Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

Microsoft made 100B parameter models run on a single CPU. bitnet.cpp: The official inference framework for 1-bit LLMs. The math behind 1-bit LLMs is what makes them revolutionary. Traditional LLMs use 16-bit floating point weights. Every parameter is a number like 0.0023847 or -1.4729. When you run inference, you...

techNmak's profile picture

Tech with Mak

39,588 subscribers

23,036 views • 5 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & Technology
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

[VAE] by Hand ✍️ A Variational Auto Encoder (VAE) learns the structure (mean and variance) of hidden features and generates new data from the learned structure. In contrast, GANs only learn to generate new data to fool a discriminator; they may not necessarily know the underlying structure of the data. The International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) this year announced its first ever "Test of Time Award" to recognizes the VAE paper, published 10 years ago. This exercise demonstrates how to calculate a VAE by hand. [1] Given: ↳ Three training examples X1, X2, X3 ↳ Copy training examples to the bottom ↳ The purpose is to train the network to reconstruct the training examples. ↳ Since each target is a training example itself, we use the Greek word "auto" which means "self." This crucial step is what makes an autoencoder "auto." [2] Encoder: Layer 1 + ReLU ↳ Multiply inputs with weights and biases ↳ Apply ReLU, crossing out negative values (-1 -> 0) [3] Encoder: Mean and Variance ↳ Multiply features with two sets of weights and biases ↳ 🟩 The first set predicts the means (𝜇) of latent distributions ↳ 🟪 The second set predicts the standard deviation (𝜎) of latent distributions [4] Reparameterization Trick: Random Offset ↳ Sample epsilon ε from the normal distribution with mean = 0 and variance = 1. ↳ The purpose is to randomly pick a offset away from the mean. ↳ Multiply the standard deviation values with epsilon values. ↳ The purpose is to scale the offset by the standard deviation. [5] Reparameterization Trick: Mean + Offset ↳ Add the sampled offset to predicted mean ↳ The result are new parameters or features 🟨 as inputs to the Decoder. [6] Decoder: Layer 1 + ReLU ↳ Multiply input features with weights and biases ↳ Apply ReLU, crossing out negative values. Here, -4 is crossed out. [7] Decoder: Layer 2 ↳ Multiply features with weights and biases ↳ The output is Decoder's attempt to reconstruct the input data X from reparameterized distributions described by 𝜇 and 𝜎. [8]-[10] KL Divergence Loss [8] Loss Gradient: Mean 𝜇 ↳ We want 𝜇 to approach 0. ↳ A lot of math called SGVB simplifies the calculation of loss gradients to simply 𝜇 [9,10] Loss Gradient: Stdev 𝜎 ↳ We want 𝜎 to approach 1. ↳ A lot of math simplifies the calculation to 𝜎 - (1/ 𝜎) [11] Reconstruction Loss ↳ We want the reconstructed data Y (dark 🟧) to be the same as the input data X. ↳ Some math involving Mean Square Error simplifies the calculation to Y - X.
0:11

[VAE] by Hand ✍️ A Variational Auto Encoder (VAE) learns the structure (mean and variance) of hidden features and generates new data from the learned structure. In contrast, GANs only learn to generate new data to fool a discriminator; they may not necessarily know the underlying structure of the data. The International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) this year announced its first ever "Test of Time Award" to recognizes the VAE paper, published 10 years ago. This exercise demonstrates how to calculate a VAE by hand. [1] Given: ↳ Three training examples X1, X2, X3 ↳ Copy training examples to the bottom ↳ The purpose is to train the network to reconstruct the training examples. ↳ Since each target is a training example itself, we use the Greek word "auto" which means "self." This crucial step is what makes an autoencoder "auto." [2] Encoder: Layer 1 + ReLU ↳ Multiply inputs with weights and biases ↳ Apply ReLU, crossing out negative values (-1 -> 0) [3] Encoder: Mean and Variance ↳ Multiply features with two sets of weights and biases ↳ 🟩 The first set predicts the means (𝜇) of latent distributions ↳ 🟪 The second set predicts the standard deviation (𝜎) of latent distributions [4] Reparameterization Trick: Random Offset ↳ Sample epsilon ε from the normal distribution with mean = 0 and variance = 1. ↳ The purpose is to randomly pick a offset away from the mean. ↳ Multiply the standard deviation values with epsilon values. ↳ The purpose is to scale the offset by the standard deviation. [5] Reparameterization Trick: Mean + Offset ↳ Add the sampled offset to predicted mean ↳ The result are new parameters or features 🟨 as inputs to the Decoder. [6] Decoder: Layer 1 + ReLU ↳ Multiply input features with weights and biases ↳ Apply ReLU, crossing out negative values. Here, -4 is crossed out. [7] Decoder: Layer 2 ↳ Multiply features with weights and biases ↳ The output is Decoder's attempt to reconstruct the input data X from reparameterized distributions described by 𝜇 and 𝜎. [8]-[10] KL Divergence Loss [8] Loss Gradient: Mean 𝜇 ↳ We want 𝜇 to approach 0. ↳ A lot of math called SGVB simplifies the calculation of loss gradients to simply 𝜇 [9,10] Loss Gradient: Stdev 𝜎 ↳ We want 𝜎 to approach 1. ↳ A lot of math simplifies the calculation to 𝜎 - (1/ 𝜎) [11] Reconstruction Loss ↳ We want the reconstructed data Y (dark 🟧) to be the same as the input data X. ↳ Some math involving Mean Square Error simplifies the calculation to Y - X.

Tom Yeh

48,475 views • 2 years ago

Batch Normalization by hand ✍️ ~ 7 steps walkthrough below Batch normalization is common practice for improving training and achieving faster convergence. It sounds simple. But it is often misunderstood. 🤔 Does batch normalization involve trainable parameters, tunable hyper-parameters, or both? 🤔 Is batch normalization applied to inputs, features, weights, biases, or outputs? 🤔 How is batch normalization different from layer normalization? So I drew and calculated one entirely by hand. Goal: normalize a mini-batch of 4 examples to mean 0 and variance 1, then let the network scale it back. = 1. Given = A mini-batch of 4 training examples, each with 3 features. = 2. Linear layer = Let us multiply by the weights and add the biases. Batch norm sits after this, which answers the second question: what gets normalized is features, not inputs, weights or biases. = 3. ReLU = We apply the activation, and -2 becomes 0. Negative values are suppressed before any statistic is taken. = 4. Batch statistics = Let us compute the sum, mean, variance and standard deviation, one row at a time. A row is a feature and the four columns are the four examples, so every number here measures one feature against the rest of the batch. That is the "batch" in batch normalization, and it is exactly what layer normalization does not do. The statistics are rounded to whole numbers, which is what keeps the rest of the page doable in pen. = 5. Shift to mean 0 = We subtract the mean, in green. The four values in each feature now average to zero. = 6. Scale to variance 1 = Let us divide by the standard deviation, in orange. Each feature now has variance one, whatever scale it arrived at. = 7. Scale and shift = We multiply by a linear transformation and pass the result on. The diagonal and the last column are trainable, so having just forced every feature to mean 0 and variance 1, we hand the network the means to undo it. The outputs: Mean of each feature = [2, 1, 2] Std dev of each feature = [1, 1, 2] To the next layer = [2, -2, 2, 0], [-3, 3, 6, -3], [2, 0, 1, 2] The answers: 🤔 Both. The scale and shift are trainable, the statistics are not. Epsilon and the momentum on the running statistics are the hyper-parameters, and one mini-batch by hand needs neither. 🤔 Features, after the linear layer, not inputs, weights or biases. 🤔 Batch norm measures across the batch, one feature at a time. Layer norm measures across the features, one example at a time. 💾 Save this post!
0:17

Batch Normalization by hand ✍️ ~ 7 steps walkthrough below Batch normalization is common practice for improving training and achieving faster convergence. It sounds simple. But it is often misunderstood. 🤔 Does batch normalization involve trainable parameters, tunable hyper-parameters, or both? 🤔 Is batch normalization applied to inputs, features, weights, biases, or outputs? 🤔 How is batch normalization different from layer normalization? So I drew and calculated one entirely by hand. Goal: normalize a mini-batch of 4 examples to mean 0 and variance 1, then let the network scale it back. = 1. Given = A mini-batch of 4 training examples, each with 3 features. = 2. Linear layer = Let us multiply by the weights and add the biases. Batch norm sits after this, which answers the second question: what gets normalized is features, not inputs, weights or biases. = 3. ReLU = We apply the activation, and -2 becomes 0. Negative values are suppressed before any statistic is taken. = 4. Batch statistics = Let us compute the sum, mean, variance and standard deviation, one row at a time. A row is a feature and the four columns are the four examples, so every number here measures one feature against the rest of the batch. That is the "batch" in batch normalization, and it is exactly what layer normalization does not do. The statistics are rounded to whole numbers, which is what keeps the rest of the page doable in pen. = 5. Shift to mean 0 = We subtract the mean, in green. The four values in each feature now average to zero. = 6. Scale to variance 1 = Let us divide by the standard deviation, in orange. Each feature now has variance one, whatever scale it arrived at. = 7. Scale and shift = We multiply by a linear transformation and pass the result on. The diagonal and the last column are trainable, so having just forced every feature to mean 0 and variance 1, we hand the network the means to undo it. The outputs: Mean of each feature = [2, 1, 2] Std dev of each feature = [1, 1, 2] To the next layer = [2, -2, 2, 0], [-3, 3, 6, -3], [2, 0, 1, 2] The answers: 🤔 Both. The scale and shift are trainable, the statistics are not. Epsilon and the momentum on the running statistics are the hyper-parameters, and one mini-batch by hand needs neither. 🤔 Features, after the linear layer, not inputs, weights or biases. 🤔 Batch norm measures across the batch, one feature at a time. Layer norm measures across the features, one example at a time. 💾 Save this post!

