this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2026
190 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

86354 readers
3213 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] eicker@lemmy.world 5 points 26 minutes ago

We are repeating an old pattern in computing: throw more hardware at the problem until efficiency becomes impossible to ignore. Bigger models have delivered remarkable gains, but they’re increasingly expensive. The next breakthroughs may come less from adding parameters and more from smarter architectures, better algorithms and more efficient inference.

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 47 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

But it’s so good at programming if you already know how to program! Surely that’s worth burning the planet and crashing the world economy??

[–] Bonje@lemmy.world 19 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Actually still no

https://github.com/JustVugg/colibri

Everyone was desperate to be first because capitalism. But we are getting good models without the insane build out requirement. Which will be hilarious to leave the cunts holding the bag. Not that the planet is better for it in the end.

[–] ImgurRefugee114@reddthat.com 7 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

~1 token per second (storage bound gen4 nvme)... Some of us have places to be.

Don't get me wrong. Its impressive that it can run at all, but honestly the usecase is exceedingly narrow. You'd have better results with a structured quantized gpu-only gemma or qwen workflow. Quality over quantity, rely on validation and a structured process: lots of cross-model review and iteration loops with spec and test driven dev. You could probably get a working alpha by the time colibri set up the environment.

[–] Asafum@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (3 children)

Yeah I'm just beginning my local AI journey on a 5080, tried Qwen3.6 27b Q4 and was getting like 1tps because of the vram overflow. Ran it over night at it was still chewing on generating a prompt for a sub agent when I got up in the middle of the night until it simply ended in some kind of "fetch failure" lol. I think I gave it something too large to tackle, but either way 1tps is kinda garbage.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 3 minutes ago

Wow I’m starting to feel bad about that time I asked AI to make a joke about scatology & eschatology sounding similar.

[–] RedstoneValley@sh.itjust.works 1 points 33 minutes ago

You could use the 35B MoE model, tune it a little bit and get much better results. I have a 5060 ti and 70-80 tok/s are the norm

[–] worldclasspun@programming.dev 1 points 1 hour ago

Is that quantized? 4 bit Qwen 3.6 can get 22tps on a 1060.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

All for software that'll be out of date and fashion next year!

[–] crazycraw@crazypeople.online 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

ehhh I dunno... it's an undeniable success for a few.. and I'd wager that was the intent.

[–] Flower@sh.itjust.works 1 points 36 minutes ago

Some folks were dreaming of the Dark Enlightenment for some time, and along came the McGuffin they could use for this.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

The author seems to be confusing user scalability with performance scaling:

The problem with generative AI, in the industry’s own jargon, is that it does not scale. The cost of growing from, say, a thousand users to a million is a key factor that venture capitalists examine when they evaluate start-ups.

This is a question of whether openai can handle 1 million users asking chatgpt to write a basic html website. That can be scaled horizontally and is just a matter of building more data centers.

The author then goes on to conflate this user scaling with performance scaling:

Yet the returns are diminishing. The bigger an AI model is, the less it improves with each added parameter, and so it must be made bigger at a faster rate just to sustain steady progress. I asked a few AI researchers whether they could name any other real-world software that scales so poorly. None of them could think of any. Even outside the world of software, it’s hard to find a comparable example, given that economy of scale is the principle that has made light bulbs, cars, and clothing so affordable. By economic and engineering measures, generative AI might be the worst technology ever deployed.

This is a question of whether chatgpt can generate a full complex web app. For this there may be a limit to this bigger model approach but this is common to most technologies, performance sometimes has hard limits. You aren't going to get a car to go 300 mph by making the engine bigger and adding more cylinders, there's diminishing returns, that doesn't make cars the worst technology ever deployed... maybe they are but for other reasons.

Economies of scale also isn't about performance scaling, it's about capacity scaling. Capacity scaling for AI does reflect economies of scale, that's why you have these large AI companies building large data centers.

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 8 points 55 minutes ago (1 children)

That can be scaled horizontally and is just a matter of building more data centers.

At one of my old jobs "just" was considered a bad word

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 26 minutes ago

Ok, remove the just then, the point still stands that it is a solvable problem. We know how to make data centers, it may not be easy or cheap but it's possible just like we know how to build car factories.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Efficiency is relative, if there is a solution that uses less resources then the other solution is more efficient, but if there is no other solution then the solution is the most efficient.

Is using fable 5 to do 2+2 efficient? No, because a calculator can do that with less resources

Is using fable 5 to rewrite a code base from zig to rust efficient? Maybe since the only other solution is a human it depends on how you compare human resources to compute resources. Time wise it'll probably take the human longer since they require breaks.

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 5 points 55 minutes ago (1 children)

Time wise it'll probably take the human longer since they require breaks.

This is only true if your only metric for 'success' is lines of code written.

LLMs will output code much faster than a human can type, there's no doubt about that. But when you consider how terrible even the frontier models still are at the architecture and maintenance side of the process, humans are still way, way more efficient.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com -3 points 38 minutes ago (1 children)

There's a lot of variation in quality with humans though.

I don't doubt that there are some engineers better then the frontier models at coding considering architecture, maintenance performance etc. Those engineers tend to be more expensive though. I

don't think an average engineer is better then the frontier models though, and say an entry level engineer fresh out of a boot camp would be significantly worse then even a tier 2 model.

[–] very_well_lost@lemmy.world 2 points 8 minutes ago

Having worked closely with junior engineers and with high-end models, I strongly disagree. In almost all cases the output of the juniors is on par or better (albeit slower) than the LLMs ,and unlike an LLM, a junior actually learns and becomes much more consistent than the AI over time.