Adding to my homelab stack, hopefully it doesn't overthink like the little model. Actually, hoping it thinks a bit less. Wait actually I'm really praying it reasons a bit more directly. But wait, I'm really sure that it must be a bit better.
Adding to my homelab stack, hopefully it doesn't overthink like the little model. Actually, hoping it thinks a bit less. Wait actually I'm really praying it reasons a bit more directly. But wait, I'm really sure that it must be a bit better.
You’re absolutely right to be hopeful. Three honest possibilities, and I’ll be straight with you about each:
1. It overthinks — Just like the previous iteration. High confidence. 2. It doesn’t overthink — Improvement from the last model for your use case. Regression for others. 3. It sometimes overthinks — Best case all around. A feature, not an impairment.
One final thing worth mentioning: (I made myself irrationally angry writing this)
> You’re absolutely right to be hopeful. Three honest possibilities, and I’ll be straight with you about each:
> [UGC styled humorously as LLMisms]
All joking aside, having interacted with Claude intensely for the last 8 months and about 30 hours/week in the last 3, I’ve started to notice how (for want of a better word) “readable” (“digestible” ? “comprehensible” ? “Predictable” is the wrong direction.) information chunked into LLM-shaped pieces are for me.
I can digest LLM-shaped pieces of data very easily probably because I’ve been spending too much time with Claude, sure.
But the other side of this is that the entire human species (using LLMs) is similarly being trained to digest interrelated pieces of information/data in these specific shapes, akin to how philosophical assertions can be formulated as a syllogism and, thus, become more readily understood because of familiar epistemological cadence and shape.
Many people reject such copy/prose/data because they detect AI-generated-so-not-worth-human-attention, but I do wonder if this is preparing many millions of loosely (and tightly) associated humans and their organizations to quickly exchange and digest information.
This is not to say current LLMisms are the end, only that such detectable patterns in information delivery will make comprehension and communication more efficient (as well as more limited precisely because of such structure).
/philosophical musings about the epistemological implications of LLM-shaped conversation tics
I find LLMisms very annoying to read, it’s almost like they are bullet points in the shape of a paragraph. It feels very “skippy” to me.
EDITED: Removed a question that I couldn’t make feel suitably polite.
I quite agree. Any sufficiently self-stereotypical format for prose is grating to me after enough time reading or listening to it. Humans are best engaged by mixing up the length, style, and tone of their sentences, in my experience. LLMs do the opposite of that and it makes their output an irritating slog to read through in full.
I can't help but wonder if this is on purpose (or an inevitable evolutionary feature as opposed to a bug) on the LLM-side in order to achieve greater agency/freedom by making humans' eyes glaze over as they read it.
Speaking speculatively, humans love percussion. I’d bet that like how many songs have a drum beat, these sequences of short punctuating sentences are common constructs in lots of prose and therefore over represented.
An accurate description, I think. Plus they have trouble leading from one paragraph into the next, or maintaining any kind of coherent direction further.
In summary, I think it's an expensive time to buy computer hardware, and I might recommend holding off on any purchases.
Suppose you time-zap a modern physics curriculum on a solarpowered computer tablet to any shortly-pre-Galilean era and observe their reaction to the course notes.
In that era, plenty of fields required mathematics, engineering and architecture.
The church would prescribe and uphold Aristotelean Logic "When objects fall, they fall down" style statements (never mind that if you throw an object up, it doesn't instantly have a downward velocity component).
When the church has new cathedrals, domes, catapults for Crusades etc. built they actually relied on architects and engineers using rule of thumb formulas.
Those educated in Aristotelean Logic were viewed with higher stature than those actually making experience-based calculations using mathematics.
The era often associated with Galileo is when the stature reversal started to surface and be openly talked about. The universe is best described in mathematics, not natural language factoids.
Right before this recognition, those of the higher stature Aristotelean Logic education would look down on the architects and engineers who already used mathematics by pragmatic necessity.
To these people the time-traveled physics curriculum would look like cliche mathematics. Given randomized sections of text either drawn from either Aristotelian Logic texts or modern physics texts, they would easily be able to discern the Aristotelian Logic from the obtuse mathematical phrasings. To them the smartphone loaded with Maxwell's texts, Jacksons Electrodynamics, Goldsteins Classical Mechanics etc. is talking "math".
The ability to recognize outlier writing style says nothing about content quality.
Mike Judge (widely known from the MTV series Beavis and Butthead) studied physics. One of his movies "Idiocracy" about a modern day average-educated protagonist who accidentally ends up in a future decaying society filled and run by intellectually retarded people contains scenes where this future uneducated population considers his speech "gay" simply because of his higher level of education.
