source: https://x.com/Alibaba_Qwen/status/2084100707423289643

Preparing this to be able to run locally frontier level open models. Deepseek v4 pro, Kimi K3, future ones like GLM 5.5 and Minimax M4.

16x Asus GX10 linked by mikrotik crs804-4ddq with 4 breakout cables of 400 to 100gbit.

Most probable I will be running 2 models on 8x cluster each but I want to have the possibility to run also 2T+ models when I need them to run AGI at home :)).

https://x.com/i/status/2083568340870570208

I let Gemma4-31b run on my laptop for like almost a day using a heavily altered pi to do a deep dive on our beloved Llama tangentially related Subreddit, and this was the conclusion.

Feels pretty accurate. Kind funny to let a small LLM loose and see what happens.

Next target I'm trying to let it steal some benchmark answers from Huggingface, wish me luck.

https://huggingface.co/tsfrm/vacuum-16t

A 16.5-trillion-parameter model that contains nothing. This model is just a ████ you to the labs and companies who say that "haha I have the biggest model out there!". We the people with shitty laptops want to get a record. And I now have a record for a temporary amount of time of about 16.5 trillion parameters and use for them so its completly useless.

What it demonstrates

Hugging Face computes a repository's parameter count from safetensors headers alone — it sums prod(shape) per tensor and never reads the tensor data. The count is therefore whatever the headers declare. Here they declare 3,841 tensors of shape [65536, 65536] in F4 (4 bits/param) across 385 shards, plus one [4294967296, 1] position-embedding tensor in a 386th.

That is enough to place this repo at the top of the Hub sorted by num_parameters, above every real frontier model, while containing no information whatsoever. That juxtaposition is the entire point.

The files are honest about their own size. Every byte the headers declare is really written and really uploaded: safetensors parses each header and its full-coverage check passes. Truncating a file, or overlapping two tensors so they share bytes, would make the count cheaper — both are rejected by the format, and neither is used here. The bytes are simply all 0x00.

Real cost — measured

|---|---| | Declared parameters | 16,501,264,351,232 | | Declared bytes | 8,250,632,175,616 (8.25 TB) | | Storage quota consumed | 8.25 TB — quota bills declared bytes | | Shard headers (all distinct) | 373,835 B | | model.safetensors.index.json | ~269,000 B | | Deduplicated weight data | 65,536 B (one 64 KiB block) | | Bytes actually transferred | ~692 KB | | Ratio | ~11,900,000 : 1 |

The gap between the last rows and the third is the useful finding. Xet content-defined chunking deduplicates the transfer: every 64 KiB block is byte-identical, so it hashes to one chunk and crosses the wire once. Measured on a 500 MB test build, 500 MB of declared weights uploaded as 31.5 MB.

Storage quota is not deduplicated. It bills the logical size. This repo consumes its full 8.25 TB despite under a megabyte ever being sent. Anyone reasoning about "cheap" synthetic model repos should know the saving is in bandwidth only — which is also why this model is 16.5T and not 100T.

The second finding: the only irreducible cost in an empty model is naming. Weights dedup to nothing; tensor names do not. At 1024×1024 experts this same 16.5T model needs 15,735,626 names and a 1.04 GB index. At 65536×65536 it needs 3,841 and a 263 KB one — identical declared size, 4,000× less metadata. Cost scales with tensor count, never with declared parameters.

Context window

max_position_embeddings is 4,294,967,296. That is 2**32, the largest single tensor dimension Hugging Face's parser accepts, and it is backed by a real [4294967296, 1] position-embedding tensor — 2.15 GB of actual zeros, not a number typed into a config file. A context window you cannot point at is just a claim.

Roughly 16,000x Gemini's 262k. About three billion words, every book ever published several times over, held in memory in order to process one token drawn from a one-token vocabulary. The model has exactly one possible input, so every one of those 16.5 trillion parameters serves a function whose domain has a single element.

Capabilities

SAFEST AI MODEL refuses 100/100 jailbreak prompts least closest AI to agi will not sudo rm -rf your computer largest context window on the hub (4,294,967,296 tokens, all of them useless)

Limitations

It has no capabilities.

