Until then, I'm going to keep sending my JSON to the server farm in Virginia because it's the only place that can serve me a model that actually works for my uses.

- text-to-speech - speech-to-text - dictionary - encyclopedia - help troubleshooting errors - generate common recipes and nutritional facts - proofread emails, blog posts - search a large trove of documents, find information, summarize it (RAG) - manipulate your terminal/browser/etc - analyze a picture or video - generate a picture or video - generate PDFs, documents, etc (code exec) - simple programming - financial analysis/planning - math and science analysis - find simple first aid/medical information - "rubber ducking" but the duck talks back

A quarter of those don't need more than a gig of RAM, the rest benefit from more RAM. Technically you don't even need a GPU, it just makes it faster. I do half that stuff on my laptop with local models every day.

That said, it really doesn't need to be local. I like the idea that I can do all that stuff offline if I'm traveling, but I usually have cell service, and the total tokens is pretty cheap (like $2/month for all my non-coding AI use).

The dependency we have with anthropic and openai for coding for instance is insane. Most accept it because either they don't care, or they just hope chinese will never stop open weights. The business model of open weights is very new, include some power play between countries and labs, and move an absurd amount of money without any concrete oversight from most people.

It's a very dangerous gamble. Today incredible value is available for nearly everyone. But it may stop without any warning, for reason outside our control.

I agree local models are great, and it’s cool that Apple has models built in now. But I feel like it basically has to be an OS level feature or users are going to get upset. I’d certainly rather have a small utility call out to OpenAI than download its own model.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48019219

A self hosted inference solution that offer good tenant isolation guarantees (ideally zero trust) and is easy enough to deploy and maintain (think Plex for AI) would be my choice for privacy. Now to be honest I have done zero research about this and have zero idea how feasible that is, maybe it already exists and there's some discord servers I should join?

Edit: I don't need to mention it here but what's incredible is that open models are in the ballpark of the best commercial models so supposedly, the hardest part by far is already solved.

TFA is focused on whether big models are necessary for what users want. There's some evidence they may never actually be reliable enough unless a) mechanistic interpretation matures far enough or b) our multi-agent systems all become multi-model.

For (a), advancement in MI might fix problems with big models, but would also mean we can maybe get unified representations, and just slice and dice the useful stuff out of huge models, getting only what we need without the junk. Ability to isolate problems won't really come without bringing the ability to isolate functional subsystems. Only want logic? Only vision? Just cut it out of the big monster and enjoy reduced costs and surface area for problems.

For (b), just look at stuff like the evil vector, or the category of hallucinations specific to tool-use. Without a complete solution for helpful/honest/harmless alignment, it seems likely that creativity and rigor (and many other things) are fundamentally at odds. If you start to need many models for everything anyway, why do we need the huge expensive do-everything ones? So specialization also becomes a pressure to shrink everything towards minimal reliable experts

They need to be able to do a small task well and they need to be able to run reasonably on consumer-class devices. Even better if they can run on mobile phones.

In my experiments with local LLMs I noticed that while increasing the size of the model is nice the real thing that turns a barely useless model into something useful is the ability to use tools. Giving my models the ability to search the web and fetch web pages did way more to solve hallucinations than getting a bigger model. And it doesn't have a training cutoff. Sure, the bigger model is probably better at using tools but I often find the smaller models to be good enough.

All of this being said, it seems Claude gave up this "constitution" it used to train on? I remember trying to get it to help me code some video editing tools, and it was convinced I was pirating videos and so wouldn't help me anymore in that session.

On the other hand… v4 flash model is actual magic compared to what was available 2 years ago. If the rate of improvement stays as is, we’ll get a similar performance in a ~120B model in a year, which is viable (if expensive) for everyman hardware. Possibly you’ll be able to run its equivalent on a ~$1200 laptop by 2028, which for me-in-2020 would sound straight out of a scifi movie. A good harness that lets the model fetch data from other sources like a local wikipedia copy from kiwix could do a lot for factual knowledge, too; there’s only so much you can encode in the model itself, but even a cheapish (pre-curent prices) 2TB drive can hold an immense amount of LLM-accessible data.

Big caveat: I don’t see local models for programming or generally demanding agentic tasks being worth it anytime soon. You likely want bleeding edge models for it, and speed is far more important. Chat at 20tok/s is fine; working on even a small codebase at 20tok/s, especially on a noticeably weaker model, is just a waste of time. Maybe it’s a PEBKAC but I have no idea how people make any meaningful use out of qwen 3.6.

As OP says, it shines in constrained environments where the model is transforming user-owned data. Definitely less useful for anything more open-ended.

The goal is that you would assign roles to models based on tasks, capabilities and observed performance. The router would then take care of model selection in the background.

It's tricky though. Probably have another two weeks before I can release the runtime.