Tom Yeh

20,848 views • 1 month ago

THAT $70 "RUN YOUR OWN LLMS" PI KIT CAN'T RUN A SINGLE LLM. IT'S A VISION CHIP WITH NO RAM. that clip sells a raspberry pi 5 in a slick case with an ai accelerator and the caption "your own llms." clean build, fun kit. the claim is where it breaks. the fine print: the popular $70 pi ai kit uses a hailo-8l, 13 tops. it's built for vision, object detection and image processing, and it has no memory of its own. so it cannot run large language models. full stop the board that actually can is a different one: the newer ai hat+ 2, hailo-10h, 40 tops, with 8gb of dedicated ram. that's $130, not $70 and even that runs only tiny models. llama 3.2 at 1b, qwen 2.5 at 1.5b, deepseek r1 at 1.5b. edge llms live in the 1-7b range, against cloud models at 500b to 2 trillion so the honest pitch: for $130 you can run a very small language model on a pi, slowly, as a fun learning project. that's real and it's cool. "your own llms" on a $70 vision kit is not. why this keeps happening: "ai kit" and a big "tops" number sell. tops sounds like intelligence. but tops measures vision-style math, not whether the chip has the memory to hold a language model. the spec that matters for llms is ram, and the cheap kit has none. the honest caveats, both ways: the $70 kit is genuinely great, just at vision. cameras, object detection, that's its job the $130 hat really does run small llms locally, which a pi couldn't do at all two years ago. that's progress "small" is the load-bearing word. don't expect gpt at home on a pi the takeaway: before you buy a kit because the caption says llm, check two numbers. not the tops. the ram, and the size of the model it can actually load. no 70-dollar miracle, no gpt in a pi case, no tops number that means what you think. save this before you buy the wrong kit for the word on the box.
0:17

THAT $70 "RUN YOUR OWN LLMS" PI KIT CAN'T RUN A SINGLE LLM. IT'S A VISION CHIP WITH NO RAM. that clip sells a raspberry pi 5 in a slick case with an ai accelerator and the caption "your own llms." clean build, fun kit. the claim is where it breaks. the fine print: the popular $70 pi ai kit uses a hailo-8l, 13 tops. it's built for vision, object detection and image processing, and it has no memory of its own. so it cannot run large language models. full stop the board that actually can is a different one: the newer ai hat+ 2, hailo-10h, 40 tops, with 8gb of dedicated ram. that's $130, not $70 and even that runs only tiny models. llama 3.2 at 1b, qwen 2.5 at 1.5b, deepseek r1 at 1.5b. edge llms live in the 1-7b range, against cloud models at 500b to 2 trillion so the honest pitch: for $130 you can run a very small language model on a pi, slowly, as a fun learning project. that's real and it's cool. "your own llms" on a $70 vision kit is not. why this keeps happening: "ai kit" and a big "tops" number sell. tops sounds like intelligence. but tops measures vision-style math, not whether the chip has the memory to hold a language model. the spec that matters for llms is ram, and the cheap kit has none. the honest caveats, both ways: the $70 kit is genuinely great, just at vision. cameras, object detection, that's its job the $130 hat really does run small llms locally, which a pi couldn't do at all two years ago. that's progress "small" is the load-bearing word. don't expect gpt at home on a pi the takeaway: before you buy a kit because the caption says llm, check two numbers. not the tops. the ram, and the size of the model it can actually load. no 70-dollar miracle, no gpt in a pi case, no tops number that means what you think. save this before you buy the wrong kit for the word on the box.

RetroChainer

11,100 views • 1 month ago

[Backpropagation] by Hand✍️ [1] Forward Pass ↳ Given a multi layer perceptron (3 levels), an input vector X, predictions Y^{Pred} = [0.5, 0.5, 0], and ground truth label Y^{Target} = [0, 1, 0]. [2] Backpropagation ↳ Insert cells to hold our calculations. [3] Layer 3 - Softmax (blue) ↳ Calculate ∂L / ∂z3 directly using the simple equation: Y^{Pred} - Y^{Target} = [0.5, -0.5, 0]. ↳ This simple equation is the benefit of using Softmax and Cross Entropy Loss together. [4] Layer 3 - Weights (orange) & Biases (black) ↳ Calculate ∂L / ∂W3 and ∂L / ∂b3 by multiplying ∂L / ∂z3 and [ a2 | 1 ]. [5] Layer 2 - Activations (green) ↳ Calculate ∂L / ∂a2 by multiplying ∂L / ∂z3 and W3. [6] Layer 2 - ReLU (blue) ↳ Calculate ∂L / ∂z2 by multiplying ∂L / ∂a2 with 1 for positive values and 0 otherwise. [7] Layer 2 - Weights (orange) & Biases (black) ↳ Calculate ∂L / ∂W2 and ∂L / ∂b2 by multiplying ∂L / ∂z2 and [ a1 | 1 ]. [8] Layer 1 - Activations (green) ↳ Calculate ∂L / ∂a1 by multiplying ∂L / ∂z2 and W2. [9] Layer 1 - ReLU (blue) ↳ Calculate ∂L / ∂z1 by multiplying ∂L / ∂a1 with 1 for positive values and 0 otherwise. [10] Layer 1 - Weights (orange) & Biases (black) ↳ Calculate ∂L / ∂W1 and ∂L / ∂b1 by multiplying ∂L / ∂z1 and [ x | 1 ]. [11] Gradient Descent ↳ Update weights and biases (typically a learning rate is applied here). 💡 Matrix Multiplication is All You Need: Just like in the forward pass, backpropagation is all about matrix multiplications. You can definitely do everything by hand as I demonstrated in this exercise, albeit slow and imperfect. This is why GPU's ability to multiply matrices efficiently plays such an important role in the deep learning evolution. This is why NVIDIA is now close to $1 trillion in valuation. 💡Exploding Gradients: We can already see the gradients are getting larger as we back-propagate up, even in this simple 3-layer network. This motivates using methods like skip connections to handle exploding (or diminishing) gradients as in the ResNet. I did the calculations entirely by hand. Please let me know if you spot any error or have any questions!
0:11

[Backpropagation] by Hand✍️ [1] Forward Pass ↳ Given a multi layer perceptron (3 levels), an input vector X, predictions Y^{Pred} = [0.5, 0.5, 0], and ground truth label Y^{Target} = [0, 1, 0]. [2] Backpropagation ↳ Insert cells to hold our calculations. [3] Layer 3 - Softmax (blue) ↳ Calculate ∂L / ∂z3 directly using the simple equation: Y^{Pred} - Y^{Target} = [0.5, -0.5, 0]. ↳ This simple equation is the benefit of using Softmax and Cross Entropy Loss together. [4] Layer 3 - Weights (orange) & Biases (black) ↳ Calculate ∂L / ∂W3 and ∂L / ∂b3 by multiplying ∂L / ∂z3 and [ a2 | 1 ]. [5] Layer 2 - Activations (green) ↳ Calculate ∂L / ∂a2 by multiplying ∂L / ∂z3 and W3. [6] Layer 2 - ReLU (blue) ↳ Calculate ∂L / ∂z2 by multiplying ∂L / ∂a2 with 1 for positive values and 0 otherwise. [7] Layer 2 - Weights (orange) & Biases (black) ↳ Calculate ∂L / ∂W2 and ∂L / ∂b2 by multiplying ∂L / ∂z2 and [ a1 | 1 ]. [8] Layer 1 - Activations (green) ↳ Calculate ∂L / ∂a1 by multiplying ∂L / ∂z2 and W2. [9] Layer 1 - ReLU (blue) ↳ Calculate ∂L / ∂z1 by multiplying ∂L / ∂a1 with 1 for positive values and 0 otherwise. [10] Layer 1 - Weights (orange) & Biases (black) ↳ Calculate ∂L / ∂W1 and ∂L / ∂b1 by multiplying ∂L / ∂z1 and [ x | 1 ]. [11] Gradient Descent ↳ Update weights and biases (typically a learning rate is applied here). 💡 Matrix Multiplication is All You Need: Just like in the forward pass, backpropagation is all about matrix multiplications. You can definitely do everything by hand as I demonstrated in this exercise, albeit slow and imperfect. This is why GPU's ability to multiply matrices efficiently plays such an important role in the deep learning evolution. This is why NVIDIA is now close to $1 trillion in valuation. 💡Exploding Gradients: We can already see the gradients are getting larger as we back-propagate up, even in this simple 3-layer network. This motivates using methods like skip connections to handle exploding (or diminishing) gradients as in the ResNet. I did the calculations entirely by hand. Please let me know if you spot any error or have any questions!