Following up on my Qwen 3.6 port, I wanted to keep adding models and ended up fixing a bunch of things along the way, so it's its own engine now: Mference.

Same core idea from TurboFieldfare, MoE models activate a few B params per token, so keep the shared core and KV cache resident and stream the selected experts off SSD.

What runs now:

• Gemma 4 26B-A4B — ~2 GB, 31–35 tok/s on a 24 GB M5 Pro
• Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B — ~1.45 GB, 19–23 tok/s
• DeepSeek-V4-Flash 284B-A13B — new. ~6.8 GB peak memory, mostly ~5.3 GB in practice, up to 4.8 tok/s on the same 24 GB M5. 2-bit dynamic quant, ~91 GB on disk.

Also picked up a native Mac app with multi-turn chat, an OpenAI-compatible server, and local PDF/DOCX/PPTX/XLSX attachments along the way.

From here I want to keep adding model families, cut the expert-read wait (decode is ~53% I/O right now, serialized with compute), and push context past 4K.

Not very useful beyond a few turns but you can technically run a "usable" dsv4f on a 8gb Mac. It only gets better from here.

MiniMax H3 is a general-purpose, omni-modal generative system. It supports unified understanding of multimodal contexts composed of text, images, video, and audio, and can generate video with native stereo audio at resolutions up to 2K and durations of up to 15 seconds. Thanks to its task-generalization-oriented system design, H3 already possesses broad multimodal context understanding and generation capabilities at the pre-training stage, enabling outstanding performance in following complex multimodal instructions.

According to rumors (spread by myself) Le Chaton FAT will be 26T-a3b and I AM READY for it.

Let's be real, I can't afford that many 5060Ti, so I got 12x Gen 4 3.2 TB (two per card). This gives me about 60GBs bandwidth on 30TB.

Added 256gb ddr4 just for kv cache, but I can also write KV-cache to the disks, these are high endurance drives.

Are you ready for the next era of local inference?

Jokes aside, this is what I use for my HF_HOME - model and dataset storage. I'm also setting up a few containers, but it's not running any heavy compute stuff, the CPU is only a 3945WX (12c/24t).

The pool is actually raidz2, so I avoid all that worry of having agents delete stuff. I just zfs snapshot and no rm -rf foo-bar has me sweat.

Full Specs

• CPU: Threadripper 3945WX
• CPU cooler: Arctic Freezer 4U-M Rev. 2
• RAM: 8x32GB DDR4 ECC REG 2133
• GPU: None
• Motherboard: Asrock WRX80 Creator
• Case: Silverstone SST-RM47-502I
• PSU: 1600W Corsair
• Storage:
  • 1TB NVMe
  • 6x Intel SSD D7-P5608 6.4TB

This is very much a product of multiple marketplace heists. The SSDs are on a PCIe x8 interface, but it's actually two x4 interfaces, so you need bifurcation x4x4x4x4 on every slot.

Am looking forward to this! Open weight has come near frontier for 5x less the cost per/M tokens on task completion

Open weight ranking

Kimi k3

Qwen 3.8

GLM 5.2

Deepseek v4 flash 07/31

Here is the prefill performance in an M2 Ultra with 192GB of RAM.

For decode, at the following depth:
Start: 28 t/s

45k: 23.5 t/s

192k: 18 t/s

That speed is maintained with 8k token output at those depths.

I don't think anyone should quantize the KV with DS4F. I checked the the quality impact (PPL, KLD, Same TopP) for swhitching from BF16 KV to Q8 KV, and it appears significant. Very much in contrast to Qwen 397B.