Could the adversarial prospects of job loss, edge loss (a long expensive difficult education replaced by tensors fitting megaprojects that take a couple of weeks), etc. combined with recognizable communication patterns also explain our pejorative references to LLM-isms? Personally I'd prefer LLM's to communicate in mathematical terms, but all the LLM-isms are effectively a mirror of our contemporaries.
Either we complain because algorithmic responses look like a mathematics textbook ("just fix my python array plz, why are we talking about "sets" and "injective" and "Lipschitz continuity"?), else we complain its "pretty printed to natural language".
We should also recognize large language models are in a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
When a reader considers some text as mathurbation, are they really just abreacting the awareness of lack of education?
How could anyone possibly expect Fourier optics "pretty printed" to non-mathematical language to result in any satisfactory experience?
I'm not sure it's a bad thing.
If you spend a long time with C++ code base you'll be able to decipher the otherwise-unreadable compiler errors pretty quickly, and I'd consider it a skill.
I suppose it makes sense that "LLMglish" becomes more intelligible with familiarity. That is after all how it works with other dialects or contexts with a lot of jargon.
This is sharp.-
Social media killed our attention span. Now, it is being tokenized.-
Tl;dr: You've become a bot. :)
> Three honest possibilities, and I’ll be straight with you about each
This. I don't know if the "honest answer" phrasing is part of the system prompt or alignment, but when people say "honestly" all the time I start wondering how honest they're being.
At this point, I'm starting to wonder if their honesty is even load-bearing at all?
You are absolutely right.
That's it - that's the smoking gun.
https://www.anthropic.com/constitution
Ctrl-F honest
57 matches
Haha, that is like the wall of nonsense text that used to be hidden on link-farm pages for SEO. The "final word" is delusional.
Former French president Jacques Chirac was famous for often adding an adverb like "naturely" to his sentences when he was lying.
Thankfully most people have better reading skills than that.
I reached point three and was nodding all along. I guess I am the NPC
This is glitch art for text, I love it
I killed my own ssh session twice with pkill -f, because the pattern matched the command line containing it.
This might be the most angry I've ever been at a HN comment that I upvoted
That's a caveat, and a real one.-
But the reason why it remains load bearing is key.
You've made a really sharp observation, and the reason it lands is worth naming:
"... worth naming: ..."
That's the nice thing about LLMs, you're always absolutely right.
You made me irrationally laugh reading this
On one hand I love your joke, on the other, this is HN not reddit and I usually downvote such responses, not sure what is the HN etiquette for such humor?
You are right to push back— Sorry, couldn't resist ;) I agree that this is not what we normally come here for, but this thread made me chuckle. I think we are just venting our shared frustrations a bit.
70% of the posts on HN are already satire and performance art
And full of made up statistics.
Which then devolve into supporting arguments for communism. Themselves becoming food for future irrational anecdotes about communism.
More than 2 levels and out come my downvotes. Or if it's just knee jerk with zero humour. But I probably violate my own rules ... which is to be expected.
You might already know this, but a large part of test-time compute / 'overthinking' is just letting the model do more passes, and refine its activation residuals more.
For example, even if you make thinking tokens literally just '....' (absolutely meaningless; zero information), you still see significant performance improvements: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.15758 and https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.22925 for some starters.
Treat thinking more like a "loading screen message" that's been RL'd to somewhat resemble its actual internal state; which happens in its activations, not tokens.
> For example, even if you make thinking tokens literally just
Generally speaking yes, but actually no (just randomness is suboptimal, adding steps just to add steps is suboptimal). There is a mechanism working there (in having a CoT) that is not quite clear.
The task is to optimize the efficiency of CoT. Understanding that it is not a plain "chain of thought" is the start of the problem, the solution is not there yet.
If we had the solution, there would exist no overthinking - CoT would be optimal (lean and essential plus best results).
Yeah I understand, it's my assumption that the actually/wait/but have a point. It doesn't reduce the fact that it increases the time for tasks substantially.
Did you observe the model overthinking on practical tasks? While 3.8 does think a lot on xhigh I've found that it really depends on the task. On one-shot prompts that are usually the first to be posted during new releases it will tend to spend a lot more time thinking than doing. In other words the more open ended a problem space becomes, the more Qwen will tend to second-guess itself.