Tom Yeh

64,645 views • 2 years ago

[Discrete Fourier Transform] by Hand ✍️ In signal processing, the Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) is no doubt the most important method. But the math involved is extremely complex, literally, involving a summation over a complex number term e^(-iwt). I developed this exercise to demonstrate that underneath such complexity, DFT is just a series of matrix multiplications you can calculate by hand. ✍️ Once you see that, it should not surprise you that a deep neural network, which is also a series of matrix multiplications, with activation functions in-between, can learn to perform DFT to process and analyze signals so effectively. How does DFT work? [1] Given ↳ Signals A, B, and C in the 🟧 frequency domain: ◦ A = cos(w) + 2cos(2w) ◦ B = cos(w) + cos(3w) + cos(4w) ◦ C = -cos(2w) + cos(3w) ◦ Each signal is a weighed sum of four cosine waves at frequencies 1w, 2w, 3w, and 4w. ◦ We will apply Inverse DFT to convert the signals to time domain representations, and then demonstrate DFT can convert back to their original frequency domain representations. ↳ Signal X in the 🟩 time domain. X is sampled at 10 time points 1t, 2t, …, 10t: ◦ X = [-2.5, -1.8, 3, -0.7, -1.0, -0.7, 3, -1.8, -2.5, 5] ◦ Suppose X is also a weighted sum of the same four cosine waves, but we don’t already know their weights. We will apply DFT to discover them. [2] 🟧 Frequency Matrix (F) ↳ Write the coefficients of A, B, C as a matrix F. Each signal is a row. Each frequency is a column. ↳ A → [1, 2, 0, 0] ↳ B → [1, 0, 1, 1] ↳ C → [0, 1-, 1, 0] [3] Cosine → Discrete ↳ Sample from the continuous cosine waves at discrete time points 1t, 2t, 3t, to 10t. [4] Cosine Matrix (W) ↳ Write the samples as a matrix, Each frequency is a row. Each time point is a column. [5] Inverse DFT: 🟧 Frequency → 🟩 Time ↳ Multiply the frequency matrix F and the cosine matrix W. ↳ The meaning of this multiplication is to linearly combine the four cosine waves (rows in W) into time-domain signals (rows in T) using the weights specified in F. ↳ The result is matrix T, which are signals A, B, C converted to the time domain. Each signal is a row. Each time point is a column. [6] Transpose ↳ Transpose T, converting each signal’s time domain representation from a row to a column. [7] DFT: 🟩 Time → 🟧 Frequency ↳ Multiply the cosine matrix W with the transpose of matrix T. ↳ The purpose of this multiplication is to take a dot-product between each time-domain signal (columns in the transpose of T) and each cosine wave (rows in W), which has the effect of projecting the signal onto a cosine wave to determine how much they are correlated. Zero means not correlated at all. ↳ The result is an intermediate version of the “recovered” frequency matrix where each column corresponds to a signal and each row corresponds to a frequency. ↳ Compared to the original frequency matrix F, this intermediate matrix has non-zero weights in the correct places, but scaled up by a factor of 5 (n/2, n=10). For example, signal A, originally [1,2,0,0], is recovered at [5,10,0,0]. [8] Scale ↳ Multiply each value by 2/n = 1/5 to scale down the intermediate matrix to match the magnitude of the original frequency matrix F. [9] Transpose ↳ Transpose the recovered frequency matrix back to the same orientation of the original frequency matrix F. ↳ Like magic 🪄, the result is identical to the original F, which means DFT successfully recovered the frequency components of signals A, B, C. [10] Apply DFT to X: 🟩 Time → 🟧 Frequency ↳ Now that we have some confidence in DFT’s ability to recover frequency components, we apply DFT to X’s time-domain representation by multiplying W with X. ↳ The result is the an intermediate matrix. [11] Scale ↳ Similarly, we scale down by a factor of 5 to obtain the recovered frequency components of X (a column). [12] Transpose ↳ Similarly, we transpose the recovered column to row to match the orientation of the frequency matrix. ↳ Using the coefficients [0,0,3,2], we can write the equation of X as 3cos(3w) + 2cos(4w). Notes: I hope this by hand exercise helps you understand the essence of DFT. But there is more technical details, such as: • Sine: The complete DFT math also includes sine waves that follow a similar calculation process. • Phase: Here, we assume all the cosine waves are aligned at the origin, namely, phase is 0. If a phase p is added, for example, cos(w+p), we will need to calculate the sine component and use their ratio to figure out what p is. • Magnitude: If phase is not zero, the magnitude will need to be calculated by combining both cosine and sine terms.
0:12

[Discrete Fourier Transform] by Hand ✍️ In signal processing, the Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) is no doubt the most important method. But the math involved is extremely complex, literally, involving a summation over a complex number term e^(-iwt). I developed this exercise to demonstrate that underneath such complexity, DFT is just a series of matrix multiplications you can calculate by hand. ✍️ Once you see that, it should not surprise you that a deep neural network, which is also a series of matrix multiplications, with activation functions in-between, can learn to perform DFT to process and analyze signals so effectively. How does DFT work? [1] Given ↳ Signals A, B, and C in the 🟧 frequency domain: ◦ A = cos(w) + 2cos(2w) ◦ B = cos(w) + cos(3w) + cos(4w) ◦ C = -cos(2w) + cos(3w) ◦ Each signal is a weighed sum of four cosine waves at frequencies 1w, 2w, 3w, and 4w. ◦ We will apply Inverse DFT to convert the signals to time domain representations, and then demonstrate DFT can convert back to their original frequency domain representations. ↳ Signal X in the 🟩 time domain. X is sampled at 10 time points 1t, 2t, …, 10t: ◦ X = [-2.5, -1.8, 3, -0.7, -1.0, -0.7, 3, -1.8, -2.5, 5] ◦ Suppose X is also a weighted sum of the same four cosine waves, but we don’t already know their weights. We will apply DFT to discover them. [2] 🟧 Frequency Matrix (F) ↳ Write the coefficients of A, B, C as a matrix F. Each signal is a row. Each frequency is a column. ↳ A → [1, 2, 0, 0] ↳ B → [1, 0, 1, 1] ↳ C → [0, 1-, 1, 0] [3] Cosine → Discrete ↳ Sample from the continuous cosine waves at discrete time points 1t, 2t, 3t, to 10t. [4] Cosine Matrix (W) ↳ Write the samples as a matrix, Each frequency is a row. Each time point is a column. [5] Inverse DFT: 🟧 Frequency → 🟩 Time ↳ Multiply the frequency matrix F and the cosine matrix W. ↳ The meaning of this multiplication is to linearly combine the four cosine waves (rows in W) into time-domain signals (rows in T) using the weights specified in F. ↳ The result is matrix T, which are signals A, B, C converted to the time domain. Each signal is a row. Each time point is a column. [6] Transpose ↳ Transpose T, converting each signal’s time domain representation from a row to a column. [7] DFT: 🟩 Time → 🟧 Frequency ↳ Multiply the cosine matrix W with the transpose of matrix T. ↳ The purpose of this multiplication is to take a dot-product between each time-domain signal (columns in the transpose of T) and each cosine wave (rows in W), which has the effect of projecting the signal onto a cosine wave to determine how much they are correlated. Zero means not correlated at all. ↳ The result is an intermediate version of the “recovered” frequency matrix where each column corresponds to a signal and each row corresponds to a frequency. ↳ Compared to the original frequency matrix F, this intermediate matrix has non-zero weights in the correct places, but scaled up by a factor of 5 (n/2, n=10). For example, signal A, originally [1,2,0,0], is recovered at [5,10,0,0]. [8] Scale ↳ Multiply each value by 2/n = 1/5 to scale down the intermediate matrix to match the magnitude of the original frequency matrix F. [9] Transpose ↳ Transpose the recovered frequency matrix back to the same orientation of the original frequency matrix F. ↳ Like magic 🪄, the result is identical to the original F, which means DFT successfully recovered the frequency components of signals A, B, C. [10] Apply DFT to X: 🟩 Time → 🟧 Frequency ↳ Now that we have some confidence in DFT’s ability to recover frequency components, we apply DFT to X’s time-domain representation by multiplying W with X. ↳ The result is the an intermediate matrix. [11] Scale ↳ Similarly, we scale down by a factor of 5 to obtain the recovered frequency components of X (a column). [12] Transpose ↳ Similarly, we transpose the recovered column to row to match the orientation of the frequency matrix. ↳ Using the coefficients [0,0,3,2], we can write the equation of X as 3cos(3w) + 2cos(4w). Notes: I hope this by hand exercise helps you understand the essence of DFT. But there is more technical details, such as: • Sine: The complete DFT math also includes sine waves that follow a similar calculation process. • Phase: Here, we assume all the cosine waves are aligned at the origin, namely, phase is 0. If a phase p is added, for example, cos(w+p), we will need to calculate the sine component and use their ratio to figure out what p is. • Magnitude: If phase is not zero, the magnitude will need to be calculated by combining both cosine and sine terms.

Tom Yeh

116,622 views • 2 years ago

MLP in PyTorch by hand ✍️ ~ 7 steps walkthrough below Goal: fill in every blank in the PyTorch code to build a multi-layer perceptron. 1. Given Let us start with a code template on the left and the network it is supposed to build on the right. Every blank in the code can be worked out from the picture. 2. Linear layer We count: 3 features in, 4 features out. So the weight matrix is 4 by 3. There is an extra column for the biases, which means bias = T. 3. ReLU Let us apply the activation. ReLU crosses out the negatives, so -1 becomes 0. 4. Linear layer The input size is 4, because that is what the previous layer put out. The output size is 2. A 2 by 4 weight matrix, and this time no extra column, so bias = F. 5. ReLU We cross out the negatives again. 6. Linear layer Two features in, five out. A 5 by 2 weight matrix, with a bias column, so bias = T. 7. Sigmoid Let us finish. Sigmoid squashes the raw scores (3, 0, -2, 5, -5) into probabilities between 0 and 1. You have just implemented a three-layer deep neural network by hand. ✍️ == Story == Three years ago I gave this exercise to my students, to connect the code to the math. They found it odd. Every other AI course they were taking lived inside a Jupyter notebook, and here I was handing out paper. Three years later, my colleagues are the ones rushing to move their materials to paper. The exercise has not changed. Paper still asks the one thing a notebook lets you skip: do you actually understand what the code is doing? If you can tell me why the weight matrix is 4 by 3, and why bias is F on the second layer, you understand nn.Linear better than someone who has been copy-pasting it for a year. 💾 Save this post! #AIbyHand #PyTorch #DeepLearning
0:14

