121
If open weight models are the future, U.S. AI companies are going to have a hard time
(www.fastcompany.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2026
121 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
86628 readers
3409 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I ran DeepSeek and Llama and Mistral at home on my consumer grade gaming PC.
With a little tweaking of the system prompts and configuring web search, I was running a local LLM that felt pretty darn close to the commercial LLMs.
With this technology out in the open internet where you can download the models in a few hours I don't see how the commercial AI companies are going to last. If selling "Artificial Intelligence" subscriptions is all your company does for revenue, you're screwed.
I downloaded and ran an LLM that I could have a conversation with and feed basic coding problems to for basically zero dollars and ran it on my puny gaming machine...puny compared to enterprise-class hardware. It would be trivial for a company with a very moderate budget to buy some servers and start running their own LLMs that they can use to feed all the PII and HIPPA data they want.
And Llama and Mistral are ancient history at this point.
The cutting edge of local is lightyears better now. It's basically where ChatGPT/Anthropic were not that long ago, with a bit less world knowledge because of the size.
What's the cutting edge now? Skool me...I want to try it. Can I grab one using ollama?
https://sleepingrobots.com/dreams/stop-using-ollama/
And this is just the tip of the iceberg for ollama. They're the same kind of scammy tech bros as OpenAI.
The best setup depends on your hardware. There is no "easy button" unfortunately, quantized LLMs are just too intense and finicky to run without making some informed choices.
It also depends on what you want to do with the LLM. For example, some are too slow or bad at long context for agenic use, some quantizations are great at scripts but terrible outside that, or vice versa.
But LM Studio and Qwen 3.5 35B Q4 is probably the "easiest" flat recommendation I can make.
Or... honestly, just pay $40 for basically unlimited usage for a year from an API, then roll your own frontend.
Why are quantised LLMs harder to run than non quantised ones?
I just meant that you have to be cognizant of what went into the quantization.
As an example, a “Q4_K_M” could be too much quantization to be usable on one model, and an inefficient waste of space on the other. Two Q4_K_Ms of the exact same model could be completely different, one totally borked. Or one particular Q4_K_M could excel in one task, but be totally useless for another, even with the exact same settings, when a slightly different sized or type of quantization would excel.
It’s a deep rabbit hole. It’s not random either; there are distinct technical reasons behind every case mentioned above.
And that’s not even at the cutting edge quantization anymore, though what’s “cutting edge” completely depends on your particular hardware and use case.
I’m trying to make this sound daunting on purpose.
Many people have really horrible experience with a default “ollama run” for this exact reason, because the defaults are terrible and the customization is critical to getting coherent, performant output.
Unquantized LLMs, on the other hand, are basically always run the same way: vllm docker image on a big server, official weights. There’s less to “go wrong” trying to squeeze it on hardware with unofficial runtimes and compressors.
Well that sucks. I was really impressed as a novice to open weight LLMs with the ease of use for Ollama on Bazzite.
I've been running LM Studio on Bazzite and I had to do nothing to get it working. Just go to the LM Studio website and download the
.appimagefor Linux. If you open it with Gear Lever it will install like an app from the app store and show up in your launcher with an icon.From there I have just been able to download models and use them from in the app. In fact I setup a local server to connect to my IDE and have been trying out local models for coding. It's pretty cool
Awesome! I'll give it a try.
I can also vouch for lmstudio. If you can get Hermes running on Linux I would suggest trying that as well. It connects to lm studio and you use Hermes to communicate with the model. Iook into it as there's a lot to it, I've really been enjoying using it so far it even learns how I like to create tasks and I've stopped having to ask it to delegate certain tasks, it just knows to do it and to break down the tasks so my fairly context starved local model can handle it.
As for a model, the Qwen 3.6 family of models do really well. I'd suggest the Qwen 3.6 35B a3b probably Q4 depending on your hardware. It's large, but because it's a mixture of experts model only 3b of experts are kept on vram at any one time so it stays fast. Qwen 3.6 27b is the smarter "dense" model, but trying to stay with Q4 for quality it becomes too large for 16GB vram and for me runs at like 2 tokens per second lol
Since you mention using Ollama, you probably aren't running actual deepseek on your pc. Ollama took a Qwen model that was finetuned using deepseek output and named it deepseek.
Those are pretty out of date models at this point. Right now, the model most people would recommend for consumer gaming hardware is Qwen 3.6 27b.
I actually tried Qwen 3.6 27B but it wouldn't quite fit in my 6900XT so I had to go down to the 14B. I don't have the tools or the skillset to really test the capabilities of an LLM but with some very rudimentary system prompts it felt quite natural to me. Shockingly natural considering that talking to a real LLM running on my own PC felt like it was smarter than the Majel Barrett computer on Star Trek:TNG...