FlashAttention was there to provide. NVIDIA published a method called TriAttention to solve both these problems. It never needs attention scores. Instead, it scores tokens from the geometry of the model's key and query vectors before RoPE is applied, where those vectors sit in stable clusters. For the memory problem, it runs a compaction pass every 128 decoded tokens. The surviving tokens slide forward to close the holes eviction creates, so whole blocks empty out and return to the allocator while the cache stays in token order. On long reasoning traces, the approach matches full-attention accuracy while decoding 2.5x faster and using 10.7x less KV memory. KV cache compression is a big infrastructure problem. The number that decides whether it works is the count of freed blocks, not the count of evicted tokens. You can find the NVIDIA write-up here: I wrote a first-principles breakdown of how the KV cache works. It walks through why the model stores keys and values at all, why the cache grows with every token, and a comparison of LLM generation speed with and without KV caching. Read it below.
0:23

A tricky LLM interview question: You're serving a reasoning model on vLLM, and it keeps running out of GPU memory on long traces. So you add KV cache compression and evict 90% of the cached tokens. VRAM usage stays as is and GPU still runs out of memory. Why? (answer below) Evicting 90% of the KV cache can free almost none of the memory it was using. This sounds counterintuitive, but it follows directly from how production servers store the cache today. The KV cache grows with every token a model generates. Each token appends its key and value vectors across every layer, and nothing is freed while generation continues. This is the dominant memory cost for reasoning models. If a 32K-token CoT caches ~32K tokens of KV vectors, a Qwen3-32B with 4-bit weights will run out-of-memory around 24K tokens on a 24GB GPU. One obvious solution is to keep the important tokens and drop the rest, since attention is sparse enough to allow it. But this does not solve the memory problem yet. The reason is paged attention, which is the memory manager behind vLLM and most production servers. Under the hood, it splits GPU memory into fixed physical blocks, each one holds the KV for about 16 tokens. This block returns to the allocator only when every slot inside it is empty. Since the eviction logic selects tokens by importance, and such tokens are scattered across blocks... ...so despite eviction, almost every block is left with at least some survivor tokens. For instance, if the logic evicts 14k of 16k tokens across 1,000 blocks, most likely every block will still have a token. This means the allocator frees almost nothing. Placing the new tokens into those freed slots is not ideal because it breaks the cache's layout. Say token 16,001 arrives, and it's placed in the slot the 40th token used to hold. The cache now reads position 38, then 16,001, then 41, so the cache is no longer in token order. Attention can still compute the right answer from that, but only if every slot now carries a separate note recording which position it actually holds. This introduces another bookkeeping cost that an in-order layout inherently avoids. So the cache is logically 90% smaller and still physically the same size. Many compression results miss this because they measure on pre-allocated contiguous tensors rather than a paged server. There's another problem. Eviction methods pick which tokens to keep by looking at the attention scores themselves (as expected). But fast attention kernels used in production, like FlashAttention, never save those scores. They compute attention in small pieces and throw the full score grid away as they go, which is also why they're fast. So the exact signal eviction methods need isn't available in memory. The workaround is to fall back to eager attention and build the full matrix, which gives up the speed FlashAttention was there to provide. NVIDIA published a method called TriAttention to solve both these problems. It never needs attention scores. Instead, it scores tokens from the geometry of the model's key and query vectors before RoPE is applied, where those vectors sit in stable clusters. For the memory problem, it runs a compaction pass every 128 decoded tokens. The surviving tokens slide forward to close the holes eviction creates, so whole blocks empty out and return to the allocator while the cache stays in token order. On long reasoning traces, the approach matches full-attention accuracy while decoding 2.5x faster and using 10.7x less KV memory. KV cache compression is a big infrastructure problem. The number that decides whether it works is the count of freed blocks, not the count of evicted tokens. You can find the NVIDIA write-up here: I wrote a first-principles breakdown of how the KV cache works. It walks through why the model stores keys and values at all, why the cache grows with every token, and a comparison of LLM generation speed with and without KV caching. Read it below.

Avi Chawla

271,839 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Researchers found a way to make LLMs 8.5x faster! (without compromising accuracy) Speculative decoding is quite an effective way to address the single-token bottleneck in traditional LLM inference. A small "draft" model first generates the next several tokens, then the large model verifies all of them at once in a single forward pass. If a token at any position is wrong, you keep everything before it and restart from there. This never does worse than normal decoding. But current drafters in Speculative decoding still guess one token at a time. That makes the drafting step itself a bottleneck, capping real-world speedups at 2-3x. DFlash is a new technique that swaps the autoregressive drafter with a lightweight block diffusion model that guesses all tokens in one parallel shot. Drafting cost stays flat no matter how many tokens you speculate. On top of that, the drafter is conditioned on hidden features pulled from multiple layers of the target model and injected into every draft layer, so it makes significantly better guesses than a drafter working from scratch. In the side-by-side demo below, vanilla decoding runs at 48.5 tokens/sec. DFlash hits 415 tokens/sec on the same model, with zero quality loss. It's already integrated with vLLM, SGLang, and Transformers, with draft models on HuggingFace for several models like Qwen3, Qwen3.5, Llama 3.1, Kimi-K2.5, gpt-oss, and many more. I have shared the GitHub repo in the replies! KV caching is another must-know technique to boost LLM inference. I recently wrote an article about it. Read it below. 👉 Over to you: What use case are you working on that can benefit from this new technique?
0:26

Researchers found a way to make LLMs 8.5x faster! (without compromising accuracy) Speculative decoding is quite an effective way to address the single-token bottleneck in traditional LLM inference. A small "draft" model first generates the next several tokens, then the large model verifies all of them at once in a single forward pass. If a token at any position is wrong, you keep everything before it and restart from there. This never does worse than normal decoding. But current drafters in Speculative decoding still guess one token at a time. That makes the drafting step itself a bottleneck, capping real-world speedups at 2-3x. DFlash is a new technique that swaps the autoregressive drafter with a lightweight block diffusion model that guesses all tokens in one parallel shot. Drafting cost stays flat no matter how many tokens you speculate. On top of that, the drafter is conditioned on hidden features pulled from multiple layers of the target model and injected into every draft layer, so it makes significantly better guesses than a drafter working from scratch. In the side-by-side demo below, vanilla decoding runs at 48.5 tokens/sec. DFlash hits 415 tokens/sec on the same model, with zero quality loss. It's already integrated with vLLM, SGLang, and Transformers, with draft models on HuggingFace for several models like Qwen3, Qwen3.5, Llama 3.1, Kimi-K2.5, gpt-oss, and many more. I have shared the GitHub repo in the replies! KV caching is another must-know technique to boost LLM inference. I recently wrote an article about it. Read it below. 👉 Over to you: What use case are you working on that can benefit from this new technique?