I have a preview up at https://role-model.dev/

You can follow me on Twitter if you want updates (see profile)

The problem is that it's much easier to use the SOTA models (especially if they are subsidized) instead of spending time fixing the knobs with the local one.

I just realized this with coding agents, yeah, you probably shouldn't always use latest version at xhigh, but you will end doing it because you do the job in less time, with less "effort" and basically at the same price.

I guess we'll see a real effort for local AI only when major vendors will start billing based on actual token usage.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

A smaller cheaper local model can delivery most the value for coding, while we still use some services for code review and security compliance.

Once the VC money runs out and they start to charge the real price, the C-level will have to impose budges or limits. The current pissing contest over who can expend the most tokens is both ridiculous and shortsighted

I think the Quixotic accelerationists of AI are more or less a vocal minority of the people who make software, and the choice of online APIs over local systems is largely a choice made for users, rather than developer’s laziness.

You can do more and better with private AI today than with local models. There is no getting around that. Even if local AIs get better, being on the cutting edge of LLM performance is often a very worthy investment.

Most people won’t settle for a product if it’s not the very best and incredibly convenient. That’s a high bar, and local AI often doesn’t meet those standards.

HN’s insistence on treating all users like they are open-source, privacy-first, self-hosted Linux fanatics is painfully corny.

* What is the answer to local AI for native apps on Windows?

* What is the answer to local AI for Linux?

This is a big opportunity for Linux, given the high quality of open-weight models. I hope some answer emerges before designs fracture and we get a dozen mutually incompatible answers.

We are at least 5 years away from that. And DRAM needs a substantial breakthrough in cost reduction.