MLP in PyTorch by hand ✍️ ~ 7 steps walkthrough below Goal: fill in every blank in the PyTorch code to build a multi-layer perceptron. 1. Given Let us start with a code template on the left and the network it is supposed to build on the right. Every blank in the code can be worked out from the picture. 2. Linear layer We count: 3 features in, 4 features out. So the weight matrix is 4 by 3. There is an extra column for the biases, which means bias = T. 3. ReLU Let us apply the activation. ReLU crosses out the negatives, so -1 becomes 0. 4. Linear layer The input size is 4, because that is what the previous layer put out. The output size is 2. A 2 by 4 weight matrix, and this time no extra column, so bias = F. 5. ReLU We cross out the negatives again. 6. Linear layer Two features in, five out. A 5 by 2 weight matrix, with a bias column, so bias = T. 7. Sigmoid Let us finish. Sigmoid squashes the raw scores (3, 0, -2, 5, -5) into probabilities between 0 and 1. You have just implemented a three-layer deep neural network by hand. ✍️ == Story == Three years ago I gave this exercise to my students, to connect the code to the math. They found it odd. Every other AI course they were taking lived inside a Jupyter notebook, and here I was handing out paper. Three years later, my colleagues are the ones rushing to move their materials to paper. The exercise has not changed. Paper still asks the one thing a notebook lets you skip: do you actually understand what the code is doing? If you can tell me why the weight matrix is 4 by 3, and why bias is F on the second layer, you understand nn.Linear better than someone who has been copy-pasting it for a year. 💾 Save this post! #AIbyHand #PyTorch #DeepLearning

Tom Yeh

13,318 views • 2 months ago

🚀 A better, faster co-folding-based binding affinity model. Predicting how tightly a drug candidate binds to its target is critical in drug discovery. It also requires massive computational resources. State-of-the-art models can take 20 seconds to a minute per prediction, impractical for the demands of large scale early-stage programs . 💠 Today, Recursion’s Valence Labs is releasing Nesso-1: the fastest open-source co-folding-based binding affinity model available. At 1 second per prediction, it’s roughly 20x faster than our previous collaboration on Boltz-2 while matching or surpassing its accuracy across public and internal benchmarks. By leveraging NVIDIA Healthcare cuEquivariance, we’ve been able to further accelerate both training and inference by an additional 2-3x. We look forward to continuing to improve Nesso-1 in collaboration with NVIDIA. Weights and code are fully open-sourced. The core architectural ideas behind Nesso-1 build on the insight that coarse-grained co-folding representations can match full-atom models for affinity prediction at a fraction of the cost. Nesso-1 is the first open implementation of this approach with no proprietary dependencies, trained entirely on public data, built to be reproducible and extensible. We’re already using Nesso-1 internally in active drug discovery programs. Fast, reliable affinity prediction at scale is foundational to the kind of autonomous design loops that define our vision for Autonomous Precision Design and Nesso-1 is a meaningful step toward that. 👉 Report: 👉 Github: 👉 HF:
0:16

🚀 A better, faster co-folding-based binding affinity model. Predicting how tightly a drug candidate binds to its target is critical in drug discovery. It also requires massive computational resources. State-of-the-art models can take 20 seconds to a minute per prediction, impractical for the demands of large scale early-stage programs . 💠 Today, Recursion’s Valence Labs is releasing Nesso-1: the fastest open-source co-folding-based binding affinity model available. At 1 second per prediction, it’s roughly 20x faster than our previous collaboration on Boltz-2 while matching or surpassing its accuracy across public and internal benchmarks. By leveraging NVIDIA Healthcare cuEquivariance, we’ve been able to further accelerate both training and inference by an additional 2-3x. We look forward to continuing to improve Nesso-1 in collaboration with NVIDIA. Weights and code are fully open-sourced. The core architectural ideas behind Nesso-1 build on the insight that coarse-grained co-folding representations can match full-atom models for affinity prediction at a fraction of the cost. Nesso-1 is the first open implementation of this approach with no proprietary dependencies, trained entirely on public data, built to be reproducible and extensible. We’re already using Nesso-1 internally in active drug discovery programs. Fast, reliable affinity prediction at scale is foundational to the kind of autonomous design loops that define our vision for Autonomous Precision Design and Nesso-1 is a meaningful step toward that. 👉 Report: 👉 Github: 👉 HF:

Recursion

156,802 views • 1 month ago

90% of "AI developers" just download pre packaged GGUF files from Hugging Face, hit run, and call it a day. The top 10% know how to pull the raw safetensors, run the math, and quantize massive models into Q4_K_M themselves. If you think llama.cpp can only execute models, you’re missing the best part of the open source ecosystem. It’s a high performance optimization suite. Manually stripping 69% of the VRAM footprint off a brand new model architecture is where real infrastructure value is made. If you want to actually master local inference and deploy models like Google’s massive Gemma 4 12B it on consumer NVIDIA hardware using llama.cpp, you need to learn this pipeline. Let's build it. I just took the raw 22.7 GB Gemma 4 baseline and manually compressed it down to a 7.02 GB Q4_K_M GGUF artifact using llama.cpp. That is a 69% reduction in footprint. No quality loss. No VRAM bottlenecks. Just native, hardware accelerated C++ inference running a full 2,50,000 token context window on a dual NVIDIA Tesla T4 setup. Stop melting your VRAM on unoptimized weights and stop relying on other people's pipelines. Own your stack. I mapped this entire architecture from dynamic binary fetching to raw quantization and real time GPU streaming into a single, bulletproof notebook. Notebook link is in the comments below. Bookmark this blueprint for your next deployment and tell me which quantization works best for your workflow and model.
0:19

90% of "AI developers" just download pre packaged GGUF files from Hugging Face, hit run, and call it a day. The top 10% know how to pull the raw safetensors, run the math, and quantize massive models into Q4_K_M themselves. If you think llama.cpp can only execute models, you’re missing the best part of the open source ecosystem. It’s a high performance optimization suite. Manually stripping 69% of the VRAM footprint off a brand new model architecture is where real infrastructure value is made. If you want to actually master local inference and deploy models like Google’s massive Gemma 4 12B it on consumer NVIDIA hardware using llama.cpp, you need to learn this pipeline. Let's build it. I just took the raw 22.7 GB Gemma 4 baseline and manually compressed it down to a 7.02 GB Q4_K_M GGUF artifact using llama.cpp. That is a 69% reduction in footprint. No quality loss. No VRAM bottlenecks. Just native, hardware accelerated C++ inference running a full 2,50,000 token context window on a dual NVIDIA Tesla T4 setup. Stop melting your VRAM on unoptimized weights and stop relying on other people's pipelines. Own your stack. I mapped this entire architecture from dynamic binary fetching to raw quantization and real time GPU streaming into a single, bulletproof notebook. Notebook link is in the comments below. Bookmark this blueprint for your next deployment and tell me which quantization works best for your workflow and model.

Alok

62,631 views • 2 months ago

You don't need a GPU for fast studio grade voice cloning anymore. Qwen3 TTS (1.7B Q4_K_M) + mainline llama.cpp is officially the fastest way to generate zero shot voice clones using 100% pure CPU execution. Following up on my last post where we ran the Q8 model on a GPU, we just took local C++ voice synthesis a massive step further. The open source community quantized Alibaba's SOTA Qwen3 TTS model down to Q4_K_M GGUF, completely freeing local audio pipelines from dedicated graphics hardware. Here is the real world benchmark and hardware breakdown of running SOTA voice cloning on CPU: # Architecture & Model Setup Using Qwen3-TTS-12Hz-1.7B-Base-Q4_K_M.gguf paired with the 8 bit multimodal projector (mmproj-Q8_0.gguf), llama.cpp executes the entire pipeline in pure C++. No PyTorch, no CUDA dependencies, and no VRAM bottlenecks. # Real-World Memory Footprint - Baseline RAM: 1.6 GB system idle. - Peak Generation RAM: 8 GB RAM during active voice synthesis. - Requirement: Any basic machine with at least 8 GB of system RAM can run this easily. # Real World CPU Benchmarks - Google Colab Free Tier (Throttled 2 Core CPU): Synthesizes a 5 sec studio quality audio clip (~8 words) in 45 seconds. - Modern Consumer CPU (Intel i5/i7 13th/14th Gen or AMD Ryzen 7000/9000): generation should drop to 5 to 20 seconds (nearly 1:1 real-time generation speed!). # Zero Shot Voice Cloning Quality Pass any 5 to 20 second .wav audio sample to the C++ engine using the --tts-speaker-file flag. It yields clean, natural sounding cloned speech with virtually zero quality loss compared to unquantized FP16 weights. To make testing seamless, I built an updated zero config Google Colab notebook. It pulls the official pre built llama.cpp CPU binaries (zero compilation time!) launches a live Gradio web app right in your browser. Record a 5 second clip from your mic (or drop a .mp3, .wav file), type text, and generate cloned audio on CPU. Native C++ audio models are making edge based, offline AI voice agents a reality. Links to the free Q4 CPU Colab notebook and the Q4_K_M GGUF HuggingFace repository are in the replies below! Which models have you been running on your CPUs? What CPU hardware are you using for local inference?
0:16