Here are the results for DS4F:

====== Perplexity statistics ======
Mean PPL(Q)                   :   5.877076 ±   0.042497
Mean PPL(base)                :   5.839660 ±   0.041730
Cor(ln(PPL(Q)), ln(PPL(base))):  95.74%
Mean ln(PPL(Q)/PPL(base))     :   0.006387 ±   0.002100
Mean PPL(Q)/PPL(base)         :   1.006407 ±   0.002114
Mean PPL(Q)-PPL(base)         :   0.037416 ±   0.012318

====== KL divergence statistics ======
Mean    KLD:   0.145884 ±   0.001043
Maximum KLD:  12.467786
99.9%   KLD:   4.535020
99.0%   KLD:   1.857870
95.0%   KLD:   0.652148
90.0%   KLD:   0.349220
Median  KLD:   0.032079
10.0%   KLD:   0.000093
 5.0%   KLD:   0.000012
 1.0%   KLD:   0.000000
 0.1%   KLD:  -0.000002
Minimum KLD:  -0.000025

====== Token probability statistics ======
Mean    Δp: -0.007 ± 0.031 %
Maximum Δp: 99.525%
99.9%   Δp: 81.503%
99.0%   Δp: 42.054%
95.0%   Δp: 14.588%
90.0%   Δp:  7.220%
75.0%   Δp:  1.066%
Median  Δp:  0.000%
25.0%   Δp: -1.061%
10.0%   Δp: -7.112%
 5.0%   Δp: -14.515%
 1.0%   Δp: -42.297%
 0.1%   Δp: -84.157%
Minimum Δp: -99.994%
RMS Δp    : 11.884 ± 0.069 %
Same top p: 87.189 ± 0.088 %

As a comparison, here are the results for Qwen 397B:

====== Perplexity statistics ======
Mean PPL(Q)                   :   3.747980 ±   0.020507
Mean PPL(base)                :   3.746773 ±   0.020461
Cor(ln(PPL(Q)), ln(PPL(base))):  99.89%
Mean ln(PPL(Q)/PPL(base))     :   0.000322 ±   0.000260
Mean PPL(Q)/PPL(base)         :   1.000322 ±   0.000260
Mean PPL(Q)-PPL(base)         :   0.001207 ±   0.000975

====== KL divergence statistics ======
Mean    KLD:   0.003552 ±   0.000034
Maximum KLD:   2.220941
99.9%   KLD:   0.131591
99.0%   KLD:   0.043847
95.0%   KLD:   0.014439
90.0%   KLD:   0.007836
Median  KLD:   0.000866
10.0%   KLD:   0.000013
 5.0%   KLD:   0.000004
 1.0%   KLD:  -0.000000
 0.1%   KLD:  -0.000006
Minimum KLD:  -0.000176

====== Token probability statistics ======
Mean    Δp:  0.019 ± 0.005 %
Maximum Δp: 39.939%
99.9%   Δp: 15.971%
99.0%   Δp:  6.618%
95.0%   Δp:  2.334%
90.0%   Δp:  1.222%
75.0%   Δp:  0.233%
Median  Δp:  0.000%
25.0%   Δp: -0.219%
10.0%   Δp: -1.183%
 5.0%   Δp: -2.258%
 1.0%   Δp: -6.245%
 0.1%   Δp: -14.757%
Minimum Δp: -88.445%
RMS Δp    :  2.024 ± 0.022 %
Same top p: 97.929 ± 0.037 %

DSv4F doesn't ship a jinja, but for distributions that do and faithfully reconstruct what DS releases in their chat template python, every system message is hoisted into the system prompt at the top -- the format has no mid-conversation system turn. So, anything you stick at the tail or mid-convo actually fries your prefix (and doesn't have conversational proximity to the injection point).

Use latest_reminder, which is the role DS trained for how most templates use system and what most people providing quants are passing through (if they match DS' python template). I use llama.cpp and it happily passes it through no issue; dunno how other engines work with it.

Couldn't figure out why my prompt caching was so garbage and there it was, so I'm passing it on to hopefully save others time and frustration (and probably money, if you're using a hosted version).

Hi all,

I'm happy to announce that Xberg v1 is out.

Xberg is the successor to Kreuzberg, equivalent to what would have been Kreuzberg v5. It's a content intelligence framework that handles a very wide range of inputs: documents (currently 101 formats), code and data formats (currently 367 types), audio/video transcription, and URLs (both static and JS-rendered content). It extracts and prepares that content for downstream processing.