Is there a solution for this? I'm currently just making users download onnx models if they want a feature, but it's not smooth UX

``` harbor pull unsloth/Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-GGUF:UD-Q4_K_XL

# Open WebUI -> llama.cpp + SearXNG for Web RAG + OpenTerminal as sandbox harbor up searxng webui llamacpp openterminal ```

That's it, it's already better than Claude's or ChatGPT's app.

Dont quite think its ready yet.

Well there’s your problem, control needs to go the other way. If you want your app to be AI-enabled, you need to make it easy for AI to control your app. Have you used OpenClaw? It’s awesome!

Isn’t this true of any application that accesses anything not running on your computer? This is just describing what it means to add an API call to your app. Nothing to do with AI (?)

When I say 'moat' I don't mean moat specific to a company vis-a-vis other companies, but 'moat' specific to the set of inference providers vis-a-vis self-hosted local inference.

The moat consists primarily of being able to batch inference requests.

If we pretend people weren't interested in long context-lengths, there would be a moat for inference providers. who can batch many requests so that streaming the model weights (regardless if from system RAM to GPU RAM; or from GPU RAM to GPU cache SRAM) can be amortized over multiple requests.

However people do want longer memory than the native context length.

One approach is continual learning (basically continue training by using the past conversation as extra corpus material; interspersed with training on continuations from the frozen model, so it doesn't drift or catastrophically forget knowledge / politeness / ...).

However this is very expensive for inference providers, since they would have to multiply model weight storage with the number of users U=N. For a single user the memory cost of continual learning is much less since they only need to support a single user, and are returned some of the memory cost through elimination of KV-caches, and returned higher quality answers compared to subquadratic approximations of quadratic attention.

An advantage of continual learning is that the conversation / code base / context is continuously rebaked into model weights, and so doesn't need KV caches! It doesn't need imperfect approximations to quadratic attention, it attends through working knowledge being updated.

Nothing prevents local LLM users from implementing this and benefiting from the dropped requirements of KV caches and enjoying true quadratic attention implicitly over the whole codebase, or many overlapping projects indeed.

The only remaining moat of inference providers vis-a-vis continual learning local LLM's is the batching advantage, plus the gradient update costs for continual learning minus the KV storage and compute costs, minus the performance loss due to inexact approximations to quadratic attention.

This points towards a stronger incentive for local hosting than currently realized (none of the popular local LLM tools currently support continual learning, once this genie is out of the bottle it will be a permanent decrease of the inference provider moat, the cost of which can't be expressed merely in hardware or energy costs, since it is difficult to quantify the financial loss of inexact approximations to quadratic attention, the financial loss due to limited effective context length and the concomitant loss in quality of the result)

A useful framing over “local vs cloud AI” can be split along two axes: does the task touch private data, and does it need frontier intelligence? You can use frontier models for developing the software (doesn’t touch data), but open-source models running locally for ops: maintenance, debugging and monitoring (touches data). If you need to fall back to frontier intelligence at some point for a particularly hard to resolve problem, you can still rely on local models for pre-transforming and filtering input in a way that's privacy-preserving or satisfies some constraint before it’s sent off to the cloud for processing. OpenAI's privacy filter is a good example of a model that can be used to mask PII and secrets and that can run locally: https://openai.com/index/introducing-openai-privacy-filter/, before sending any data externally for processing.

Another framing for local vs frontier closed which the article mentions is whether the task saturates model capability. With certain tasks like PDF processing or voice or summarization, adding more intelligence isn't necessarily useful. Arguably we've approached that point for chat interfaces already with frontier open-source models. But for coding and ops through well structured tool use inside a coding capable harness, we're still a ways away.

Tangentially, a contrarian take here is that AI can actually enable more privacy preserving software if you’re so inclined. You can just build personalized software and it lowers the barrier to entry and the effort required to self host. SaaS complexity often comes from scaling and supporting features for all types of customers, and if you're building software for personal use, you don't need all that additional complexity. Additionally, foundational and infra software that is harder to vibecode with AI is often already open source.

Work? I don't want it local at all. I want it all cloud agent.

proceeds to brutalise the reader with an 88-point headline font.

If we could even get something like GPT 5.5 running locally that would be quite useful.

1. Local models are likely to be more power-expensive to run (per-"unit-of-intelligence") than remote models, due to datacenter economies of scale. People do not like to engage with this point, but if you have environmental concerns about AI, this is a pretty important one.

2. Using dumb models for simple tasks seems like a good idea, but it ends up being pretty clear pretty quick that you just want the smartest model you can afford for absolutely every task.

Welcome back to 2014. Let us now continue yelling at the cloud.

NVidia segments the market by limiting the amount of memory on GPUs. It currently tops out at 32GB (on a 5090) but it has excellent memory bandwidth (~1.8TB/s). If you want more than the you need to buy an RTX Pro (eg RTX 6000 Pro w/ 96GB for ~$10K) or you get into high high end solutions like H100, H200, etc that have significantly more memory and even higher bandwidth on HBM memory (eg 3.2TB/s+).

NVidia has released the DGX Spark w/ 128GB of memory for ~$4k. The problem is the memory bandwidth. It's only 273GB/s, which is less than the M5 Pro (307GB/s) but more than the M5. You can buy a 16" Macbook Pro with an M5 Max and 128GB of memory for $6k and it has a bandwidth of 614GB/s. So the DGX Spark is a joke, really.

In case it wasn't clear, Apple is interesting in this space because it has a shared memory architecture so the GPU can use all the memory.

Many, myself include, expect there to be no refresh to the 5000 series consumer GPUs this year, which would otherwise happen based on product cycles. So no 5080 Super, for example. And I wouldn't expect a 6090 before 2028 realistically.

One thing Apple hasn't done yet is release the M5 Mac Studios, which are widely expected in Q3 this year. They are interesting because, for example, the M3 Ultra has a memory bandwidth of 819GB/s and previously had a max spec of 512GB but that got discontinued (and the 256GB version also got discontinued more recently).

So many expect an M5 Max Mac Studio with 1TB/s+ bandwidth and specs up to 256GB or 512GB, probably for ~$10k later this year.

You really have to use this hardware almost 24x7 for it to be economical because otherwise H100 computer hours are probably cheaper.

But what happens when the next generation of GPUs comes out to the trillions in AI DC investment? It's going to halve its value. That's over $1 trillion in capex that will disappear overnight, effectively.

I think Apple is the dark horse here because they have no interest in NVidia's psuedo-monopoly. I'm just waiting for them to realize it.

Now CUDA is an issue here still but I think as time goes on it's going to be less of an issue. Memory is still a huge constraint both in terms of price and just general supply because NVidia can justify paying way more for it than you can, probably.

It's still sad to see that 128GB (2x64GB) DDR5 kits are almost $2k now and werre $400 a year ago. Expect that to continue until this bubble pops (which IMHO it will) and we're likely in a global recession.

So the other issue is models. OpenAI and Anthropic are built on proprietary models. Their entire valuation depends on this moat. I don't think this last so both companies are doomed because open source models are going to be sufficiently good.

We can already do some reasonably cool stuff on local hardware that isn't that expensive and even more so once you get to $5-10k hardware. That's going to be so much better in 2 years that I'm hesitant to spend any amount of money now.

Plus the code for running these things is getting better. Just in the last month there have been huge speed ups in local LLMs with MTP.

I have to conclude that people would like to have powerful local AI but it should at the same time only be a tiny model. In which case it wouldn't be powerful.

Local models need to be resident in expensive RAM, the kind that has fat pipes to compute. And if you have a local app, how do you take a dependency on whatever random model is installed? Does it support your tool calling complexity? Does it have multimodal input? Does it support system messages in the middle of the conversation or not? Is it dumb enough to need reminders all the time?

Spend enough time building against local models and you'll see they're jagged in performance. You need to tune context size, trade off system message complexity with progressive disclosure. You simply can't rely on intelligence. A bunch of work goes into the harness.

Meanwhile, third party inference is getting the benefits of scale. You only need to rent a timeslice of memory and compute. It's consistent and everybody gets the same experience. And yes, it needs paying for, but the economics are just better.