You don't need a GPU for fast studio grade voice cloning anymore. Qwen3 TTS (1.7B Q4_K_M) + mainline llama.cpp is officially the fastest way to generate zero shot voice clones using 100% pure CPU execution. Following up on my last post where we ran the Q8 model on a GPU, we just took local C++ voice synthesis a massive step further. The open source community quantized Alibaba's SOTA Qwen3 TTS model down to Q4_K_M GGUF, completely freeing local audio pipelines from dedicated graphics hardware. Here is the real world benchmark and hardware breakdown of running SOTA voice cloning on CPU: # Architecture & Model Setup Using Qwen3-TTS-12Hz-1.7B-Base-Q4_K_M.gguf paired with the 8 bit multimodal projector (mmproj-Q8_0.gguf), llama.cpp executes the entire pipeline in pure C++. No PyTorch, no CUDA dependencies, and no VRAM bottlenecks. # Real-World Memory Footprint - Baseline RAM: 1.6 GB system idle. - Peak Generation RAM: 8 GB RAM during active voice synthesis. - Requirement: Any basic machine with at least 8 GB of system RAM can run this easily. # Real World CPU Benchmarks - Google Colab Free Tier (Throttled 2 Core CPU): Synthesizes a 5 sec studio quality audio clip (~8 words) in 45 seconds. - Modern Consumer CPU (Intel i5/i7 13th/14th Gen or AMD Ryzen 7000/9000): generation should drop to 5 to 20 seconds (nearly 1:1 real-time generation speed!). # Zero Shot Voice Cloning Quality Pass any 5 to 20 second .wav audio sample to the C++ engine using the --tts-speaker-file flag. It yields clean, natural sounding cloned speech with virtually zero quality loss compared to unquantized FP16 weights. To make testing seamless, I built an updated zero config Google Colab notebook. It pulls the official pre built llama.cpp CPU binaries (zero compilation time!) launches a live Gradio web app right in your browser. Record a 5 second clip from your mic (or drop a .mp3, .wav file), type text, and generate cloned audio on CPU. Native C++ audio models are making edge based, offline AI voice agents a reality. Links to the free Q4 CPU Colab notebook and the Q4_K_M GGUF HuggingFace repository are in the replies below! Which models have you been running on your CPUs? What CPU hardware are you using for local inference?

Alok

103,956 views • 1 month ago

look what a single consumer GPU just built. gave Qwen3.5-35B-A3B one prompt: build a cloud GPU marketplace with pricing cards, deploy templates, and a benchmark leaderboard. it planned the layout, wrote the animations, populated the data, and served it. one shot. one HTML file. then i told it to iterate. split the hero, add a floating GPU with neural network animation. glassmorphism on the cards. done. done. done. three rounds, no confusion, no regressions. 4-bit quantized. 19.7 GB. single RTX 3090. full coding agent claude code harness running on localhost. no API calls leaving my machine. no subscription. no rate limits. earlier today i pointed it at my own production website. it curled the HTML, found every broken link, and told me "pretty shell, empty core. would not recommend." then built a better version from scratch. local inference stops being a demo when you actually steer it. the models are there. they understand intent. but you have to meet them halfway with good prompts, clear context, and real project structure. that's the skill gap now. not the models. the steering. more experiments coming. i genuinely cannot stop playing with this thing.
0:33

look what a single consumer GPU just built. gave Qwen3.5-35B-A3B one prompt: build a cloud GPU marketplace with pricing cards, deploy templates, and a benchmark leaderboard. it planned the layout, wrote the animations, populated the data, and served it. one shot. one HTML file. then i told it to iterate. split the hero, add a floating GPU with neural network animation. glassmorphism on the cards. done. done. done. three rounds, no confusion, no regressions. 4-bit quantized. 19.7 GB. single RTX 3090. full coding agent claude code harness running on localhost. no API calls leaving my machine. no subscription. no rate limits. earlier today i pointed it at my own production website. it curled the HTML, found every broken link, and told me "pretty shell, empty core. would not recommend." then built a better version from scratch. local inference stops being a demo when you actually steer it. the models are there. they understand intent. but you have to meet them halfway with good prompts, clear context, and real project structure. that's the skill gap now. not the models. the steering. more experiments coming. i genuinely cannot stop playing with this thing.

Sudo su

37,201 views • 6 months ago

I told you to claim your free 16GB NVIDIA GPU for learning Local LLMs. Now I’m going to show you how to double its inference speed without touching the hardware. Google Colab gives you an enterprise grade NVIDIA Tesla T4 GPU for free, roughly 4 hours every single day. It is the absolute perfect sandbox for learning AI engineering, testing inference flags, and pushing massive context windows. The local AI timeline is moving way too fast. If you aren't using Multi Token Prediction (MTP) yet, you are leaving massive performance on the table. I just pushed DeepMind’s Gemma 4 26B to 64.9 t/s on this exact free tier. Let's look at the raw benchmark data running on an Ubuntu Linux environment with the latest compiled llama.cpp binaries and quantized GGUFs from Unsloth via HuggingFace: # Qwen 3.5 9B (Dense): Base: [ Prompt: 626.7 t/s | Generation: 21.0 t/s ] With MTP: [ Prompt: 539.1 t/s | Generation: 24.8 t/s ] # Gemma 4 26B QAT (MoE): Base: [ Prompt: 634.2 t/s | Generation: 48.3 t/s ] With MTP: [ Prompt: 572.1 t/s | Generation: 64.9 t/s ] If you are paying attention, this single Colab notebook reveals 3 massive observations about the current state of local LLMs: # 1. The MTP Speedup (Software Overclocking) Standard autoregressive decoding guesses one token at a time. MTP acts like a highly optimized, built in speculative decoder. It predicts multiple future tokens at once and the main model verifies them in parallel. The result? Zero accuracy loss and a massive throughput increase. Gemma jumped from 48 to 65 t/s just by flipping a flag. # 2. The MoE Paradox (Bigger is Faster) How does a 26B parameter model absolutely destroy a 9B model in raw speed on the exact same hardware? Architecture. Qwen 3.5 9B is a dense model. it activates all 9 billion parameters for every single token. Gemma 4 26B is a Mixture of Experts (MoE) model. It routes data efficiently, activating only 4B parameters per token. You get the reasoning capabilities of a 26B model with the compute cost of a 4B model. 3. Thinking Efficiency When I ran the exact same complex prompt on both models, the larger MoE spent significantly fewer "thinking" tokens to arrive at the correct answer. A smarter model doesn't just give better answers; it gets to the point faster, saving you compute cycles and preserving your context window. # Want to run this yourself? Here are the exact llama.cpp CLI commands. For Qwen (MTP is baked into the main model): ./llama-cli -m Qwen3.5-9B-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -p "Explain quantum computing." -n 2000 -c 8000 -ngl 99 -fa on --spec-type draft-mtp --spec-draft-n-max 4 --spec-draft-p-min 0.7 For Gemma (Using a separate lightweight draft model): ./llama-cli -m gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf --model-draft mtp-gemma-4-26B-A4B-it.gguf -p "Explain quantum computing." -n 2000 -c 8000 -ngl 99 -fa on --spec-type draft-mtp --spec-draft-n-max 4 --spec-draft-p-min 0.7 Stop waiting for a $3,000 rig. Boot up Colab, pull these models, and start building your stack. I’ve put together a completely free, cell by cell Google Colab notebook that automates this entire workflow so you can test it yourself in 5 minutes and learn. Link to the notebook is in the comments below. Experiemt with different MTP parameters, context windows and post your results in the comments.
0:12

I told you to claim your free 16GB NVIDIA GPU for learning Local LLMs. Now I’m going to show you how to double its inference speed without touching the hardware. Google Colab gives you an enterprise grade NVIDIA Tesla T4 GPU for free, roughly 4 hours every single day. It is the absolute perfect sandbox for learning AI engineering, testing inference flags, and pushing massive context windows. The local AI timeline is moving way too fast. If you aren't using Multi Token Prediction (MTP) yet, you are leaving massive performance on the table. I just pushed DeepMind’s Gemma 4 26B to 64.9 t/s on this exact free tier. Let's look at the raw benchmark data running on an Ubuntu Linux environment with the latest compiled llama.cpp binaries and quantized GGUFs from Unsloth via HuggingFace: # Qwen 3.5 9B (Dense): Base: [ Prompt: 626.7 t/s | Generation: 21.0 t/s ] With MTP: [ Prompt: 539.1 t/s | Generation: 24.8 t/s ] # Gemma 4 26B QAT (MoE): Base: [ Prompt: 634.2 t/s | Generation: 48.3 t/s ] With MTP: [ Prompt: 572.1 t/s | Generation: 64.9 t/s ] If you are paying attention, this single Colab notebook reveals 3 massive observations about the current state of local LLMs: # 1. The MTP Speedup (Software Overclocking) Standard autoregressive decoding guesses one token at a time. MTP acts like a highly optimized, built in speculative decoder. It predicts multiple future tokens at once and the main model verifies them in parallel. The result? Zero accuracy loss and a massive throughput increase. Gemma jumped from 48 to 65 t/s just by flipping a flag. # 2. The MoE Paradox (Bigger is Faster) How does a 26B parameter model absolutely destroy a 9B model in raw speed on the exact same hardware? Architecture. Qwen 3.5 9B is a dense model. it activates all 9 billion parameters for every single token. Gemma 4 26B is a Mixture of Experts (MoE) model. It routes data efficiently, activating only 4B parameters per token. You get the reasoning capabilities of a 26B model with the compute cost of a 4B model. 3. Thinking Efficiency When I ran the exact same complex prompt on both models, the larger MoE spent significantly fewer "thinking" tokens to arrive at the correct answer. A smarter model doesn't just give better answers; it gets to the point faster, saving you compute cycles and preserving your context window. # Want to run this yourself? Here are the exact llama.cpp CLI commands. For Qwen (MTP is baked into the main model): ./llama-cli -m Qwen3.5-9B-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -p "Explain quantum computing." -n 2000 -c 8000 -ngl 99 -fa on --spec-type draft-mtp --spec-draft-n-max 4 --spec-draft-p-min 0.7 For Gemma (Using a separate lightweight draft model): ./llama-cli -m gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf --model-draft mtp-gemma-4-26B-A4B-it.gguf -p "Explain quantum computing." -n 2000 -c 8000 -ngl 99 -fa on --spec-type draft-mtp --spec-draft-n-max 4 --spec-draft-p-min 0.7 Stop waiting for a $3,000 rig. Boot up Colab, pull these models, and start building your stack. I’ve put together a completely free, cell by cell Google Colab notebook that automates this entire workflow so you can test it yourself in 5 minutes and learn. Link to the notebook is in the comments below. Experiemt with different MTP parameters, context windows and post your results in the comments.