Avi Chawla

157,390 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

UC Berkeley just open-sourced FreeToken. (2–4x faster local LLM inference than Ollama) the results are wild: - Qwen3.6-35B on an 8GB GPU at 39.3 tokens/s - DeepSeek-V4-Flash 284B on a 32GB GPU at 22 tokens/s - GLM-5.2 753B on a 96GB GPU at 14.9 tokens/s a 35B model at 16-bit precision needs about 70GB just for its weights. even at 4 bits it is close to 18GB, and FreeToken serves it on an 8GB GPU. let me explain how: all three models mentioned above are Mixture-of-Experts, and that is what FreeToken takes advantage of. each layer holds hundreds of separate experts plus a small router that picks a few of them per token. Qwen3.6-35B activates roughly 3B of its 35B parameters per token. DeepSeek-V4-Flash picks 6 of 256 experts per layer, so 13B of its 284B run at a time. so compute was never the bottleneck. the weights a single step touches fit comfortably on a consumer GPU. every expert the router might pick still has to exist somewhere. they sit in system RAM, and the GPU keeps a cache of the ones the model has been using recently. so everything comes down to what happens when the router picks an expert that is not on the GPU. there are two ways to serve that miss: 1. copy it over PCIe and run it on the GPU 2. run it on the CPU, where it already lives both read from the same system memory, so they compete for one pool of bandwidth instead of adding to each other. existing engines pick one option and freeze it when the model loads. but routing changes on every token, so a fixed choice misses most of what the model asks for. FreeToken measures both bandwidths on your machine and splits each step's misses between the two paths in proportion. the GPU and CPU results then merge exactly, with no approximation. two machines with the same GPU can end up wanting opposite strategies, which I did not expect. a 5090 in a gaming desktop should push nearly everything over PCIe, while an 8GB laptop is better off computing most misses on the CPU. none of that is readable off a spec sheet, so the engine profiles it once per machine. the second half of the design is about agents. coding agents constantly rewrite their own history, and every edit normally forces thousands of tokens back through prefill. FreeToken saves its checkpoints at the exact boundaries agent frameworks cut on, so it only reprocesses the new part. its slowest first token stays under 44 seconds, while llama.cpp peaks at 232 and KTransformers at 946. it serves the OpenAI and Anthropic APIs under Apache 2.0, so Claude Code and Codex can point at it directly. releasing weights publicly decides who can download a model, not who can afford to run one. frontier open models keep shipping, and running them still assumes a rented cluster. meanwhile there are over a hundred million consumer machines with discrete GPUs sitting mostly idle. closing that gap was never a hardware problem, and work like this is what turns open weights into something you can actually use. paper: repo: almost every idea in this post, from why memory bandwidth decides the outcome to why moving weights costs more than computing on them, comes straight out of how a GPU is built. I wrote a detailed primer on that. the article is quoted below.
0:42

UC Berkeley just open-sourced FreeToken. (2–4x faster local LLM inference than Ollama) the results are wild: - Qwen3.6-35B on an 8GB GPU at 39.3 tokens/s - DeepSeek-V4-Flash 284B on a 32GB GPU at 22 tokens/s - GLM-5.2 753B on a 96GB GPU at 14.9 tokens/s a 35B model at 16-bit precision needs about 70GB just for its weights. even at 4 bits it is close to 18GB, and FreeToken serves it on an 8GB GPU. let me explain how: all three models mentioned above are Mixture-of-Experts, and that is what FreeToken takes advantage of. each layer holds hundreds of separate experts plus a small router that picks a few of them per token. Qwen3.6-35B activates roughly 3B of its 35B parameters per token. DeepSeek-V4-Flash picks 6 of 256 experts per layer, so 13B of its 284B run at a time. so compute was never the bottleneck. the weights a single step touches fit comfortably on a consumer GPU. every expert the router might pick still has to exist somewhere. they sit in system RAM, and the GPU keeps a cache of the ones the model has been using recently. so everything comes down to what happens when the router picks an expert that is not on the GPU. there are two ways to serve that miss: 1. copy it over PCIe and run it on the GPU 2. run it on the CPU, where it already lives both read from the same system memory, so they compete for one pool of bandwidth instead of adding to each other. existing engines pick one option and freeze it when the model loads. but routing changes on every token, so a fixed choice misses most of what the model asks for. FreeToken measures both bandwidths on your machine and splits each step's misses between the two paths in proportion. the GPU and CPU results then merge exactly, with no approximation. two machines with the same GPU can end up wanting opposite strategies, which I did not expect. a 5090 in a gaming desktop should push nearly everything over PCIe, while an 8GB laptop is better off computing most misses on the CPU. none of that is readable off a spec sheet, so the engine profiles it once per machine. the second half of the design is about agents. coding agents constantly rewrite their own history, and every edit normally forces thousands of tokens back through prefill. FreeToken saves its checkpoints at the exact boundaries agent frameworks cut on, so it only reprocesses the new part. its slowest first token stays under 44 seconds, while llama.cpp peaks at 232 and KTransformers at 946. it serves the OpenAI and Anthropic APIs under Apache 2.0, so Claude Code and Codex can point at it directly. releasing weights publicly decides who can download a model, not who can afford to run one. frontier open models keep shipping, and running them still assumes a rented cluster. meanwhile there are over a hundred million consumer machines with discrete GPUs sitting mostly idle. closing that gap was never a hardware problem, and work like this is what turns open weights into something you can actually use. paper: repo: almost every idea in this post, from why memory bandwidth decides the outcome to why moving weights costs more than computing on them, comes straight out of how a GPU is built. I wrote a detailed primer on that. the article is quoted below.

Akshay 🚀

207,074 görüntüleme • 1 gün önce

This Chinese developer linked two $2,999 NVIDIA DGX Sparks into one box and runs the full Qwen3-235B at home, after dropping his $1,999-a-month cloud bill to zero. He wired 2 small boxes into a single computer, split a giant 235-billion-parameter model in half between them, and serves it across his own network at about 10 tokens a second, with no internet, no cloud, right there on the desk. No data center, no thousand-dollar graphics cards, no monthly cloud bill. Just him, 2 gold boxes the size of a sandwich, one cable between them, and 1 power strip. And here is the whole payoff. He used to pay the cloud $1,999 a month for the same model, and the meter ticked on every request. Now he paid $5,998 once for 2 boxes, they covered their cost in 3 months, and after that he sends as many requests as he wants for free, only electricity. The two Sparks talk over one fast cable, each holds 128GB of memory, and together they carry the whole model, about 73GB loaded per box, with the chip inside pinned near the limit at 96%. Both boxes work as one and keep trading data over the cable, with no cloud in the loop and no single word leaking out. The ready model sits on one local address, and any app on his network calls it as easily as ChatGPT. And here is how he described, in plain words, what this pair of boxes does: "this is a pair of boxes that holds the huge Qwen3-235B model and serves it to one network. the model is split in half, and each box owns its half. parts: // Box 1 (holds the first half of the model and starts the answer fast, the first word appears in under a second) // Box 2 (holds the second half and writes out the rest, about 10 tokens a second) // Cable (connects the 2 boxes and moves data between them on every step, with no lag) // Address (one local address where any app sends its request, like to a cloud model) // Test (a script that runs big prompts through and measures speed and delays) // Monitor (checks temperature, power draw, and load on both boxes every 2 seconds). the model never goes to the cloud. he only steps in when a box runs hotter than 80 degrees or the cable between them starts dropping data." So the system knows exactly what it is, what it is for, and where its limits are. It knows it has to hold the whole huge model across 2 boxes on its own. It knows it has to answer every request locally, with no meter, no limits, and no internet. It knows the human is only needed when a box overheats or the link between them stalls. → The setup runs around the clock on 2 boxes, each pulling under 60 watts → However many requests he sends, the monthly bill is $0, only electricity → The first box starts the answer in under a second → The second writes text at about 10 tokens a second → One request at a time: 838 tokens in 85 seconds, first word in 0.8s → Two requests at once: 697 tokens in 108 seconds, first word in 0.7s → Both boxes sit at 96% load and warm up to 76-78 degrees And only when a chip in a box runs hotter than 80 degrees or the cable between the 2 Sparks drops data does the system call the owner. And when he himself is out on a run or in a coffee shop, he still reaches his own model at home from his phone: sends a big prompt to the local Qwen3-235B, gets the full answer back in under a minute and a half, with no token meter ticking and no limit to hit. Here is what the test shows on his screen during one of the night runs: "one request at a time: 838 tokens in 84.9 seconds, first word in 0.8s, then 0.1s per token." "two requests at once: 697 tokens in 107.6 seconds, first word in 0.7s, then 0.15s per token." "Box 1: chip at 96% load, 76 degrees, 56 watts, 73GB used in memory." "Box 2: chip at 96% load, 78 degrees, 56 watts, the Qwen3-235B model fully loaded." And while everyone around is paying for AI by the month and bumping into limits, his top-tier model just sits on the desk and works as much as he wants: his own little power plant instead of a forever meter. He has no server rack of his own and no cloud account behind it. Just 2 DGX Spark boxes on a desk, one model split in half between them, one local address, and a folder of prompts next to it. Out of everything I have seen this year, this is the cleanest way to stop paying for AI: $5,998 of hardware on the desk once, $0 a month to the cloud, unlimited forever, and between them 2 gold boxes, 1 cable, and the full Qwen3-235B answering at home with no internet.
1:16

