In the car business there is only one or two car models that are the best ideal choice, but many subpar companies and models, are still selling for many reasons.
It shows DeepSeek is competitive, if not better sometimes, than GPT 5.5. Also shows there is no moat. As such it is a highly significant signal.
I agree that there may be a lot of variation between models that leads to different use cases, at least today. But I’m not sure the car analogy works.
An X5 is not simply “inferior” to a CR-V, or vice versa. A Camry is not “inferior” to an F-150, or vice versa. They are optimized for different buyers, budgets, constraints, and use cases.
That may actually be the better analogy for AI models: there probably is not one universal “best” model. There are models that are better or worse for particular tasks, price points, latency requirements, deployment constraints, privacy needs, etc.
"I am not sure how many people will run AI models locally. It still seems like a niche application to me. However, it will make decent machines to play video games..."
This is the 2026 edition of Ken Olsen:
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home"
> This is the 2026 edition of Ken Olsen: "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home"
Digging into this:
> In conclusion, there is evidence that Ken Olsen did doubt the need for computers in the home, but the evidence is based primarily on the testimony of David Ahl who was perturbed when the personal computer project he championed at DEC was not supported by Olsen in 1974.
> Olsen’s resistance may have been similar to that expressed by another DEC executive, Gordon Bell. In 1980 Bell thought home terminals would act as gateways to remote computers which would provide appropriate services.
It was supposedly said in 1977: most computers at that time were not small, and so it would not be surprising that people would not expect the general public to desire a large, power-hungry, noise-y apparatus in their house.
This is why I'm bearish on Anthropic, OpenAI, and friends. I am not confident that we will continue to see the same pace of improvement in frontier model capabilities as we have seen over the past year or two - not using similar mathematics at least. But I think that getting results that are close enough to the same standard to be a realistic substitute but in a model small enough to run locally may well happen quite quickly. And if it does - where is the moat to defend these AI organisations with their astronomical budgets when they're already starting to price more realistically and that's already killing a lot of the hype they've enjoyed until very recently? They have an accidental moat because they bought up the global supply chain for storage but that surely isn't going to last once the data centres to hold that storage are becoming liabilities.
If model performance asymptotes and CPU/GPU and RAM keep growing, even slowly, then eventually we will have frontier models on desktop that are totally competitive with hosted. It’s only a matter of time.
You already can if you’re willing to spend many thousands of dollars on a beast of a machine. I’m talking about middle tier desktops and laptops here. Maybe eventually even phones.
The only way hosted stays strongly competitive in that world is if they can keep pushing the frontier or by playing the classic social media and SaaS games of network effect building and integrations.
Many people might still use hosted, of course, but what I really mean is that their multiples won’t be justified and they will have little to no moat. AI will become commoditized, like a sophisticated next generation form of an encyclopedia with search.
> This is why I'm bearish on Anthropic, OpenAI, and friends.
Just because you can do more and more things at home (thanks Moore and Dennard), doesn't preclude needing things also done remotely. The number of at-home systems seems to have fed a growing number of remote systems (especially once always-on connectivity became ubiquitous).
It's basically the angle Apple is going for: do as much locally (for the sake of privacy), and then offload when it becomes "too much".
We kinda ended up with terminals connected to mainframes anyway. The terminal being the web browser, and the mainframe being SaS. So it wasn't that far off.
People take these quotes out of context all the time. Said in a business context, there was no need, at that time, for someone to have a personal computer.
There's no business justification in 1977 for a personal computer department at a business. It's similar to the gates quote about RAM (I think it was 64KB?).
These statements aren't meant to be forever quotes. Their business plan quotes.
That exact quote? No, never.
He said something like: current computers at the time had 64kb of RAM, so the OS was designed with a limit of 640kb, and he believed this would give them 10 years of future proofing. As it happened, that limit was reached much faster, in about 6 years.
He had a long career and presumably many successes, and is fallible like the rest of us. But a half-remembered zinger with no context makes for zippier posts I guess.
The early popularity of Minitel, the continued popularity of ssh/tmux, and the web browser itself indicates that bespoke client applications are not the only way. He wasn’t directionally wrong.
I will not be spending thousands in hardware to run the worlds most mediocre llms at meh speeds. Sorry. I know for llm bros they think every output made by an LLM is magic, like every NFT guy thought every NFT collection was game changing, but there's nothing useful you can do with llms and 128gb of RAM (and there never will be) unless you have llm psychosis. Who cares.
Nothing isn't quite right but you wouldn't be using it like the hosted ones. 128gb is more than enough to run models to index my files and photos, denoise photos / AI photo masking, magic eraser type tasks for images, frame generation for gaming, etc.
Even for a lot of LLM type tasks, 128gb is likely more than enough to control a lot of PC configuration and automation with natural language.
Nobody ever said that, at least not as an assertion or prediction. The actual instances of similar language are from multiple people describing their earlier thoughts before they learned it wasn’t true.
It’s better, it’s useful even for those who don’t have a deep knowledge of computers. I’d expect more AI users than programmers, than ms-word users, than excel users.
Local models aren’t deterministically equivalent in capabilities to foundation models. Home computers are turing complete; just like a mainframe. They are just slower. Often not slower enough to matter.