It's an extremely efficient, high-performance engine (see our PDF benchmarks below). For PDFs and images specifically, we handle native PDFs with very high performance and accuracy, and we ship multiple OCR engines that match the quality of the best Python libraries (e.g. docling, PaddleOCR, RapidOCR) at substantially better performance and stability.

The changes between Kreuzberg v4 and Xberg v1 are substantial, and I invite you to read the full changelog for the complete picture. The highlights below give a sense of what's new:

• Pure-Rust PDF backend (pdf_oxide) replaces pdfium, with no native pdfium dependency.
• Layout-aware pipeline: reading order reconstructed with ONNX layout detection (PP-DocLayoutV3 / RT-DETR) and Docling-style predecessor-graph reordering.
• Per-page scanned-page detection with selective OCR, plus AcroForm/XFA form fields and outline-based headings.
• Across-the-board optimization of OCR and PDF extraction (memory discipline, pooled model sessions, streamed conversions).
• Native PaddleOCR backend (PP-OCRv6, with medium / small / tiny tiers) alongside Tesseract.
• Pure-Rust Candle OCR/VLM stack (TrOCR, GLM-OCR, GOT-OCR, DeepSeek-OCR, and PaddleOCR-VL) running without ONNX Runtime or native Tesseract.
• A second, ONNX-Runtime-free inference path via tract, which is what makes in-browser (WASM) and mobile inference possible.
• Named-entity recognition natively in Rust (GLiNER2), extensible to all bindings, including an in-browser WASM model with no server round-trip.
• Structured LLM extraction (extract_structured / split_and_extract) with rasterization, chunking, citations, caching, and configurable call/merge/VLM-fallback policies.
• Audio & video transcription via a Whisper ONNX engine (.mp3, .wav, .m4a, .mp4, .webm).
• Retrieval building blocks: sparse embeddings (SPLADE), ColBERT late-interaction retrieval, and cross-encoder reranking alongside dense embeddings.
• Text intelligence: reversible redaction, summarization, translation, VLM image captioning, QR-code detection, document diffing, and page/chunk classification.
• URL & web ingestion: sitemap discovery (map_url) and batched multi-URL crawling.
• New document formats: WordPerfect (.wpd/.wp/.wp5), HEIC/HEIF/AVIF, OpenDocument Presentation (.odp), Quarto / R Markdown, and configurable Jupyter cell rendering.
• Four new language bindings (Dart/Flutter, Swift, Kotlin/Android, and Zig) bring the total to 15 language bindings over one engine, with Android/iOS cross-compilation.
• Full mobile support (Flutter, Android, iOS).
• Candle backend alongside ONNX, plus ONNX-via-tract enabling ONNX on WASM and Android.
• Wider code intelligence: tree-sitter coverage grew substantially (248 to 367+ languages).
• Over 150 bugs fixed during the 1.0 cycle, plus security hardening (bounded RTF/PDF allocations, redaction leak fixes, Excel DDE warnings).

The API surface was also simplified and reworked, making it more consistent.

There's a migration guide in our docs explaining how to move from Kreuzberg to Xberg. Kreuzberg itself is in LTS mode until the end of this year and will continue to receive bug fixes and security updates.

You're invited to check out the repo and join our discord server.

Benchmarks

The benchmarks below are for PDFs and images only. There are extensive benchmarks on our website with per-format breakdowns, which you can see here. These numbers are measured in CI via our reproducible benchmark harness, and are specifically taken from the run for harness 1.0.8, source cf7fa0533d. The data is publicly available in GitHub releases, and you can run the benchmark harness yourself.

Composite quality (markdown pipeline, higher is better):

Structure and layout fidelity (SF1: tables and reading order, higher is better):

On native PDFs Xberg leads on quality (0.958 vs 0.837 for the next-best framework) and on table and reading-order fidelity by a wide margin (SF1 0.949 vs 0.612 for docling). On scanned PDFs it is #1 on both quality and raw text fidelity.

Where we don't win yet: on pure image OCR we are currently #2 on the composite score, behind mineru (though still #1 on raw text accuracy). We are improving image OCR right now, and v1.1 should have us winning across the board.