This Chinese developer linked two $2,999 NVIDIA DGX Sparks into one box and runs the full Qwen3-235B at home, after dropping his $1,999-a-month cloud bill to zero. He wired 2 small boxes into a single computer, split a giant 235-billion-parameter model in half between them, and serves it across his own network at about 10 tokens a second, with no internet, no cloud, right there on the desk. No data center, no thousand-dollar graphics cards, no monthly cloud bill. Just him, 2 gold boxes the size of a sandwich, one cable between them, and 1 power strip. And here is the whole payoff. He used to pay the cloud $1,999 a month for the same model, and the meter ticked on every request. Now he paid $5,998 once for 2 boxes, they covered their cost in 3 months, and after that he sends as many requests as he wants for free, only electricity. The two Sparks talk over one fast cable, each holds 128GB of memory, and together they carry the whole model, about 73GB loaded per box, with the chip inside pinned near the limit at 96%. Both boxes work as one and keep trading data over the cable, with no cloud in the loop and no single word leaking out. The ready model sits on one local address, and any app on his network calls it as easily as ChatGPT. And here is how he described, in plain words, what this pair of boxes does: "this is a pair of boxes that holds the huge Qwen3-235B model and serves it to one network. the model is split in half, and each box owns its half. parts: // Box 1 (holds the first half of the model and starts the answer fast, the first word appears in under a second) // Box 2 (holds the second half and writes out the rest, about 10 tokens a second) // Cable (connects the 2 boxes and moves data between them on every step, with no lag) // Address (one local address where any app sends its request, like to a cloud model) // Test (a script that runs big prompts through and measures speed and delays) // Monitor (checks temperature, power draw, and load on both boxes every 2 seconds). the model never goes to the cloud. he only steps in when a box runs hotter than 80 degrees or the cable between them starts dropping data." So the system knows exactly what it is, what it is for, and where its limits are. It knows it has to hold the whole huge model across 2 boxes on its own. It knows it has to answer every request locally, with no meter, no limits, and no internet. It knows the human is only needed when a box overheats or the link between them stalls. → The setup runs around the clock on 2 boxes, each pulling under 60 watts → However many requests he sends, the monthly bill is $0, only electricity → The first box starts the answer in under a second → The second writes text at about 10 tokens a second → One request at a time: 838 tokens in 85 seconds, first word in 0.8s → Two requests at once: 697 tokens in 108 seconds, first word in 0.7s → Both boxes sit at 96% load and warm up to 76-78 degrees And only when a chip in a box runs hotter than 80 degrees or the cable between the 2 Sparks drops data does the system call the owner. And when he himself is out on a run or in a coffee shop, he still reaches his own model at home from his phone: sends a big prompt to the local Qwen3-235B, gets the full answer back in under a minute and a half, with no token meter ticking and no limit to hit. Here is what the test shows on his screen during one of the night runs: "one request at a time: 838 tokens in 84.9 seconds, first word in 0.8s, then 0.1s per token." "two requests at once: 697 tokens in 107.6 seconds, first word in 0.7s, then 0.15s per token." "Box 1: chip at 96% load, 76 degrees, 56 watts, 73GB used in memory." "Box 2: chip at 96% load, 78 degrees, 56 watts, the Qwen3-235B model fully loaded." And while everyone around is paying for AI by the month and bumping into limits, his top-tier model just sits on the desk and works as much as he wants: his own little power plant instead of a forever meter. He has no server rack of his own and no cloud account behind it. Just 2 DGX Spark boxes on a desk, one model split in half between them, one local address, and a folder of prompts next to it. Out of everything I have seen this year, this is the cleanest way to stop paying for AI: $5,998 of hardware on the desk once, $0 a month to the cloud, unlimited forever, and between them 2 gold boxes, 1 cable, and the full Qwen3-235B answering at home with no internet.

Blaze

93,871 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

your agent has thirty tools. it calls two of them. the other twenty eight are not sitting idle somewhere. they are in the request, every request, and they are doing damage in two places at once. first the obvious one. tool schemas go into the prompt, and a schema is not a name. it is a description, a parameter list, types, required fields, an example. thirty of those is a few thousand tokens that ship with every single call, including the ones where the agent just says thanks and stops. you are paying rent on twenty eight tools that have never fired. second, and this is the one that costs more. when the request says cancel the order, the model picks by matching against everything available. four of your tools are plausible: cancel_order, refund_order, update_order, void_order. it is choosing among them based on the descriptions you wrote, one afternoon, months ago. every tool you add is another candidate in that shortlist. the twenty eight you never call are not neutral. they are noise in the one decision that determines whether the run works. > why it grows without anyone deciding to nobody adds thirty tools on purpose. you add one for a task, it works, it stays. six months later the registry is a catalogue and no one has ever removed anything, because removing a tool feels risky and adding one feels free. and there is no feedback telling you otherwise. the unused ones never error. they never appear in a failing trace. they are invisible in exactly the way that lets them accumulate. > what to actually do count calls per tool over the last thousand runs. this is one group-by and it usually shocks people. the ones at zero are pure cost. ship the tools the task needs, not the whole registry. a research phase does not need deploy. a writing phase does not need the database. swap the set between phases instead of loading everything up front. same agent, different tools, depending on where the run is. and when two tools could both plausibly answer the same request, that is not redundancy you can ignore. it is a coin flip you built into the system. the twenty eight tools are not unused. they are used every time, by the part of the run you cannot see.
0:52

your agent has thirty tools. it calls two of them. the other twenty eight are not sitting idle somewhere. they are in the request, every request, and they are doing damage in two places at once. first the obvious one. tool schemas go into the prompt, and a schema is not a name. it is a description, a parameter list, types, required fields, an example. thirty of those is a few thousand tokens that ship with every single call, including the ones where the agent just says thanks and stops. you are paying rent on twenty eight tools that have never fired. second, and this is the one that costs more. when the request says cancel the order, the model picks by matching against everything available. four of your tools are plausible: cancel_order, refund_order, update_order, void_order. it is choosing among them based on the descriptions you wrote, one afternoon, months ago. every tool you add is another candidate in that shortlist. the twenty eight you never call are not neutral. they are noise in the one decision that determines whether the run works. > why it grows without anyone deciding to nobody adds thirty tools on purpose. you add one for a task, it works, it stays. six months later the registry is a catalogue and no one has ever removed anything, because removing a tool feels risky and adding one feels free. and there is no feedback telling you otherwise. the unused ones never error. they never appear in a failing trace. they are invisible in exactly the way that lets them accumulate. > what to actually do count calls per tool over the last thousand runs. this is one group-by and it usually shocks people. the ones at zero are pure cost. ship the tools the task needs, not the whole registry. a research phase does not need deploy. a writing phase does not need the database. swap the set between phases instead of loading everything up front. same agent, different tools, depending on where the run is. and when two tools could both plausibly answer the same request, that is not redundancy you can ignore. it is a coin flip you built into the system. the twenty eight tools are not unused. they are used every time, by the part of the run you cannot see.