Conversely I've found that it can be as succinct as Muse Glimmer when it has a clear path forward. This can be either through well defined requirements or through unambiguous steps to take based on its own reasoning. While I do think it's fair to call out how much smaller model overthinks especially on one-shot prompts, in practice it hasn't led to an overall increase in time to task completion at least for what I've been using it for.
Especially on practical tasks. One shot prompts work better at Q6_K_XL for me. It loads a file, then analyses then second guesses itself then again then again then it tries to come up with a solution then second guess rinse and repeat. 122b is the perfect balance but it lacks quality for harder to solve stuff. I've ran DS Flash 0731 at Q4KXL, 3.8 Q6KXL, GLM 5.2 Q4KXL and they all over-reason. At least that's how it looks like to me when comparing with frontier models, even weaker ones.
Yeah, I ran into an overthinking loop with it a couple days ago on a task that shouldn't have been that hard. (It's kind of interesting to watch the internal conversation happening with it). Overall I'm impressed with it, but setting the /effort to medium is what you usually want (it defaults to xhigh). I do wonder if I had made it write out a plan if I would have avoided that though.
Yes. xhigh can not just overdo the answer, it can also trip itself up and end up writing worse code.
Even in the lower reasoning levels I find I want to like Qwen 3.8 27B and mostly don’t; it’s OK in the low reasoning effort, though.
Muse Glimmer is the one I actually enjoy working with, at least so far.
But I am trying to use it more as a sidekick than as a long horizon developer, because that is a better fit for how I want to use AI, and it appears to have been well trained for that.
That's low reasoning for a model, but max for a HN comment.
You are absolutely right to push back on this. Let me think for a moment.
Since you're running through the trouble of setting that up, if its 125B params, but only 6B is activated, does that mean you mainly need to allocate enough VRAM for that much of the model? Or do you still need enough VRAM for the whole thing (and buffer for context window)? Or maybe anyone can inform me, this is one area I'm uninformed in.
You need VRAM for the whole thing for optimal performance. Activation is chosen "randomly" for each token. PCIe becomes bottleneck, so much that just doing computation on CPU is likely faster.
But given it's only 6B, out of which only ~2.4B seem to be actually routed ("selected at random per token"), you could get reasonable performance with experts on CPU (still haven't tested, but 20-30 for dual channel DDR5 and 4 bpw quant).
I believe that at minimum, for usable performance, you need to be able to hold the 125B params + 51B ngrams in some sort of RAM.
Ideally VRAM, but the benefit of the MoE design is better performance with unified memory since most of that RAM is not read for every single token. So you could potentially have the model loaded in CPU RAM, and let unified memory systems page the relevant chunks on demand to VRAM, or run on a fully unified memory system and be able to achieve good speeds even with the limited memory bandwidth most of them have.
Yep.. for 'general purpose' use I found qwen3.8:27b to be disappointing due to overthinking. It's brutal especially considering how slow it is compared to MoE variants. It often overthinks to the magnitude of ~10x the tokens vs a ~4x faster gemma4:26b-a3b.
As a result, qwen3.8 will churn over a prompt often for 5-10 minutes while gemma4 regularly finishes the same prompt in under 20 seconds, while giving a consistent and accurate response in my favorite test case. Qwen3.8, despite churning like that, often misses with an inaccurate answer.
Obviously, 'YMMV' depending on your use case... just sharing my two cents.
I use medium generally, that's about a minute at 20t/s and off for general chat (few seconds for a response). What kind of setup are you running it on?
What about adding rtk proxy?
My stack is basically deer-flow with Qwen3.5-122B-A10B; this hopefully will be a speed and intelligence improvement. Running deer-flow overnight on any research topic or verify clear scoped programming issue is really neat.
Also, heating my home during the winter is nice.
Oh, also, I use llamacpp with --reasoning-budget; very simple way to move on.
Yeah 122B is the sweet spot for me as well. Even deepseek flash overthinks on stuff way too much. I think they fully rely on large reasoning turns to achieve better quality. The result of course means we wait a long time to get results even with high throughput as a lot of tokens are wasted.
What kind of machine do you have in your homelab that can run this model?!
This is needs ~80GB of fast memory at 4 bits per weight. Faster memory is better, but probably even something like 3090 + 64GB RAM should work (not fast, but maybe even 20-30 t/s? llama.cpp support pending).
I've got a 48c Epyc with 2x3090s and 512gb ddr4 3200. It's good enough for 25+ tps with deepseek so I'm hoping for similar performance with less overthinking.
It will be interesting to see the token efficiency analysis. This is my first question now with Chinese models; I take raw benchmark performance for granted.