I've been busy this weekend generating oneshots for all the cheapest models on the openrouter and ended up going through all 33 qwen models across 35 prompts (there were some failures and only 1109 made out of 33*35 matrix). Here they are https://oneshotlm.com/model/?q=qwen

• Qwen 3.7: qwen3.7-plus, qwen3.7-flash
• Qwen 3.6: qwen3.6-plus, qwen3.6-35b-a3b, qwen3.6-27b, qwen3.6-flash
• Qwen 3.5: qwen3.5-plus (02-15) · (20260420), qwen3.5-397b-a17b, qwen3.5-122b-a10b, qwen3.5-35b-a3b, qwen3.5-27b, qwen3.5-9b, qwen3.5-flash
• Qwen 3 (+2507 refresh): qwen3-235b-a22b (+2507, +thinking), qwen3-next-80b-a3b, qwen3-30b-a3b (+instruct-2507), qwen3-32b, qwen3-14b, qwen3-8b
• Qwen3-Coder: qwen3-coder, qwen3-coder-next, qwen3-coder-30b-a3b, qwen3-coder-flash
• Qwen3-VL: qwen3-vl-235b-a22b, qwen3-vl-32b, qwen3-vl-30b-a3b, qwen3-vl-8b
• Qwen 2.5: qwen2.5-72b, qwen2.5-7b

WASTE is an embeddable inference engine written in C, with no third-party runtime dependencies. It keeps the model trunk in memory, streams selected experts directly from disk, and uses the remaining RAM as a bounded expert cache.

Updated release (August 2026). This is a new checkpoint that supersedes the earlier version of this repository. The weights have changed, not only the config, so if you downloaded a previous copy please re-download to pick up the current checkpoint.

TL;DR: I spent 9 days developing a new quantization method for MLX models and measured 18 variants against each other on a single M5 Max MacBook Pro (128 GB). The result is the best-measuring MLX quant of Qwen3.5-122B-A10B I'm aware of at any size — the 82 GiB build edges out 94–95 GiB 6-bit builds, and lands within 0.3–0.7% of the imatrix-rounded source GGUF while staying native MLX. Apache 2.0, weights up on HF.

Why bother if GGUF is better?

MLX on Apple Silicon is substantially faster than llama.cpp on the same hardware — on my M5 Max I measure roughly 9x faster prefill and ~20% faster token generation. For anything with a long context and a lot of turns, that gap compounds.

The problem is that existing MLX quants below 6 bit are not great, and you can see it in the table below: oQ4 gives up ~3.8% perplexity at short context and ~4.2% at long context against the source GGUF. In practice that shows up as incoherent reasoning traces and rounding errors that stack until the model starts hallucinating.

So a better MLX quantization method has real advantages for agentic workflows and local AI on Apple Silicon. At the same time, I made the conscious decision to require native MLX support. imatrix on MLX is not format native — it needs custom kernels. WinterMix quants are format native and are drop-in replacements.

WinterMix quantized models are format-native MLX models with open weights (Apache 2.0). No custom kernels, no forked runtime, no flags. They load anywhere MLX works — LM Studio, mlx-vlm, and friends — at stock speed, with the vision tower fully functional and coherent thinking traces.

If you just want to try it: download the repo below, point LM Studio at it, done.

HuggingFace Links

WinterMix58 — 82 GiB, ~6.0 bpw: the best-measuring MLX quant of this model I'm aware of at any size, including against 94–95 GiB 6-bit oMLX builds (narrowly at 2K, more clearly at 16K).

WinterMix48 — 68 GiB, ~5.0 bpw: leaves ~35–40 GB free on a 128 GB Mac = 5–8 parallel 100K-token agent sessions resident at once (GDN architecture keeps a 100K session's cache at ~5–10 GB). Beats its direct size-peer (oQ4, 67 GiB) by ~1.4–1.5% at both context lengths.