Hanako

24,656 görüntüleme • 14 gün önce

your agent reviewing its own work is not a check. it is a second opinion from the same source. this is the most common gap in agent systems and it hides in plain sight, because the step exists. there is a review. it just cannot do the thing you think it does. here is the mechanism. the model produced an output from a context. you then ask the same model, holding the same context, whether that output is correct. it answers fluently, because that is what it does. and the answer is drawn from the same distribution that produced the thing being judged. same weights, same window, same blind spots. if the reason the output is wrong is something the model does not know, the review does not know it either. if the reason is something the context does not contain, the review has the same context. the failure mode and the detector share a cause. > why it feels like it works because most of the time the output is fine, and the review says fine. agreement is not evidence of detection. a reviewer that says pass on everything agrees with reality most of the time too. what you actually want to measure is what happens on the cases that are wrong. that is the only place a check earns its name, and it is exactly the place where a self-review is weakest. there is research on this. Huang and colleagues at DeepMind showed at ICLR 2024 that intrinsic self-correction, revising without external grounding, does not reliably help and often makes things worse. > what to actually do move the check outside the model. a test that runs, a schema that validates, a file that exists or does not, an exit code from something you did not write. these are not smarter than the model. they are just not correlated with it, and that is the entire value. when the judgement genuinely needs a model, at minimum use a different family. same family means shared blind spots, and frontier judges measurably inflate scores for outputs that look like their own. and split the work by kind. anything objectively checkable goes to code. only the genuinely semantic calls go to a judge, and those get a rubric written as one line. a review inside the loop tells you the model is confident. a check outside it tells you whether the work is done. save this - then read the eval setup below
0:50

your agent reviewing its own work is not a check. it is a second opinion from the same source. this is the most common gap in agent systems and it hides in plain sight, because the step exists. there is a review. it just cannot do the thing you think it does. here is the mechanism. the model produced an output from a context. you then ask the same model, holding the same context, whether that output is correct. it answers fluently, because that is what it does. and the answer is drawn from the same distribution that produced the thing being judged. same weights, same window, same blind spots. if the reason the output is wrong is something the model does not know, the review does not know it either. if the reason is something the context does not contain, the review has the same context. the failure mode and the detector share a cause. > why it feels like it works because most of the time the output is fine, and the review says fine. agreement is not evidence of detection. a reviewer that says pass on everything agrees with reality most of the time too. what you actually want to measure is what happens on the cases that are wrong. that is the only place a check earns its name, and it is exactly the place where a self-review is weakest. there is research on this. Huang and colleagues at DeepMind showed at ICLR 2024 that intrinsic self-correction, revising without external grounding, does not reliably help and often makes things worse. > what to actually do move the check outside the model. a test that runs, a schema that validates, a file that exists or does not, an exit code from something you did not write. these are not smarter than the model. they are just not correlated with it, and that is the entire value. when the judgement genuinely needs a model, at minimum use a different family. same family means shared blind spots, and frontier judges measurably inflate scores for outputs that look like their own. and split the work by kind. anything objectively checkable goes to code. only the genuinely semantic calls go to a judge, and those get a rubric written as one line. a review inside the loop tells you the model is confident. a check outside it tells you whether the work is done. save this - then read the eval setup below

Hanako

14,325 görüntüleme • 17 gün önce

I had to test it myself to believe this unreal inference speed. 3,000 tokens/s for 1 user on standard datacenter GPUs. They leveraged a hidden efficiency gap in how GPUs generate tokens. Kog just achieved 3,000 tokens/s on 8× AMD MI300X GPUs and 2,100 on 8× NVIDIA H200 (FP16, no speculative decoding). Their tech preview is on a 2B model, and they show how their techniques will scale to large frontier MoE models at similar speeds. That's a huge number because normal low-batch GPU decoding for 2B to 8B models is usually closer to 100 to 300 tokens/s per request, so Kog is claiming something like a 10X to 30X jump in the speed one user actually feels. Their trick: they are getting the speed by treating LLM decoding as a memory streaming problem, not mainly a math problem. For 1 user at batch size 1, the GPU is not doing big, efficient matrix-matrix work like in training or large-batch serving; it is repeatedly pulling the model’s active weights from high-bandwidth memory for each new token, so speed depends on how smoothly those weights keep flowing. Normal inference stacks keep breaking that flow. They run many separate GPU programs for different parts of the model, move intermediate results through memory, wait at synchronization points, talk back to the CPU for scheduling or sampling, and then repeat this token after token. Kog’s answer is to co-design 3 things that are usually tuned separately: the runtime, the low-level GPU code, and the model architecture. The biggest engineering move is the monokernel, where the whole decode pass runs as 1 persistent GPU-resident program, including sampling, so the system does not keep stopping for kernel launches, CPU scheduling, and intermediate memory round trips. They also rebuilt synchronization, because their own measurements say grid sync was eating around 35% of token-generation time; instead of making every compute unit wait at a broad barrier, each unit waits only for the exact data it needs. On AMD MI300X, they also map memory access around the chiplet layout, because memory latency changes depending on which die makes the request. Then their Laneformer model uses Delayed Tensor Parallelism, which lets cross-GPU communication happen in the background instead of blocking every layer.
1:08

I had to test it myself to believe this unreal inference speed. 3,000 tokens/s for 1 user on standard datacenter GPUs. They leveraged a hidden efficiency gap in how GPUs generate tokens. Kog just achieved 3,000 tokens/s on 8× AMD MI300X GPUs and 2,100 on 8× NVIDIA H200 (FP16, no speculative decoding). Their tech preview is on a 2B model, and they show how their techniques will scale to large frontier MoE models at similar speeds. That's a huge number because normal low-batch GPU decoding for 2B to 8B models is usually closer to 100 to 300 tokens/s per request, so Kog is claiming something like a 10X to 30X jump in the speed one user actually feels. Their trick: they are getting the speed by treating LLM decoding as a memory streaming problem, not mainly a math problem. For 1 user at batch size 1, the GPU is not doing big, efficient matrix-matrix work like in training or large-batch serving; it is repeatedly pulling the model’s active weights from high-bandwidth memory for each new token, so speed depends on how smoothly those weights keep flowing. Normal inference stacks keep breaking that flow. They run many separate GPU programs for different parts of the model, move intermediate results through memory, wait at synchronization points, talk back to the CPU for scheduling or sampling, and then repeat this token after token. Kog’s answer is to co-design 3 things that are usually tuned separately: the runtime, the low-level GPU code, and the model architecture. The biggest engineering move is the monokernel, where the whole decode pass runs as 1 persistent GPU-resident program, including sampling, so the system does not keep stopping for kernel launches, CPU scheduling, and intermediate memory round trips. They also rebuilt synchronization, because their own measurements say grid sync was eating around 35% of token-generation time; instead of making every compute unit wait at a broad barrier, each unit waits only for the exact data it needs. On AMD MI300X, they also map memory access around the chiplet layout, because memory latency changes depending on which die makes the request. Then their Laneformer model uses Delayed Tensor Parallelism, which lets cross-GPU communication happen in the background instead of blocking every layer.