Alok

170,442 views • 2 months ago

Run Gemma 4 26B MoE on 8GB VRAM with 250k context at 20+ tokens/sec If you own any 8GB VRAM graphics card, stop what you are doing. Local AI just had its absolute "Holy Shit" moment for budget hardware. Yesterday, I benchmarked Unsloth Gemma 4 12B Q4_K_XL on an 8GB card. The community went wild but immediately demanded more: "Can we run a 25B+ model on budget GPUs?" Today, I’m delivering exactly that. I am running a massive 26B parameter Mixture of Experts (MoE) model locally on a standard 8GB VRAM setup with 250k full native context!. If you own an RTX 3060, 3070, 4060, or any budget GPU with 8GB of VRAM, the local AI paradigm has completely changed. The performance metrics are astonishing: - 20 tokens/sec flat decode throughput. - Stable, flat decode speed even with massive prompts. - I threw a 60k token prompt at it, and it still clocked in at 20 TPS without dropping a single frame. # What about prefill? Yes, Time To First Token (TTFT) is slightly high when swallowing massive contexts. But with a solid 200 tokens/sec prefill speed, the wait is barely noticeable and highly usable. And this is running completely without Multi Token Prediction (MTP) active. How is this possible? It’s the magic of Google's new QAT (Quantization Aware Training) quants for Gemma 4. The model weight file (unsloth gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf) is only 13.2 GB, making it the ultimate local powerhouse. # The Test Setup: CPU: Intel Core i7 RAM: 16GB System RAM GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Laptop GPU (8GB VRAM) # The Secret Sauce (The -cmoe Flag) To make this work properly on any 8GB card, you must use the -cmoe (CPU MoE) flag in llama.cpp. This flag isolates the heavy MoE expert weights directly to system memory (CPU/RAM) while letting your GPU focus strictly on the Attention layers and the KV Cache. It prevents VRAM spillage and holds the throughput rock solid. # The flags: -m "gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf" -cmoe -c 248000 -v Once running, just open the UI on localhost and toggle the new reasoning lightbulb icon in the text input box to watch the model perform multi step thinking. Are you still running smaller models, or are you ready to scale up your budget local setups? Let's discuss in the replies
0:19

Run Gemma 4 26B MoE on 8GB VRAM with 250k context at 20+ tokens/sec If you own any 8GB VRAM graphics card, stop what you are doing. Local AI just had its absolute "Holy Shit" moment for budget hardware. Yesterday, I benchmarked Unsloth Gemma 4 12B Q4_K_XL on an 8GB card. The community went wild but immediately demanded more: "Can we run a 25B+ model on budget GPUs?" Today, I’m delivering exactly that. I am running a massive 26B parameter Mixture of Experts (MoE) model locally on a standard 8GB VRAM setup with 250k full native context!. If you own an RTX 3060, 3070, 4060, or any budget GPU with 8GB of VRAM, the local AI paradigm has completely changed. The performance metrics are astonishing: - 20 tokens/sec flat decode throughput. - Stable, flat decode speed even with massive prompts. - I threw a 60k token prompt at it, and it still clocked in at 20 TPS without dropping a single frame. # What about prefill? Yes, Time To First Token (TTFT) is slightly high when swallowing massive contexts. But with a solid 200 tokens/sec prefill speed, the wait is barely noticeable and highly usable. And this is running completely without Multi Token Prediction (MTP) active. How is this possible? It’s the magic of Google's new QAT (Quantization Aware Training) quants for Gemma 4. The model weight file (unsloth gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf) is only 13.2 GB, making it the ultimate local powerhouse. # The Test Setup: CPU: Intel Core i7 RAM: 16GB System RAM GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4060 Laptop GPU (8GB VRAM) # The Secret Sauce (The -cmoe Flag) To make this work properly on any 8GB card, you must use the -cmoe (CPU MoE) flag in llama.cpp. This flag isolates the heavy MoE expert weights directly to system memory (CPU/RAM) while letting your GPU focus strictly on the Attention layers and the KV Cache. It prevents VRAM spillage and holds the throughput rock solid. # The flags: -m "gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf" -cmoe -c 248000 -v Once running, just open the UI on localhost and toggle the new reasoning lightbulb icon in the text input box to watch the model perform multi step thinking. Are you still running smaller models, or are you ready to scale up your budget local setups? Let's discuss in the replies

Alok

292,770 views • 3 months ago

we sped up distributed inference by up to 5x with decentralized speculative decoding. many don't realize that AI models normally generate text one single word at a time, waiting for the network after every word. speculative decoding changes this by using a "guess & confirm" system, similar to autocomplete. how it's done: 1. draft locally (the guess) instead of waiting for the network, a tiny, fast model on your device guesses the next few words instantly, without waiting for the network. 2. confirm remotely (the check) the massive remote model doesn't generate from scratch; it just checks the draft. it looks at the guesses in a batch and says "yes, yes, no." you get multiple words in the time it usually takes to get one. 3. adaptive logic dsd is smart. if the topic is creative, it lets the draft flow loose. if the topic is math or code, it checks more strictly. it balances speed and precision automatically so your inference almost feel instant. find out more: paper: blog:
0:18

we sped up distributed inference by up to 5x with decentralized speculative decoding. many don't realize that AI models normally generate text one single word at a time, waiting for the network after every word. speculative decoding changes this by using a "guess & confirm" system, similar to autocomplete. how it's done: 1. draft locally (the guess) instead of waiting for the network, a tiny, fast model on your device guesses the next few words instantly, without waiting for the network. 2. confirm remotely (the check) the massive remote model doesn't generate from scratch; it just checks the draft. it looks at the guesses in a batch and says "yes, yes, no." you get multiple words in the time it usually takes to get one. 3. adaptive logic dsd is smart. if the topic is creative, it lets the draft flow loose. if the topic is math or code, it checks more strictly. it balances speed and precision automatically so your inference almost feel instant. find out more: paper: blog:

Parallax

45,584 views • 8 months ago

This Chinese developer launched Llama 70B locally on a MacBook on a plane and for a full 11 hours without internet ran client projects. He was sitting by the window on a transatlantic flight with a MacBook Pro M4 with 64 GB of memory. WiFi on board cost $25 for the flight. He declined. No cloud API, no connection to Anthropic or OpenAI servers, no internet at all. Just a local Llama 3.3 70B on bf16 and his own orchestrator script. The model runs through llama.cpp. Generation speed, 71 tokens per second. Context around 60,000 tokens. Memory usage, 48.6 GiB out of 64. Battery at takeoff, 3 hours 21 minutes. And he gave the orchestrator this system prompt before takeoff: "You are an offline orchestrator running on a single MacBook. There is no network. The only resources you have are local files in /Users/dev/work, the Llama 70B inference server at localhost:8080, and a battery budget of 3 hours 21 minutes. Process the queue at /Users/dev/work/queue.jsonl (one client task per line). For each task: draft → run local evals → save artefact to /Users/dev/work/done/. Save context checkpoints every 12 tasks so you can resume after a battery swap. Stop only on empty queue or when battery drops below 5%." So the system knows exactly what resources it is running on. It knows it has no connection to the outside world for the next 11 hours. It knows it has finite memory and a finite battery. It knows the human will not intervene until the plane lands. The system runs in 1 loop. Takes a task from the queue, runs it through inference, saves the artifact, writes a checkpoint. Task after task, just like that. And only when the battery drops below 5% does the orchestrator automatically pause, waits for the laptop to switch to the backup power bank, and continues from the last checkpoint. Here is what the system actually writes in his log during the flight: "saved context checkpoint 8 of 12 (pos_min = 488, pos_max = 50118, size = 62.813 MiB)" "restored context checkpoint (pos_min = 488, pos_max = 50118)" "prompt processing progress: n_tokens = 50 / 60 818" "task 37016 done | tps = 71 s tokens text → /Users/dev/work/done/proposal_westside.md" Outside the window, clouds, blue sky, and no WiFi. On the tray, 1 MacBook, an open terminal on 2 screens, and an inference server on localhost. From what I have observed, this is the cleanest offline AI workflow I have seen in the past year: 11 hours of flight, $0 for WiFi, and the entire client queue closed before landing.
0:10

This Chinese developer launched Llama 70B locally on a MacBook on a plane and for a full 11 hours without internet ran client projects. He was sitting by the window on a transatlantic flight with a MacBook Pro M4 with 64 GB of memory. WiFi on board cost $25 for the flight. He declined. No cloud API, no connection to Anthropic or OpenAI servers, no internet at all. Just a local Llama 3.3 70B on bf16 and his own orchestrator script. The model runs through llama.cpp. Generation speed, 71 tokens per second. Context around 60,000 tokens. Memory usage, 48.6 GiB out of 64. Battery at takeoff, 3 hours 21 minutes. And he gave the orchestrator this system prompt before takeoff: "You are an offline orchestrator running on a single MacBook. There is no network. The only resources you have are local files in /Users/dev/work, the Llama 70B inference server at localhost:8080, and a battery budget of 3 hours 21 minutes. Process the queue at /Users/dev/work/queue.jsonl (one client task per line). For each task: draft → run local evals → save artefact to /Users/dev/work/done/. Save context checkpoints every 12 tasks so you can resume after a battery swap. Stop only on empty queue or when battery drops below 5%." So the system knows exactly what resources it is running on. It knows it has no connection to the outside world for the next 11 hours. It knows it has finite memory and a finite battery. It knows the human will not intervene until the plane lands. The system runs in 1 loop. Takes a task from the queue, runs it through inference, saves the artifact, writes a checkpoint. Task after task, just like that. And only when the battery drops below 5% does the orchestrator automatically pause, waits for the laptop to switch to the backup power bank, and continues from the last checkpoint. Here is what the system actually writes in his log during the flight: "saved context checkpoint 8 of 12 (pos_min = 488, pos_max = 50118, size = 62.813 MiB)" "restored context checkpoint (pos_min = 488, pos_max = 50118)" "prompt processing progress: n_tokens = 50 / 60 818" "task 37016 done | tps = 71 s tokens text → /Users/dev/work/done/proposal_westside.md" Outside the window, clouds, blue sky, and no WiFi. On the tray, 1 MacBook, an open terminal on 2 screens, and an inference server on localhost. From what I have observed, this is the cleanest offline AI workflow I have seen in the past year: 11 hours of flight, $0 for WiFi, and the entire client queue closed before landing.