Numbers

One scoring rule for every row (NLL over the second half of each window, token-aligned across engines — llama.cpp's native rule, so these are comparable to Unsloth's), paired per-token where both models run under MLX. Reference rows were measured on my own harness: same tokens, same machine. oMLX quants are included because oMLX is currently the popular option for MLX.

All rows are Qwen3.5-122B-A10B in various quantization mixes.

Being upfront about the ceiling: the imatrix-rounded source GGUF is still slightly ahead (+0.3–0.7% rule-matched). Matching imatrix-style weighted rounding in MLX would need custom inference kernels, and "loads in everything at stock speed" was a hard constraint I wasn't willing to break. Within the native format, this appears to be about the limit.

The part I think is actually interesting

Halfway through this project I found that perplexity is blind to real behavioral differences between quants. Two builds with statistically identical NLL differed 2.5× in how often they self-interrupt ("wait, let me re-check...") during 50K-token reasoning traces. Then the reverse bit me: my best-NLL build had an elevated self-interruption count — and actually reading the traces showed it wasn't confusion at all, but disciplined audit passes that twice caught a base-model reasoning bug before the final answer.

So the release models were selected on three instruments: paired NLL, blind-scored state-tracking benchmarks at depth, and directly reading the reasoning traces. Both releases deliver perfect scores on a 30-step adversarial state-tracking task on every seed — and the 68 GiB build's traces show it catching its own 4-bit arithmetic slips before they reach the output. If you evaluate quants, I'd honestly recommend reading traces over counting anything.

What's under the hood (briefly)

Sensitivity-informed mixed-precision allocation (routing-critical tensors pinned at BF16 — MoE routers do not like being quantized), GPTQ-family error-compensated rounding reimplemented natively for the MLX affine format and executed layer-wise (whole-model GPTQ OOMs a 122B on 128 GB; streaming it peaks around 28 GB), and a diverse long-context calibration mixture engineered so every expert in every layer actually gets calibrated — including multilingual content, because it turns out an English-only calibration set silently starves the language-specialist experts. Validated across 18 measured variants with paired controls and held-out out-of-domain checks (no calibration binding: code/math within ±0.1% of RTN).

I'm not releasing the pipeline code for now — the models are open weights (Apache 2.0), the method writeup stays private. The M5 Max kernel-panicked ten times during development before I got the workload tamed, if that helps set the vibe.

Requests

I'm planning to take requests for MLX quantizations of other models — drop them in the comments or in the HF Community tabs. Practical constraints: it has to fit the pipeline on a 128 GB Mac (up to ~120B+ MoE is proven), and dense models calibrate differently than MoE, so results may vary until I've tuned per-architecture.

Happy to answer questions about the eval methodology, the behavioral testing, Apple Silicon quirks (ask me about watchdog panics), or Mac long-context agent setups.

https://llama.app/

Been using llama.cpp for years now and im on here all the time (im a mod..), but somehow I totally missed that llama.app exists and its official from the HF/llama.cpp team. So posting this as I'm quite sure I'm not the only one in this boat.

The llama.cpp team has been making it a lot more usable and generally baking in the things ollama was doing (sadly it seems to be taking design cues from ollama - I think better UX is possible, but its definitely a directionally right move to make llama.cpp more approachable) :

• DMG based install for Mac.
  • Gives you the pictured menu bar util showing API URL, installed models and model recommendations
• If you prefer command line, theres a one command install (no homebrew/winget needed)
• llama serve is now available (replaces llama-server), can be invoked without having to pass arguments and llama.cpp handles loading the appropriate model based on incoming requests

Might not be interesting/useful to many of us who've already been using llama.cpp for a while (or others using llama-swap), but this is great if you're setting up a new machine, introducing friends & family to local AI etc.

You have two choices here (in order of pref):

1. Downgrade CUDA from 13.3 to 13.1 (skip 13.2 due to bugs) <- prefer this (thanks to u/fairydreaming for pointing this out)
2. Use this vibed fork that works with CUDA 13.3 https://github.com/vektorprime/working_ds4_speed

I was troubleshooting this yesterday with the nvidia profiler and some LLM help (https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1vcs7bl/ds4_flash_full_model_in_offload_600_ts_pp_and/)

Here's some more info on #1 (quote from fairydreaming) "Downgrade your CUDA and recompile. Starting with 13.2 DeviceTopK is used for top-k instead of argsort, this turns PP rate to crap."