Rohan Paul

13,244 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

context engineering vs graph engineering. every few months the list gets a new word and everyone treats it as a replacement for the last one. these two are not on the same list. one decides what the model sees this turn, the other decides what exists at all. the cleanest way to tell them apart is to ask what a single unit of work looks like. > context engineering is the window the window opens empty, every single time. you assemble what goes in it. the prompt, the docs, the history, the tool results. the assembling is the work. the window only grows. it never shrinks on its own, so eventually something gets dropped. usually from the middle. usually without telling you. then the turn ends and the window is thrown away. not archived, thrown away. the next turn opens empty again and you re-explain what you already explained. good context engineering is knowing what to leave out, not what to pack in. the unit of work is one window. > graph engineering is the structure the same material arrives from the same sources. instead of packing it into a window, you pull entities out of it, resolve the duplicates into one node, and write typed edges between them. nothing here is stored as text you hope to find again. it is stored as a thing with a name and its connections to other things. when the turn ends, the graph is still there. the next turn does not start from zero. it starts by querying what already exists, and the query walks edges instead of guessing at similarity. good graph engineering is deciding what counts as the same thing twice. the unit of work is one relationship. > they are not alternatives the graph is what refills the window. context engineering decides what fits. graph engineering decides what there is to choose from. remove the graph and every session starts blind. remove the context work and the best structure in the world arrives as an unreadable dump. that also tells you which one broke. the answer drifted from what you actually said, or forgot something from this same session. that is the window. the answer is coherent but invents a connection that does not exist, or cannot join two facts it has clearly seen. that is the structure. people debug the prompt because the prompt is the easiest thing to edit. it keeps taking the blame for failures that live a layer down. save this - then read the full breakdown below
0:40

context engineering vs graph engineering. every few months the list gets a new word and everyone treats it as a replacement for the last one. these two are not on the same list. one decides what the model sees this turn, the other decides what exists at all. the cleanest way to tell them apart is to ask what a single unit of work looks like. > context engineering is the window the window opens empty, every single time. you assemble what goes in it. the prompt, the docs, the history, the tool results. the assembling is the work. the window only grows. it never shrinks on its own, so eventually something gets dropped. usually from the middle. usually without telling you. then the turn ends and the window is thrown away. not archived, thrown away. the next turn opens empty again and you re-explain what you already explained. good context engineering is knowing what to leave out, not what to pack in. the unit of work is one window. > graph engineering is the structure the same material arrives from the same sources. instead of packing it into a window, you pull entities out of it, resolve the duplicates into one node, and write typed edges between them. nothing here is stored as text you hope to find again. it is stored as a thing with a name and its connections to other things. when the turn ends, the graph is still there. the next turn does not start from zero. it starts by querying what already exists, and the query walks edges instead of guessing at similarity. good graph engineering is deciding what counts as the same thing twice. the unit of work is one relationship. > they are not alternatives the graph is what refills the window. context engineering decides what fits. graph engineering decides what there is to choose from. remove the graph and every session starts blind. remove the context work and the best structure in the world arrives as an unreadable dump. that also tells you which one broke. the answer drifted from what you actually said, or forgot something from this same session. that is the window. the answer is coherent but invents a connection that does not exist, or cannot join two facts it has clearly seen. that is the structure. people debug the prompt because the prompt is the easiest thing to edit. it keeps taking the blame for failures that live a layer down. save this - then read the full breakdown below

Hanako

19,160 görüntüleme • 24 gün önce

CLAUDE FABLE 5 IS BACK, BUT IS IT THE SAME POWER OR WAS IT QUIETLY TRIMMED Fable 5 is available again. Anthropic's most powerful model is back globally for every paid account When it first landed three weeks ago, the difference was obvious right away. It didn't just help, it carried the task to the finish: entire web projects, presentations, reports, analysis. People dropped their work on other models and simply waited for Fable And the wait happened because three days after launch the US hit the model with export controls. There was no clean way to cut off foreign nationals, so Anthropic shut access down for everyone Now the restrictions are lifted, and here are the terms it came back on: > until July 7 it's included in a plan and covers up to 50% of the weekly limit > after that only through credits, topped up in settings > output runs at 50 dollars per million tokens Anthropic says it's the same model, just with stronger protection against cybersecurity use. Because the filter is so strict, there will be false positives now and then, and a request will get bumped down to a weaker model Whether it's the same power or quietly trimmed will only show after a couple of weeks of real work
1:59

CLAUDE FABLE 5 IS BACK, BUT IS IT THE SAME POWER OR WAS IT QUIETLY TRIMMED Fable 5 is available again. Anthropic's most powerful model is back globally for every paid account When it first landed three weeks ago, the difference was obvious right away. It didn't just help, it carried the task to the finish: entire web projects, presentations, reports, analysis. People dropped their work on other models and simply waited for Fable And the wait happened because three days after launch the US hit the model with export controls. There was no clean way to cut off foreign nationals, so Anthropic shut access down for everyone Now the restrictions are lifted, and here are the terms it came back on: > until July 7 it's included in a plan and covers up to 50% of the weekly limit > after that only through credits, topped up in settings > output runs at 50 dollars per million tokens Anthropic says it's the same model, just with stronger protection against cybersecurity use. Because the filter is so strict, there will be false positives now and then, and a request will get bumped down to a weaker model Whether it's the same power or quietly trimmed will only show after a couple of weeks of real work

Mikadzyki🌙

20,003 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Sam Altman made the case for open-source harnesses in July. a month later, someone shipped it, and it's more efficient than most managed harnesses. here is the problem it was aimed at: a large share of your agent's token bill is the model rereading things it already read. that isn't the model's doing. the runtime around it decides what goes into every prompt and how often the model gets called. for example, an agent queries a CRM at step four and gets back 400 rows. those rows get piled up in the conversation history. by step nineteen, the model has to read those rows fifteen times unnecessarily, and every token read is billed at input rates. it happened because your harness assembled that prompt on every turn and kept the rows in it. that gives you two levers: how much context the harness carries forward, and how often it calls the model. there are four practical ways to keep the prompt from growing unnecessarily: → load tool schemas on demand. a server with 100 tools doesn't need to put all 100 into every prompt when the agent only calls two. → offload large results to disk. turn a large response into a short preview and a file path instead of replaying the entire result on every turn. → delegate to subagents. let a subagent spend thirty tool calls in its own context and return one summary to the root agent. → run toolchains in code. one script calls three tools, joins the results, and returns a table instead of three turns each dragging a full response. but reducing context is only half the job. you also need to control how often the model gets called. a good harness should avoid unnecessary planning, verification, and reflection when the work can be completed in fewer steps. TrueFoundry's open-source agent harness, TrueForge, is built around both of those controls. it sits between the model and the tools, deciding what goes into every prompt and when another model call is actually needed. it also breaks token usage down across the harness, skills, instructions, tools, and messages. DevRev's Enterprise-Bench is where this gets tested, on multi-step tasks of the kind where an agent pulls records from one system and reconciles them against another. TrueFoundry ran TrueForge there against Claude Managed Agents, both on the same model, and both finished the same number of tasks. the tie is the part that matters, because it means the gap underneath is not a quality tradeoff. TrueForge reached that score on close to a third of the tokens, with roughly 40% fewer trips back to the model. for the same result, that comes out around 2.7x cheaper than Claude Managed Agents. swapping in an open model made it sharper still. TrueForge with GLM-5.2 scored a little higher than either setup above, and the entire benchmark run cost about $3 at list prices. being open source matters beyond the license here. the model underneath can be swapped without rewriting the agent, and the whole thing can run inside your own environment when the data cannot leave it. all of this comes down to the runtime around the model, the context it carries, the tools it exposes, and how many times it goes back to the model. that is what a production harness actually owns. the full task list, the per-run numbers, and the MIT-licensed code are on GitHub: (don't forget to star 🌟) you can read more about the same in the article quoted below. thanks to the TrueForge team for working with me on this one.
0:39