Blaze

1,842,664 views • 4 months ago

Researchers made KMeans 200x faster. And the new technique also beats approaches like cuML and FAISS. Flash-KMeans is an IO-aware implementation of exact KMeans that redesigns the algorithm around modern GPU bottlenecks. By attacking the memory bottlenecks directly, Flash-KMeans achieves: - 33x speedup over cuML - 200x speedup over FAISS This speedup comes from how it moves through GPU memory. Standard KMeans runs in two steps, and both are bottlenecked by reads and writes to GPU memory: 1) The first step matches every point to its nearest centroid. Standard KMeans computes the full point-to-centroid distance matrix, writes it out to GPU memory, then reads it back to find each nearest centroid. That write-then-read round trip is the bottleneck. Flash-KMeans combines the distance calculation with the nearest-centroid step, so the result is computed on-chip and the full matrix is never written out. 2) The second step recomputes each centroid by averaging the points assigned to it. Standard KMeans has thousands of threads writing into the same centroid slots at once, so they stall waiting for their turn. Flash-KMeans sorts points by cluster first, turning scattered writes into sequential reductions that read and write memory in one efficient pass. Using these two optimizations at the million-scale, Flash-KMeans completes a standard KMeans iteration in a few milliseconds. The video below depicts this in action. Several reasons why this is important: KMeans has always been an offline primitive. Something you run once to preprocess data and move on. These speedups make the approach viable in several runtime-critical systems. ↳ Vector indices like FAISS use KMeans to build search indices. Faster KMeans means you can re-index dynamically as data changes. ↳ LLM quantization methods need KMeans to find optimal weight codebooks, per layer, repeatedly. What takes hours could now take minutes. ↳ MoE models need fast token routing at inference time. Flash-KMeans makes it viable to run this inside the inference loop, not just in preprocessing. I have shared the paper in the replies. That said, memory is the real constraint Flash-KMeans solves, and the problem is not just limited to clustering. The vectors a RAG system stores after indexing create similar bottlenecks. I wrote a detailed walkthrough recently on cutting this vector memory by 32x with binary quantization, querying 36M+ vectors in a few milliseconds. Read it below.
0:12

Researchers made KMeans 200x faster. And the new technique also beats approaches like cuML and FAISS. Flash-KMeans is an IO-aware implementation of exact KMeans that redesigns the algorithm around modern GPU bottlenecks. By attacking the memory bottlenecks directly, Flash-KMeans achieves: - 33x speedup over cuML - 200x speedup over FAISS This speedup comes from how it moves through GPU memory. Standard KMeans runs in two steps, and both are bottlenecked by reads and writes to GPU memory: 1) The first step matches every point to its nearest centroid. Standard KMeans computes the full point-to-centroid distance matrix, writes it out to GPU memory, then reads it back to find each nearest centroid. That write-then-read round trip is the bottleneck. Flash-KMeans combines the distance calculation with the nearest-centroid step, so the result is computed on-chip and the full matrix is never written out. 2) The second step recomputes each centroid by averaging the points assigned to it. Standard KMeans has thousands of threads writing into the same centroid slots at once, so they stall waiting for their turn. Flash-KMeans sorts points by cluster first, turning scattered writes into sequential reductions that read and write memory in one efficient pass. Using these two optimizations at the million-scale, Flash-KMeans completes a standard KMeans iteration in a few milliseconds. The video below depicts this in action. Several reasons why this is important: KMeans has always been an offline primitive. Something you run once to preprocess data and move on. These speedups make the approach viable in several runtime-critical systems. ↳ Vector indices like FAISS use KMeans to build search indices. Faster KMeans means you can re-index dynamically as data changes. ↳ LLM quantization methods need KMeans to find optimal weight codebooks, per layer, repeatedly. What takes hours could now take minutes. ↳ MoE models need fast token routing at inference time. Flash-KMeans makes it viable to run this inside the inference loop, not just in preprocessing. I have shared the paper in the replies. That said, memory is the real constraint Flash-KMeans solves, and the problem is not just limited to clustering. The vectors a RAG system stores after indexing create similar bottlenecks. I wrote a detailed walkthrough recently on cutting this vector memory by 32x with binary quantization, querying 36M+ vectors in a few milliseconds. Read it below.

Avi Chawla

89,234 views • 2 months ago

The human brain is truly a marvel of nature. If you horribly reductive, and boiled it down to a language model, you'd be looking at roughly 100 trillon parameters running as a sparse MoE architecture Only about 1-5% of neurons fire at any given moment, meaning the brain "activates" maybe 1-5 trillion parameters per inference step. For context, the largest AI models we've built probably top out around 5 trillion parameters. The brain is roughly 100x larger. Even its active params at any given moment are larger than almost every model in existence today. Here's what melts my brain (pun intnended) though Your brain does all of this on about 20 watts of power, less than a dim light bulb. Training a frontier AI model consumes enough electricity to power small cities for months. Running inference across data centers pulls megawatts. Your brain runs 24/7 for 80+ years on the equivalent of a phone charger. We haven't come close to matching the brain's scale. And we're not even in the same universe when it comes to efficiency. Evolution spent 500 million yrs optimizing the most energy-efficient intelligence architecture ever known. we're trying to brute force our way there with compute and electricity. Nature is still the best engineer in the room.
0:12

The human brain is truly a marvel of nature. If you horribly reductive, and boiled it down to a language model, you'd be looking at roughly 100 trillon parameters running as a sparse MoE architecture Only about 1-5% of neurons fire at any given moment, meaning the brain "activates" maybe 1-5 trillion parameters per inference step. For context, the largest AI models we've built probably top out around 5 trillion parameters. The brain is roughly 100x larger. Even its active params at any given moment are larger than almost every model in existence today. Here's what melts my brain (pun intnended) though Your brain does all of this on about 20 watts of power, less than a dim light bulb. Training a frontier AI model consumes enough electricity to power small cities for months. Running inference across data centers pulls megawatts. Your brain runs 24/7 for 80+ years on the equivalent of a phone charger. We haven't come close to matching the brain's scale. And we're not even in the same universe when it comes to efficiency. Evolution spent 500 million yrs optimizing the most energy-efficient intelligence architecture ever known. we're trying to brute force our way there with compute and electricity. Nature is still the best engineer in the room.

am.will

130,883 views • 5 months ago

1 Neural Network + Obsidian + Karpathy’s 1-file method = the most unhinged second brain build of 2026. It remembers everything you’ve ever done, and it costs $0 on top of what you already pay. The base is Karpathy’s append and review: 1 giant note, new thoughts stack on top, old ones sink, every few days you reread and pull the survivors back up. No folders, no tags, no plugins the rereading IS the system, because review is what turns storage into thinking. The flaw: past 10,000 lines, no human rereads anything. That’s where the neural network takes over. You keep the note in Obsidian 1 vault, everything dumps to the top: ideas, links, meeting fragments, half-thoughts. You never organize, you only dump. It all lives as plain markdown on your own disk, and that detail is the whole trick. Because now you point Claude Code at the vault folder, and it reads every line you’ve ever written. “What did I think about pricing in March.” “Find the 3 ideas I keep circling.” “What did I drop that deserves a second look.” It answers from YOUR notes, with quotes, in 15 seconds. Then once a week, 1 prompt closes the loop: read the last 7 days, surface the 5 entries worth pulling back up, flag anything that contradicts what I wrote a month ago. The model does the sinking and surfacing Karpathy did by hand, and the note stays alive instead of turning into a graveyard. Week 1 feels like nothing. Week 4 you hit the first “I already solved this in January.” Month 3 you consult your past self more than Google. Most second brains die in 11 days under 40 plugins and 200 folders. This one is 1 file and a loop, and it compounds because dumping takes 0 discipline. Notion stores what you thought. This thing argues back.
0:16

1 Neural Network + Obsidian + Karpathy’s 1-file method = the most unhinged second brain build of 2026. It remembers everything you’ve ever done, and it costs $0 on top of what you already pay. The base is Karpathy’s append and review: 1 giant note, new thoughts stack on top, old ones sink, every few days you reread and pull the survivors back up. No folders, no tags, no plugins the rereading IS the system, because review is what turns storage into thinking. The flaw: past 10,000 lines, no human rereads anything. That’s where the neural network takes over. You keep the note in Obsidian 1 vault, everything dumps to the top: ideas, links, meeting fragments, half-thoughts. You never organize, you only dump. It all lives as plain markdown on your own disk, and that detail is the whole trick. Because now you point Claude Code at the vault folder, and it reads every line you’ve ever written. “What did I think about pricing in March.” “Find the 3 ideas I keep circling.” “What did I drop that deserves a second look.” It answers from YOUR notes, with quotes, in 15 seconds. Then once a week, 1 prompt closes the loop: read the last 7 days, surface the 5 entries worth pulling back up, flag anything that contradicts what I wrote a month ago. The model does the sinking and surfacing Karpathy did by hand, and the note stays alive instead of turning into a graveyard. Week 1 feels like nothing. Week 4 you hit the first “I already solved this in January.” Month 3 you consult your past self more than Google. Most second brains die in 11 days under 40 plugins and 200 folders. This one is 1 file and a loop, and it compounds because dumping takes 0 discipline. Notion stores what you thought. This thing argues back.