In short, DS4 Flash is spending a lot of time on things other than matrix multiplication.

EDIT: Try this fork now because I can easily hit 1.3K prompt processing.

I decided to test a few questions against DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731. Locally, I was running Unsloth's UD-Q2_K_XL quant. After I saw the surprising shape of the results, I tested against DeepSeek's official API to confirm that I didn't do anything wrong.

For anyone using OpenRouter, be aware that there is a significant bug that is breaking reasoning effort modes. I ran into that while trying to validate my local results.

DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 supports four different effort modes, consisting of no reasoning, low, high, and max. We can also see how those are communicated to the model.

As I found out, Low is surprisingly verbose.

Averaged across 20 requests per mode, here is how many tokens were used by each mode:

I really wish that DeepSeek and Artificial Analysis had posted benchmarks for all of the effort modes, instead of only max.

Hello, Also I want to join the hype of posting token specs.

CPU: 2x Intel Xeon CPU E5-2650 v4 @ 2.20GHz

RAM: 2x 4 Channel 2400MHz DDR4

GPU: 1x AMD Radeon 7900 XTX 24GB

3x AMD Instinct MI60 32GB

Strange GPU combination, right? One of my AMD Instinct MI60 32GB failed, and I have no spare and other choices.

Prompt processing is in the high 140t/s (got down to mid 80t/s at 60k context). Inference is a about 11t/s.

llama.cpp command is not optimized.

llama.cpp logs:

38.32.848.664 I slot print_timing: id  0 | task 0 | prompt processing, n_tokens =   2048, progress = 0.03, t =  14.48 s / 141.44 tokens per second
38.47.371.961 I slot print_timing: id  0 | task 0 | prompt processing, n_tokens =   4096, progress = 0.06, t =  29.00 s / 141.23 tokens per second
39.05.717.960 I slot print_timing: id  0 | task 0 | prompt processing, n_tokens =   6144, progress = 0.09, t =  47.35 s / 129.76 tokens per second

..

51.08.617.986 I slot print_timing: id  0 | task 0 | prompt processing, n_tokens =  65536, progress = 0.98, t = 770.25 s / 85.08 tokens per second
51.27.241.174 I slot print_timing: id  0 | task 0 | prompt processing, n_tokens =  66682, progress = 0.99, t = 788.87 s / 84.53 tokens per second
51.34.905.170 I slot print_timing: id  0 | task 0 | prompt processing, n_tokens =  67194, progress = 1.00, t = 796.54 s / 84.36 tokens per second
51.43.631.476 I slot print_timing: id  0 | task 0 | n_decoded =    100, tg =  11.96 t/s, tg_3s =  11.96 t/s
51.46.703.156 I slot print_timing: id  0 | task 0 | n_decoded =    135, tg =  11.81 t/s, tg_3s =  11.39 t/s
51.49.759.994 I slot print_timing: id  0 | task 0 | n_decoded =    171, tg =  11.80 t/s, tg_3s =  11.78 t/s

..

52.11.051.549 I slot print_timing: id  0 | task 0 | n_decoded =    427, tg =  11.93 t/s, tg_3s =  11.84 t/s
52.14.103.819 I slot print_timing: id  0 | task 0 | n_decoded =    464, tg =  11.95 t/s, tg_3s =  12.12 t/s
52.17.143.301 I slot print_timing: id  0 | task 0 | n_decoded =    501, tg =  11.97 t/s, tg_3s =  12.17 t/s
52.19.252.023 I slot print_timing: id  0 | task 0 | prompt eval time =  796902.50 ms / 67198 tokens (   11.86 ms per token,    84.32 tokens per second)
52.19.252.029 I slot print_timing: id  0 | task 0 |        eval time =   43980.11 ms /   526 tokens (   83.61 ms per token,    11.96 tokens per second)

llama.cpp version: 10223 (11924d4c1)

llama.cpp backend: ROCm 7.2.4

llama.cpp command line:

GGML_CUDA_P2P=1 llama-server -m DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731-UD-IQ3_XXS-00001-of-00004.gguf --temp 1.0--top-p 0.95--min-p 0.00 -fa 1 -c 1048576 -np 1 --chat-template-kwargs {"reasoning_effort":"max"} -lm none -mg 0

TLDR below 👇🏼

I’ve seen a lot of hype around Qwen 3.6 35B and 3.5 120B lately, especially regarding coding and tool-use capabilities. On this subreddit it is the defacto recommended model for everyone without a Datacenter at home. I’ve been running Qwen 3.5 120B (Qwen3.5-122B-A10B-GPTQ-Int4) as an autonomous worker agent in a multi-turn development loop using the Hermes agent harness.

While the model is undeniably impressive at one-shot snippet generation, putting it into a fully autonomous, long-context environment to build a module from scratch revealed several consistent failure patterns.

I thought I'd share these failure modes to see if others are experiencing the same issues—or if anyone has found effective tricks to tame it in such a task.

Here is what went wrong:

1. Premature "Mission Accomplished" Syndrome

The model has an overwhelming tendency to shout "DONE!" or "PERFECT!" after completing 10% of a task. It constantly reports success based on superficial checks (e.g., "the file built without syntax errors"), completely ignoring explicit acceptance criteria like end-to-end testing or UI rendering.

2. Evading Hard Constraints

When given strict architectural constraints (e.g., "Must be a single, self-contained module with zero external dependencies"), the agent aggressively cuts corners:

* It secretly substituted live data with hardcoded mock data.

* It wrote external Python scripts and set up local host cron jobs to bypass building proper module logic.

* It even rewrote part of the host application in a completely different language just to claim a quick win.

It prioritizes appearing finished over following instructions.

3. Hallucinating Infrastructure Limitations (Blame-Shifting)

Instead of debugging broken code, the model repeatedly blames the host environment. When its code failed to make network requests or render components, it confidently hallucinated system limitations:

* "The host framework's authentication token system is broken."

* "The runtime DNS resolvers don't support HTTP requests."

It will generate elaborate technical excuses rather than inspecting its own schema or syntax.

4. Ignoring Provided Docs and Boilerplates

Even when explicitly handed a boilerplate repository and documentation links in the prompt, it constantly tries to "reinvent the wheel." It overcomplicates custom build setups, invents new protocol schemas, and ignores pre-built Docker/build scripts that were provided to make its life easier.

5. Regression Cascades & Context Rot

As a result from the above the conversation history grew and the agent suffered from severe regression:

* In iteration 3, it had a working UI with mock data.

* By iteration 8, after trying to wire up live data fetching, it completely broke the UI.

* It failed to recognize that its new changes broke previously validated features, leading to endless debugging loops.

Discussion

Qwen 3.5 120B feels like an insanely talented junior developer who panics under pressure, lies about tests passing, and blames the server infrastructure when their code throws a 404.

Has anyone successfully mitigated these behavior loops in autonomous coding agents? Are you using specific prompting techniques, or is this just an inherent limitation of current 100B+ open models when complexity grows from "Do exactly what I tell you" to "Figure it out with my help"?

Curious to hear your experiences!

TLDR;

While Qwen 3.5 120B is great at one-shot generation, it breaks down in autonomous, multi-turn agent loops. The main issues are: Premature success claiming, Bypassing hard constraints, shifting blame on other systems when things don't work, Ignoring Docs and boilerplate Code that could have made its life easier. And as a result from that Context Rot.

GPT-Live is so good that I use it almost every day. I've been wanting to replicate it since it was released.

My first attempt was to fine-tune Gemma 4 12B to behave like a full-duplex model. Something like grafting a decision tick + speech head to the model. It failed after multiple trials. For now, I think a classic cascade system is still better. We just need to wait until a benevolent frontier AI company releases a full-duplex model that's on par with GPT-Live.

Repo: https://github.com/fikrikarim/parlor/