Sam Altman made the case for open-source harnesses in July. a month later, someone shipped it, and it's more efficient than most managed harnesses. here is the problem it was aimed at: a large share of your agent's token bill is the model rereading things it already read. that isn't the model's doing. the runtime around it decides what goes into every prompt and how often the model gets called. for example, an agent queries a CRM at step four and gets back 400 rows. those rows get piled up in the conversation history. by step nineteen, the model has to read those rows fifteen times unnecessarily, and every token read is billed at input rates. it happened because your harness assembled that prompt on every turn and kept the rows in it. that gives you two levers: how much context the harness carries forward, and how often it calls the model. there are four practical ways to keep the prompt from growing unnecessarily: → load tool schemas on demand. a server with 100 tools doesn't need to put all 100 into every prompt when the agent only calls two. → offload large results to disk. turn a large response into a short preview and a file path instead of replaying the entire result on every turn. → delegate to subagents. let a subagent spend thirty tool calls in its own context and return one summary to the root agent. → run toolchains in code. one script calls three tools, joins the results, and returns a table instead of three turns each dragging a full response. but reducing context is only half the job. you also need to control how often the model gets called. a good harness should avoid unnecessary planning, verification, and reflection when the work can be completed in fewer steps. TrueFoundry's open-source agent harness, TrueForge, is built around both of those controls. it sits between the model and the tools, deciding what goes into every prompt and when another model call is actually needed. it also breaks token usage down across the harness, skills, instructions, tools, and messages. DevRev's Enterprise-Bench is where this gets tested, on multi-step tasks of the kind where an agent pulls records from one system and reconciles them against another. TrueFoundry ran TrueForge there against Claude Managed Agents, both on the same model, and both finished the same number of tasks. the tie is the part that matters, because it means the gap underneath is not a quality tradeoff. TrueForge reached that score on close to a third of the tokens, with roughly 40% fewer trips back to the model. for the same result, that comes out around 2.7x cheaper than Claude Managed Agents. swapping in an open model made it sharper still. TrueForge with GLM-5.2 scored a little higher than either setup above, and the entire benchmark run cost about $3 at list prices. being open source matters beyond the license here. the model underneath can be swapped without rewriting the agent, and the whole thing can run inside your own environment when the data cannot leave it. all of this comes down to the runtime around the model, the context it carries, the tools it exposes, and how many times it goes back to the model. that is what a production harness actually owns. the full task list, the per-run numbers, and the MIT-licensed code are on GitHub: (don't forget to star 🌟) you can read more about the same in the article quoted below. thanks to the TrueForge team for working with me on this one.

Akshay 🚀

74,655 görüntüleme • 4 gün önce

your agent loop needs 8 exits. most people ship only one. (explained with triggers) 1) goal met → an evaluator scores the output against a rubric, and the run stops on a pass. → fires when the work is measurably done, not when the model says it is done. 2) turn cap → a hard ceiling on iterations, counted and enforced by the harness, not the prompt. → fires on the task it was never going to finish, before you pay to find that out. 3) budget cap → a limit on tokens or dollars, whichever one runs out first. → fires mid-run, which is exactly why it is the exit that saves you the 3am bill. 4) wall clock → a deadline on elapsed time, independent of how much progress was made. → fires when the run collides with a deploy window or the start of business hours. 5) no progress → hash the state every turn and compare it against the last few. → fires when three turns in a row change nothing. busy is not the same as moving. 6) human interrupt → an approval gate before risky steps, plus a kill switch that lives outside the loop. → fires whenever you decide, and it is the one exit the model cannot argue with. 7) error threshold → a counter of consecutive failures that resets on any success. → fires at n in a row, so it halts instead of retrying into the same wall all night. 8) external event → a webhook or a poll on whatever the task was actually about. → fires when the PR merged or the ticket closed and the work stopped mattering. a loop with one exit hangs. a loop with eight is a system. write the exits before you write the prompt.
0:40

your agent loop needs 8 exits. most people ship only one. (explained with triggers) 1) goal met → an evaluator scores the output against a rubric, and the run stops on a pass. → fires when the work is measurably done, not when the model says it is done. 2) turn cap → a hard ceiling on iterations, counted and enforced by the harness, not the prompt. → fires on the task it was never going to finish, before you pay to find that out. 3) budget cap → a limit on tokens or dollars, whichever one runs out first. → fires mid-run, which is exactly why it is the exit that saves you the 3am bill. 4) wall clock → a deadline on elapsed time, independent of how much progress was made. → fires when the run collides with a deploy window or the start of business hours. 5) no progress → hash the state every turn and compare it against the last few. → fires when three turns in a row change nothing. busy is not the same as moving. 6) human interrupt → an approval gate before risky steps, plus a kill switch that lives outside the loop. → fires whenever you decide, and it is the one exit the model cannot argue with. 7) error threshold → a counter of consecutive failures that resets on any success. → fires at n in a row, so it halts instead of retrying into the same wall all night. 8) external event → a webhook or a poll on whatever the task was actually about. → fires when the PR merged or the ticket closed and the work stopped mattering. a loop with one exit hangs. a loop with eight is a system. write the exits before you write the prompt.

Hanako

181,373 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

MIT PhD student Alex Zhang reveals the scaling result where a model trained on short tasks generalizes to problems 100x longer for free: "If you're very clever about the design of your harness or how you use the language model, you can almost get scaling gains for free." "If you train a model naively, there's no tricks. It's just the same way you train a model on these RL environments. You just roll it out, and then you just get some reward." "If you train it on only short tasks, like only tasks that are 10,000 tokens long, and then you were to run it on a similar domain, but at a million tokens, or 10 million tokens, or 100,000 tokens, it generalizes really, really well. If you look at it compared to even the base transformer, you get way better generalization properties." "When the model uses an RLM (Recursive Language Model) after it's trained on these short tasks, it will see some kind of trajectory of actions that it does. Between these two problems of different lengths, the RLM learns to see them as almost the same problem." "Token for token, they're almost the same. You can describe it in code. In one code setting, maybe the for loop is a little bigger, but it's the same kind of code and it derives the constants from the data. There's no hard coding, so they literally look the same." alex zhang
2:41

MIT PhD student Alex Zhang reveals the scaling result where a model trained on short tasks generalizes to problems 100x longer for free: "If you're very clever about the design of your harness or how you use the language model, you can almost get scaling gains for free." "If you train a model naively, there's no tricks. It's just the same way you train a model on these RL environments. You just roll it out, and then you just get some reward." "If you train it on only short tasks, like only tasks that are 10,000 tokens long, and then you were to run it on a similar domain, but at a million tokens, or 10 million tokens, or 100,000 tokens, it generalizes really, really well. If you look at it compared to even the base transformer, you get way better generalization properties." "When the model uses an RLM (Recursive Language Model) after it's trained on these short tasks, it will see some kind of trajectory of actions that it does. Between these two problems of different lengths, the RLM learns to see them as almost the same problem." "Token for token, they're almost the same. You can describe it in code. In one code setting, maybe the for loop is a little bigger, but it's the same kind of code and it derives the constants from the data. There's no hard coding, so they literally look the same." alex zhang

MTS

100,519 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

TWO BOXES THE SIZE OF A MAC MINI JUST RAN A 235 BILLION PARAMETER MODEL ON A DESK It is two NVIDIA DGX Spark units linked by a single cable. A year ago a model this size meant renting a GPU cluster by the hour. Now it sits next to your monitor for around $8,000. Here is the twist most people miss. Linking them does not create one shared 256GB memory pool. The model is split across both boxes, and that is the only reason a 235B model fits at all. It answers at roughly 10 tokens per second, and both chips sit at just 74 degrees while sipping around 50 watts. Every token stays on the desk. Nothing touches a cloud, and nothing leaves the room. The ceiling for what you can run at home just jumped from 70B to 235B. Bookmark this & Watch it run ↓
1:21