West Lord

24,679 views • 1 month ago

Nvidia just put a $250,000 cloud workload on your desk for $2,999 - and killed your $1,900/month AWS bill in the process You don't rent it, you don't manage it, you don't pay a single cloud bill - you just plug it in and let it eat the workloads you used to wire to AWS every month It looks like a small Mac mini, it's actually a full GB10 Grace Blackwell stack with 128GB of unified memory running models up to 200B parameters It's called DGX Spark, the consumer version of the rack Nvidia ships to OpenAI The reason Nvidia did this is simple Cloud GPU pricing is a tax on every developer building AI right now $1,900/month per seat, billions in margin flowing to AWS, Lambda, and CoreWeave Nvidia just cut themselves in by removing the cloud entirely Their solution is to skip the middleman, ship the rack to your desk, and let you keep every dollar of margin you used to wire to a hyperscaler This is much cheaper, faster, and you own the asset at the end But there is still a question nobody is answering yet, what happens to AWS, GCP, and Lambda when 500,000 developers move their inference back to a $2,999 box on their desk Also, technically you can stack four of these and run a 1.6 trillion parameter model locally for under $12,000 Even a single Spark out-performs the cloud subscription Anthropic engineers were running two years ago bookmark this, it pays back in 60 days 👇
0:19

Nvidia just put a $250,000 cloud workload on your desk for $2,999 - and killed your $1,900/month AWS bill in the process You don't rent it, you don't manage it, you don't pay a single cloud bill - you just plug it in and let it eat the workloads you used to wire to AWS every month It looks like a small Mac mini, it's actually a full GB10 Grace Blackwell stack with 128GB of unified memory running models up to 200B parameters It's called DGX Spark, the consumer version of the rack Nvidia ships to OpenAI The reason Nvidia did this is simple Cloud GPU pricing is a tax on every developer building AI right now $1,900/month per seat, billions in margin flowing to AWS, Lambda, and CoreWeave Nvidia just cut themselves in by removing the cloud entirely Their solution is to skip the middleman, ship the rack to your desk, and let you keep every dollar of margin you used to wire to a hyperscaler This is much cheaper, faster, and you own the asset at the end But there is still a question nobody is answering yet, what happens to AWS, GCP, and Lambda when 500,000 developers move their inference back to a $2,999 box on their desk Also, technically you can stack four of these and run a 1.6 trillion parameter model locally for under $12,000 Even a single Spark out-performs the cloud subscription Anthropic engineers were running two years ago bookmark this, it pays back in 60 days 👇

ZEUS⚡️

85,803 views • 3 months ago

introducing a new, very fun, LLM benchmark- the Game-of-Life Bench! the rules are simple: given an 8x8 grid following Conway's game of life rules, the goal is to create an initial pattern with at most 32 cells that can last the longest number of turns before dying/repeating. some results to highlight (with caveats detailed below): - gpt 5.1 lasts the longest with a 106 step run - claude models are really bad at this! they refuse to reason about this task and score < 25 points - deepseek r1 is the best open model with 102 steps. why? because i wanted to create a benchmark that has (i think) no practicality, but is still fun to look at, cheap, and still measures something interesting. i also am a big fan of the game of life. its absurdly simple rules leading to intractability is extremely cool to me. also, i saw a lot of work with LLMs trying to "predict" the next state in Conway's game of life, I think game-of-life bench is more fun because it's pretty open ended and only asks the LLM for the initial state. I also think this could be an RL env? but idk why you would ever train on this task haha i don't think this is a "serious" benchmark because it doesnt measure anything practical, but i still think it's a hard benchmark exactly because you can't predict what happens with your initial state many turns into the future; this is why i was initially expecting all LLMs to be bad at it, but turns out, some are clearly better than the others (the ordering may surprise you!) reminder: this is still a work-in-progress; (1) i am gpu-poor so could only do 10 runs for each model, even though total running cost is relatively low. maybe with some more credits i can run more seeds for each model. (2) i handpicked models which i think are at the frontier right now, plus some others that were on my mind. so, if you'd like to see a model on here, let me know. (3) i currently only do an 8x8 grid because i thought that by itself would be pretty hard for current LLMs, but of course we can increase grid sizes! (4) the coolest thing is, i dont think we can calculate the max possible number of states (yay undecidability!) you can go without repeating, so this is essentially a no-ceiling task, which is pretty cool! again, i did this mostly out of a desire to make LLMs do something fun. if this keeps me entertained for a few more days, i'd likely release a blog post on it. if it keeps me entertained for a week (and someone sponsors me), i'll put more work into it :P lastly, this is fully open sourced, so feel free to run this on your own!
0:19

introducing a new, very fun, LLM benchmark- the Game-of-Life Bench! the rules are simple: given an 8x8 grid following Conway's game of life rules, the goal is to create an initial pattern with at most 32 cells that can last the longest number of turns before dying/repeating. some results to highlight (with caveats detailed below): - gpt 5.1 lasts the longest with a 106 step run - claude models are really bad at this! they refuse to reason about this task and score < 25 points - deepseek r1 is the best open model with 102 steps. why? because i wanted to create a benchmark that has (i think) no practicality, but is still fun to look at, cheap, and still measures something interesting. i also am a big fan of the game of life. its absurdly simple rules leading to intractability is extremely cool to me. also, i saw a lot of work with LLMs trying to "predict" the next state in Conway's game of life, I think game-of-life bench is more fun because it's pretty open ended and only asks the LLM for the initial state. I also think this could be an RL env? but idk why you would ever train on this task haha i don't think this is a "serious" benchmark because it doesnt measure anything practical, but i still think it's a hard benchmark exactly because you can't predict what happens with your initial state many turns into the future; this is why i was initially expecting all LLMs to be bad at it, but turns out, some are clearly better than the others (the ordering may surprise you!) reminder: this is still a work-in-progress; (1) i am gpu-poor so could only do 10 runs for each model, even though total running cost is relatively low. maybe with some more credits i can run more seeds for each model. (2) i handpicked models which i think are at the frontier right now, plus some others that were on my mind. so, if you'd like to see a model on here, let me know. (3) i currently only do an 8x8 grid because i thought that by itself would be pretty hard for current LLMs, but of course we can increase grid sizes! (4) the coolest thing is, i dont think we can calculate the max possible number of states (yay undecidability!) you can go without repeating, so this is essentially a no-ceiling task, which is pretty cool! again, i did this mostly out of a desire to make LLMs do something fun. if this keeps me entertained for a few more days, i'd likely release a blog post on it. if it keeps me entertained for a week (and someone sponsors me), i'll put more work into it :P lastly, this is fully open sourced, so feel free to run this on your own!

Akshit

13,775 views • 6 months ago

🚨 Do you understand what Claude just quietly dropped while everyone was distracted? 1 million tokens. Let me explain what that actually means because the number alone doesn't hit right. > A senior engineer joins a company and spends 3 to 6 months just reading code.. Understanding how things connect. Learning where the bugs hide. Why that one file nobody touches exists. It takes months because a codebase is massive and human memory is small. > Claude just loaded the entire thing in one prompt. 30 seconds. Every file, Every function, Every line. All of it. Sitting in memory like it's been working there for years. And it scored highest among every single frontier model. Not GPT.. Not Gemini, Nobody. > Yesterday Amazon's AI nuked production because it couldn't see the full picture - it made a decision with partial context and deleted everything. Today an AI can hold 1 million tokens of context at once. That's the fix. That's the "before and after" moment for AI coding. > 600 images in one request. Entire PDFs. Full repos. And they dropped it on a Friday on all plans like it was a patch note. The scariest AI updates aren't the ones with press conferences. They're the ones that drop in a tweet at 6pm and change everything by Monday morning.
0:15

🚨 Do you understand what Claude just quietly dropped while everyone was distracted? 1 million tokens. Let me explain what that actually means because the number alone doesn't hit right. > A senior engineer joins a company and spends 3 to 6 months just reading code.. Understanding how things connect. Learning where the bugs hide. Why that one file nobody touches exists. It takes months because a codebase is massive and human memory is small. > Claude just loaded the entire thing in one prompt. 30 seconds. Every file, Every function, Every line. All of it. Sitting in memory like it's been working there for years. And it scored highest among every single frontier model. Not GPT.. Not Gemini, Nobody. > Yesterday Amazon's AI nuked production because it couldn't see the full picture - it made a decision with partial context and deleted everything. Today an AI can hold 1 million tokens of context at once. That's the fix. That's the "before and after" moment for AI coding. > 600 images in one request. Entire PDFs. Full repos. And they dropped it on a Friday on all plans like it was a patch note. The scariest AI updates aren't the ones with press conferences. They're the ones that drop in a tweet at 6pm and change everything by Monday morning.

Tuki

206,309 views • 6 months ago