Most people are ok with slower. An AI that lets you edit a family picture, in say 30 seconds, locally is preferable to one that is instantaneous but requires you to submit that picture to examination/storage/training/sale in someone else's AI ecosystem. If i want to crop my ex out of family photos, i should not have to first give that photo to Microsoft. If want an LLM to write a book report for me, i dont want it also alerting my school. And if i write a memo for a client, and i want an LLM to check the spelling, i dont want that memo leaked either.
I'd like to think so but the existence of Google and Apple and Microsoft's cloud based photo tools with phone integration suggests that's false.
You could run a pretty good home server on $50 of gear and yet we never saw any real adoption of OwnCloud/NextCloud style products as an alternative to Google Drive/Photos or Apple Cloud.
Why should LLM/Transformers be any different? Especially when you need a proper expensive GPU to run them instead of a Raspberry Pi?
It’s completely technically possible to have cloud services where customer data is opaque to the provider. Some of Apple’s services are like this already, for example.
I think there’s a sweet spot currently with munging your data blindly on the server so that your client device battery still lasts all day.
Meanwhile Apple and others push on with making client side models more efficient so that eventually the server costs and complexities go away.
If asked to choose between photo editing done within 3s using cloud provider vs an average of 30s using local compute, most consumers will choose the former without hesitation.
Most users' usage is also going to fall nicely in the free tier of a typical freemium pricing model, like ChatGPT today.
People who talk endlessly about local inference have no idea about user workflows and usability.
You may not, but experience shows that most people are just fine sharing the most personal stuff not only with cloud services, but with hole world through anti-social media.
> Most people are ok with slower. An AI that lets you edit a family picture, in say 30 seconds, locally is preferable to one that is instantaneous but requires you to submit that picture to examination/storage/training/sale in someone else's AI ecosystem.
Maybe if you ask them that question, but if you show them two products, they'll definitely prefer the faster one. 30 seconds is a long time to watch a progress bar.
Plus there's the other question. If this thing is slower ... what's the price? The desktop/mini-pc version of this is $3000, after all. At this performance level what is an acceptable price for the laptops?
People definitely aren't going to accept more expensive + slower ...
Fast and public, or slow and private. Not everyone wants, or is allowed to, share their data with the AI world. And do not doubt that every bit shared with an AI service will be used for training.
The question here is about markets though. Not everyone wants x but if the vast majority of people want y, x is going to be niche and expensive.
You don't think the commercials of Google's AI photo features aren't going to have an impact on Apple users of their phones can do a worse version of that feature and it takes longer?
"...Between April 1 and May 15, 2026, a group of 49 mathematicians compiled a dataset of research-level mathematics questions with known answers... We present the resulting collection of 100 questions....We evaluated these questions in three stages: a single attempt by five state-of-the-art LLMs....we concluded Stage 3 with only 2 unsolved questions. This demonstrates that the mathematical reasoning capabilities of LLMs are becoming impressive..."
I had the same thought, because even if the exact solution doesn't appear there's a notable difference between performing a literature search versus solving something de novo. But I think perhaps this benchmark wasn't meant to exclude the former and that the point may have been to test the ability of the model to accurately interpret and synthesize relevant output for research level mathematical problems at all.
I think you are underestimating the complexity of such problems. A PhD in the exact field of research would need days to weeks to understand what the problem means and how to solve it. This is far beyond "throwing standard techniques" at a problem. (But, I keep emphasizing this, it is also far away from solving research mathematics.)
When you write "there's a notable difference between performing a literature search versus solving something de novo", you suggest that the questions we provided can be solved doing a literature search.
This is incorrect. What is correct is the following: When understanding the existing literature on a question in the dataset, one can derive the answer without creating new mathematics research.
So the difference is "searching the literature" vs "understanding the literature" that made me believe it. But if you didn't that's even better!
I did not suggest that, no. I stress that claiming a possibility is not the same as claiming a fact.
I observed that the two things are quite different in terms of model capabilities. That's relevant when considering how to interpret the results of the benchmark. We need to differentiate between (at minimum) reproducing an (approximately) verbatim answer from the training set, assembling disparate items from the training set into an answer piecewise, and performing novel logical inference using items from the training set.
I further speculated about the intent of the authors but you seem to be saying that my guess was wrong. In response I will observe that for any problem that's known to be solved it's likely to be quite difficult if not impossible to confidently determine that the model performed a de novo derivation as opposed to finding pieces of the answer in various places.
Of course there's absolutely nothing wrong with the latter! It's just important to be aware of the possibility when drawing conclusions about model capabilities.
Partially, 2.2 Submission workflow W2 deals with this:
> Stage W2 The five project-active models, see Table 2, attempted the question. Their answers were compared to
the original answer by an LLM judge. If at most three models answered correctly, the contributor could
proceed.
So "trivially contained in the training data" is excluded, as then all models could/should easily come up with the solution.
“In the training data” isn’t really relevant for a modern LLM. The better question would be are they solvable using known techniques that have been fine-tuned in.
A simple example, as a non-mathematician: I’d expect a well trained LLM to be able to solve any integral that can be solved with integration by parts. I would be much more interested to see it solve one with no know solution using some novel technique.
Obviously this doesn’t really lend itself to making a benchmark, but if something is solveable by a known technique, and the LLM has has some kind of RL training re using that technique, seeing a solution isn’t too surprising.
There is a whole moral judgement to be made here...lets hope Ilya wont get too pissed off if somebody leaks the work of his new initiative...information wants to be free and all that...
Also would love to know if the same Legal team advised on Gemini...
reply