TWO BOXES THE SIZE OF A MAC MINI JUST RAN A 235 BILLION PARAMETER MODEL ON A DESK It is two NVIDIA DGX Spark units linked by a single cable. A year ago a model this size meant renting a GPU cluster by the hour. Now it sits next to your monitor for around $8,000. Here is the twist most people miss. Linking them does not create one shared 256GB memory pool. The model is split across both boxes, and that is the only reason a 235B model fits at all. It answers at roughly 10 tokens per second, and both chips sit at just 74 degrees while sipping around 50 watts. Every token stays on the desk. Nothing touches a cloud, and nothing leaves the room. The ceiling for what you can run at home just jumped from 70B to 235B. Bookmark this & Watch it run ↓

slash1s

101,317 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A FILE THEY SPENT 2 YEARS BUILDING WHERE 4 DEPARTMENTS CLOSE 90% OF YOUR WORK FOR $4 A DAY you do only 10% - the deciding, and the other 90% runs on different versions of Claude at a fraction of the price. research → marketing → sales → finance → back into the file research pulls in hundreds of sources and a handful survive - the cheap model filters, the expensive one reads only what got through. paying the top rate for a page you'll discard anyway is the commonest overspend there is. marketing is high volume with a low stake per item - so you generate 3 variants at once instead of one. one variant is a guess, three variants are a choice, and they cost the same. in sales the cheap model scores 400 leads and the expensive one writes only to the few worth it. a personal letter to a lead that was never going to convert is a paid guess. 6 of every 8 tasks in this file never need the priciest model - it answers at 5x the rate of the cheap one. and there's exactly one department where saving on the model makes no sense - unit economics, funnel, forecast. one wrong number here costs more than a full year of token savings. finance is the only department that writes back into the file - next month's marketing runs on rules analytics wrote, not you. overpaying is annoying, underpaying is expensive - route by the cost of being wrong, not the price per token. save this and paste it into Claude Code - 4 departments execute, you choose ↓
1:02

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A FILE THEY SPENT 2 YEARS BUILDING WHERE 4 DEPARTMENTS CLOSE 90% OF YOUR WORK FOR $4 A DAY you do only 10% - the deciding, and the other 90% runs on different versions of Claude at a fraction of the price. research → marketing → sales → finance → back into the file research pulls in hundreds of sources and a handful survive - the cheap model filters, the expensive one reads only what got through. paying the top rate for a page you'll discard anyway is the commonest overspend there is. marketing is high volume with a low stake per item - so you generate 3 variants at once instead of one. one variant is a guess, three variants are a choice, and they cost the same. in sales the cheap model scores 400 leads and the expensive one writes only to the few worth it. a personal letter to a lead that was never going to convert is a paid guess. 6 of every 8 tasks in this file never need the priciest model - it answers at 5x the rate of the cheap one. and there's exactly one department where saving on the model makes no sense - unit economics, funnel, forecast. one wrong number here costs more than a full year of token savings. finance is the only department that writes back into the file - next month's marketing runs on rules analytics wrote, not you. overpaying is annoying, underpaying is expensive - route by the cost of being wrong, not the price per token. save this and paste it into Claude Code - 4 departments execute, you choose ↓

Sprytix

26,641 görüntüleme • 6 gün önce

THE $4,000 DGX SPARK BENCHMARKS AT 342 T/S ON PROMPT PROCESSING - THEN DROPS TO 73 WHEN IT ACTUALLY GENERATES. that clip is a dgx spark running llama-bench on qwen3-coder 30b, side by side with a mac. two numbers decide everything here: pp512, prompt processing = 342 tokens/sec tg128, token generation = 73 tokens/sec that gap is the whole lesson. local ai isn't one speed, it's two. prompt processing is reading your input: your files, your long context. the spark is compute-heavy, so it eats that fast. token generation is writing the answer, and it's bound by memory bandwidth, where the spark is modest and unified-memory macs stay close. so "which box is faster" has no single winner. feeding huge context or running agents that read a lot? prompt processing wins, the spark shines. long chat replies, one token at a time? generation matters more, and a mac holds its own. no single benchmark number, no universal "fastest box", no upgrade that wins every workload. the uncomfortable part isn't that the spark is fast. it's that "tokens per second" was always two numbers, and the hype only ever quotes the flattering one. follow RetroChainer for the benchmark truth nobody screenshots, and bookmark this before you buy on one number.
1:14

THE $4,000 DGX SPARK BENCHMARKS AT 342 T/S ON PROMPT PROCESSING - THEN DROPS TO 73 WHEN IT ACTUALLY GENERATES. that clip is a dgx spark running llama-bench on qwen3-coder 30b, side by side with a mac. two numbers decide everything here: pp512, prompt processing = 342 tokens/sec tg128, token generation = 73 tokens/sec that gap is the whole lesson. local ai isn't one speed, it's two. prompt processing is reading your input: your files, your long context. the spark is compute-heavy, so it eats that fast. token generation is writing the answer, and it's bound by memory bandwidth, where the spark is modest and unified-memory macs stay close. so "which box is faster" has no single winner. feeding huge context or running agents that read a lot? prompt processing wins, the spark shines. long chat replies, one token at a time? generation matters more, and a mac holds its own. no single benchmark number, no universal "fastest box", no upgrade that wins every workload. the uncomfortable part isn't that the spark is fast. it's that "tokens per second" was always two numbers, and the hype only ever quotes the flattering one. follow RetroChainer for the benchmark truth nobody screenshots, and bookmark this before you buy on one number.

RetroChainer

42,451 görüntüleme • 15 gün önce

Sam Altman shared a number that should change how you think about AI. Six and a half years ago, the heaviest AI user on the planet was an OpenAI employee. Using 100,000 tokens a month. That was considered insane at the time. The global average was basically zero. Today the global average is 100,000 tokens a month. What was insane is now normal. And the heaviest user at OpenAI right now? Hundreds of billions of tokens a month. Now here's where it gets wild. If the same pattern repeats, in another six and a half years the average person will use 500 billion tokens a month. That's a 5 million x increase from today. Think about what that means. → AI is not something you open once a day to ask a question anymore. It becomes always on. Running in the background across your work, education, personal life. → Agentic workflows, coding assistants, multi-step reasoning — that's what consumes billions of tokens. Not chatting. → OpenAI is already building for this. Hundreds of billions in infrastructure spend through 2030. Stargate. Partnerships with Microsoft, Oracle, Nvidia. And cost per token keeps falling roughly 10x every 12 months for the same capability level. So usage explodes because it keeps getting cheaper. The pattern is the same one we saw with computing, internet, and mobile. What the power user does today, the average person does in six years. Right now you are the power user. Act like it.
0:46

Sam Altman shared a number that should change how you think about AI. Six and a half years ago, the heaviest AI user on the planet was an OpenAI employee. Using 100,000 tokens a month. That was considered insane at the time. The global average was basically zero. Today the global average is 100,000 tokens a month. What was insane is now normal. And the heaviest user at OpenAI right now? Hundreds of billions of tokens a month. Now here's where it gets wild. If the same pattern repeats, in another six and a half years the average person will use 500 billion tokens a month. That's a 5 million x increase from today. Think about what that means. → AI is not something you open once a day to ask a question anymore. It becomes always on. Running in the background across your work, education, personal life. → Agentic workflows, coding assistants, multi-step reasoning — that's what consumes billions of tokens. Not chatting. → OpenAI is already building for this. Hundreds of billions in infrastructure spend through 2030. Stargate. Partnerships with Microsoft, Oracle, Nvidia. And cost per token keeps falling roughly 10x every 12 months for the same capability level. So usage explodes because it keeps getting cheaper. The pattern is the same one we saw with computing, internet, and mobile. What the power user does today, the average person does in six years. Right now you are the power user. Act like it.

Vaibhav Sisinty

24,323 görüntüleme • 19 gün önce

GROK BOT IN GOD MODE - 20-agent run so you could finally see the thing everyone argues about wrong. 340 connections, one shared context bus, twenty specialists firing in parallel. and the uncomfortable point this whole picture exists to make: almost none of the intelligence lives in the agents. it lives in the arrows between them. take the same crew, same models, same prompts, same budget, and just redraw who talks to who. the output slides from way better than a single agent to way worse than one, and nothing moved except the diagram. so while everyone's busy debating Grok versus the next model, the people quietly winning stopped picking models and started drawing graphs. a supervisor over the fan-out, one job and one output per worker, a lone control agent that tells you the crew is even earning its cost. unglamorous plumbing that decides the whole result. Grok Bot just made spinning one of these up a single message. the diagram is the only hard part left now, and almost nobody is looking at it. i wrote the full wiring guide, every arrow, in the piece linked below.
0:27

GROK BOT IN GOD MODE - 20-agent run so you could finally see the thing everyone argues about wrong. 340 connections, one shared context bus, twenty specialists firing in parallel. and the uncomfortable point this whole picture exists to make: almost none of the intelligence lives in the agents. it lives in the arrows between them. take the same crew, same models, same prompts, same budget, and just redraw who talks to who. the output slides from way better than a single agent to way worse than one, and nothing moved except the diagram. so while everyone's busy debating Grok versus the next model, the people quietly winning stopped picking models and started drawing graphs. a supervisor over the fan-out, one job and one output per worker, a lone control agent that tells you the crew is even earning its cost. unglamorous plumbing that decides the whole result. Grok Bot just made spinning one of these up a single message. the diagram is the only hard part left now, and almost nobody is looking at it. i wrote the full wiring guide, every arrow, in the piece linked below.

Miraqle

162,496 görüntüleme • 7 gün önce

Here it is: The “glitch” The Los Angeles Times is admitting that, yes, they did the 2020: Tens of thousands of mail-in ballots were processed for only Mayor Karen Bass and socialist Nithya Raman, with none appearing for Spencer Pratt, because it was a “glitch” that lasted for “a minute.” “It was the result of a lag in an automated collection of the data, in which one data collection captured votes in a single batch for Bass and Raman, and then, about one minute later, the collection of the rest of that same batch of votes. Folks I spoke to also said there was no fraud. But again, there was no batch of votes without any Pratt votes. There was simply about a one-minute variation between the upload of Bass and Raman votes and Pratt votes on some media websites.”
2:13

Here it is: The “glitch” The Los Angeles Times is admitting that, yes, they did the 2020: Tens of thousands of mail-in ballots were processed for only Mayor Karen Bass and socialist Nithya Raman, with none appearing for Spencer Pratt, because it was a “glitch” that lasted for “a minute.” “It was the result of a lag in an automated collection of the data, in which one data collection captured votes in a single batch for Bass and Raman, and then, about one minute later, the collection of the rest of that same batch of votes. Folks I spoke to also said there was no fraud. But again, there was no batch of votes without any Pratt votes. There was simply about a one-minute variation between the upload of Bass and Raman votes and Pratt votes on some media websites.”

🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸

34,358 görüntüleme • 28 gün önce

Learn how to build an optimized LLM inference system from the ground up in our new short course, Efficiently Serving LLMs, built in collaboration with Predibase by Rubrik and taught by Travis Addair. Whether you're serving your own LLM or using a model hosting service, this course will give you a deep understanding of the optimizations required to efficiently serve many users at once. - Learn how LLMs generate text one token at a time, and how techniques like KV caching, continuous batching, and quantization speed things up and optimize memory usage for serving multiple users. - Benchmark the performance of these LLM optimizations to explore the trade-offs between quickly responding to an individual user’s request vs. serving many users at once. - Use techniques like low-rank adaptation (LoRA) to efficiently serve hundreds of unique, custom fine-tuned models on a single device, without sacrificing throughput. - Use Predibase's LoRAX framework to see optimization techniques in action on a real LLM server. Sign up here:
2:57

Learn how to build an optimized LLM inference system from the ground up in our new short course, Efficiently Serving LLMs, built in collaboration with Predibase by Rubrik and taught by Travis Addair. Whether you're serving your own LLM or using a model hosting service, this course will give you a deep understanding of the optimizations required to efficiently serve many users at once. - Learn how LLMs generate text one token at a time, and how techniques like KV caching, continuous batching, and quantization speed things up and optimize memory usage for serving multiple users. - Benchmark the performance of these LLM optimizations to explore the trade-offs between quickly responding to an individual user’s request vs. serving many users at once. - Use techniques like low-rank adaptation (LoRA) to efficiently serve hundreds of unique, custom fine-tuned models on a single device, without sacrificing throughput. - Use Predibase's LoRAX framework to see optimization techniques in action on a real LLM server. Sign up here:

Andrew Ng

104,727 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

watch anon! 27 billion parameter model dancing at 42 tokens a second on a used rtx 3060ti, that costs 200 dollars. consuming 159 watts. temp 62 degrees. pushing almost 100% on the gpu. 6.8 of 8 gigs used with a 128k context window loaded. and every one of those spikes is the model reasoning and firing tool calls. the model is bonsai 27b at 1 bit. PrismML took qwen 3.6 27b, and crushed it to 3.9 gigabytes, about a single sign bit per weight. it drops onto an 8gb rtx 3060 ti, an ampere card from 2020, and it doesn't just load, it serves, it holds the full 128k window, it runs a hermes agent for half an hour straight, it hits its own failures and recovers, it never once drops the loop. the absurd part is the power meter. that same 27b, in its normal quant 4, wants a 24gb card and nearly 17 gigs of weights. this is it at 3.9, doing agentic work at 160 watts, on the tier people call budget. the numbers are sitting right there on nvtop, not in a slide, not a claim, the meter reading while it works. so i keep landing on one question. the model is open, apache 2.0. the card is old and cheap. the whole thing runs offline. why is almost nobody actually running this. is it the hardware, the setup, or did nobody tell you a 27b fits on the card already in your closet.
0:26

watch anon! 27 billion parameter model dancing at 42 tokens a second on a used rtx 3060ti, that costs 200 dollars. consuming 159 watts. temp 62 degrees. pushing almost 100% on the gpu. 6.8 of 8 gigs used with a 128k context window loaded. and every one of those spikes is the model reasoning and firing tool calls. the model is bonsai 27b at 1 bit. PrismML took qwen 3.6 27b, and crushed it to 3.9 gigabytes, about a single sign bit per weight. it drops onto an 8gb rtx 3060 ti, an ampere card from 2020, and it doesn't just load, it serves, it holds the full 128k window, it runs a hermes agent for half an hour straight, it hits its own failures and recovers, it never once drops the loop. the absurd part is the power meter. that same 27b, in its normal quant 4, wants a 24gb card and nearly 17 gigs of weights. this is it at 3.9, doing agentic work at 160 watts, on the tier people call budget. the numbers are sitting right there on nvtop, not in a slide, not a claim, the meter reading while it works. so i keep landing on one question. the model is open, apache 2.0. the card is old and cheap. the whole thing runs offline. why is almost nobody actually running this. is it the hardware, the setup, or did nobody tell you a 27b fits on the card already in your closet.

Sudo su

23,225 görüntüleme • 28 gün önce