There is a huge market segment waiting here. At least I think there is. Well, at least people like me want this. Ok, tens of dollars can be made at least. It is just missing a critical tipping point. Basically, I want an alexa like device for the home backed by local inference and storage with some standardized components identified:
- the interactive devices - all the alexa/google/apple devices out there are this interface, also, probably some TV input that stays local and I can voice control. That kind of thing. It should have a good speaker and voice control. It probably should also do other things like act as a wifi range extender or be the router. That would actually be good. I would buy one for each room so no need for crazy antennas if they are close and can create true mesh network for me. But I digress.
- the home 'cloud' server that is storage and control. This is a cheap CPU, a little ram and potentially a lot of storage. It should hold the 'apps' for my home and be the one place I can back-up everything about my network (including the network config!)
- the inference engines. That is where this kind of repo/device combo comes in. I buy it and it knows how to advertise in a standard way its services and the controlling node connects it to the home devices. It would be great to just plug it in and go.
Of course all of these could be combined but conceptually I want to be able to swap and mix and match at these levels so options here and interoperability is what really matters.
I know a lot of (all of) these pieces exist, but they don't work well together. There isn't a simple standard 'buy this turn it on and pair with your local network' kind of plug and play environment.
My core requirements are really privacy and that it starts taking over the unitaskers/plays well together with other things. There is a reason I am buying all this local stuff. If you phone home/require me to set up an account with you I probably don't want to buy your product. I want to be able to say 'Freddy, set timer for 10 mins' or 'Freddy, what is the number one tourist attraction in South Dakota' (wall drugs if you were wondering)
No, there isn't a plug and play one yet, but I've have great success with Home Assistant and the Home Assistant Voice Preview edition and its goal is pretty much to get rid of Alexa.
I'd imagine you'd have a bunch of cheap ones in the house that are all WiFi + Mic + Speakers, streaming back to your actual voice processing box (which would cost a wee bit more, but also have local access to all the data it needs).
You can see quite quickly that this becomes just another program running on a host, so if you use a slightly beefier machine and chuck a WiFi card in as well you've got your WiFi extenders.
> but I've have great success with Home Assistant and the Home Assistant Voice Preview edition
As compared to Alexa? I bought their preview hardware (and had a home-rolled ESP32 version before that even) and things are getting closer, I can see the future where this works but we aren't there today IMHO. HA Voice (the current hardware) does not do well enough in the mic or speaker [0] department when compared to the Echos. My Echo can hear me over just about anything and I can hear it back, the HA Voice hardware is too quiet and the mic does not pick my up from the same distances or noise pollution levels as the Echo.
I _love_ my HA setup and run everything through it. I'd like nothing more than to trash all my Echos, I cam close to ordering multiple of the preview devices but convinced myself to get just 1 to test (glad I did).
Bottom line: I think HA Voice is the future (for me) but it's not ready yet, it doesn't compare to the Echos. I wish so much that my Sonos speakers could integrate with HA Voice since I already have those everywhere and I know they sound good.
[0] I use Sonos for all my music/audio listening in my house so I only care about the speaker for hearing it talk back to me, I don't need high-end audiophile speakers.
I've not had any issues with the audio picking up, but its in the living room rather than the kitchen. I have Alexa's in most rooms. I don't play music through it, which I do from the Alexa. Tbh I think the mic and the speakers will be fine when the rest of the 'product' is sorted.
I failed to mention I have Claude connected to it rather than their default assistant. To us, this just beats Alexa hands down. I have the default assistant another wake word and mistral on the last, they're about as good as Alexa but I rarely use them.
Interesting, well I'm glad it's working well for you all. I tested with local, HA Cloud, and ChatGPT/Claude and that wasn't the sticking point, it was getting the hardware to hear me or for me to hear it.
I will say, while it was too slow (today) with the my local inference hardware (CPU, older computer and a little on my newer MBP) it was magically to talk to and hear back from HA all locally. I look forward to a future where I can do that at the same speed/quality as the cloud models. Yes, I know cloud models will continue to get better but turning on/off my fans/lights/etc doesn't need to best model available, just needs to be reliable and fast, I'm even fine with it "shelling out" to the cloud if I ask it for something outside of the basics though I doubt I'll care to do that.
> Yes, I know cloud models will continue to get better but turning on/off my fans/lights/etc doesn't need to best model available, just needs to be reliable and fast, I'm even fine with it "shelling out" to the cloud if I ask it for something outside of the basics though I doubt I'll care to do that.
This is exactly how I feel. Its also why I like the multiple wake words - one for remote and one for local.
One of the amazing things I've found with the LLM powered voice assistants is being able to 'recover' from mistakes - e.g. when cooking and forgetting to set the next timer, I can recover by asking about another event like when the last timer ended or when I turned off the bedroom light. Its annoying you can't do that with Alexa. This 'complexity' doesn't need a huge or SOTA model to resolve! I also enjoy being able to ask for a song by half title and half description - my wife was trying to play Ghost by Au/Ra, which we just can't get the Alexa to do, and I can't reasonably get my local LLMs to fail at.
After your comment earlier I took the preview edition into the kitchen, where it did perform a lot worse with the multiple bits of white noise and odd room shape.
I had the same experience, eBay suggests that I'll have a Jabra speakerphone in my mailbox tomorrow to try moving everything to a better audio setup. The software seems good but the audio performance is miserable on the preview device, you essentially have to be talking directly at the microphone from not more than a few feet away for anything to recognize.
Sadly, the Jabra (or any USB) audio device means I'll need to shift over to an rPi which comes with it's own lifecycle challenges.
I've just started using it but I'd recommend https://github.com/steipete/clawdis, you need to set it up a bit but it's really cool to just be able to do things on the go by just texting an assistant. You can see all the different ways people are using it @clawdbot on twitter.
Keen for this also. Been having issues getting a smooth voice experience from HA to ChatGPT. I dont like the whole wakeword concept for the receiver either. I think theres work to be done on the whole stack.
Great timing as I was looking into it yesterday as was thinking about writing my own set of agents to run house stuff. I don't want to spent loads of time on voice interaction so HA wakeword stuff would've been useful. If not I'll bypass HA for voice and really only use HA via mcp.
I can do fw dev for micros...but omg do I not want to spend the time looking thru a datasheet and getting something to run efficiently myself these days.
You can use the vendor supported wakewords, and they are generally pretty good.
However-> These are device specific. The devices I purchased for this purpose have very few vendor supported wakewords, but even more prominently, refuse to integrate with HA. Possible firmware issue, but I have reloaded the firmware 30 times. I dont necessarily want to purchase something else for this purpose. Which is where building a bespoke HA audio box becomes its own can of worms.
But if you want a custom wake word, or more like a wake phrase, you go down a rabbit hole of training/cost/memory etc that starts to get annoying fast.
I kind of know I am being unreasonable. I dont want a device that just ships off everything it hears to an LLM, even local, that would suck. I just want a third way.
Then theres other stuff. Like HA has a hard time with providing context to an LLM, because it sends the whole conversation thus far off to the LLM for context. It can get really weird really quickly. This caused me a lot of issues with lights for example. It would remember switching a light on, and if that was in the context, would refuse to switch it on a second time if it turned off due to a rule or manual intervention. But if you dont send the context, you cant have deeper conversations. You cant ask subsequent questions basically.
I think what I want to do, is have a dodgy local LLM that picks up the context that the user is speaking to the LLM, and then enables it for 20 minutes or so.
"Hey, hey, are you still asleep? Using spare cycles, I have designed an optimal recipe for mashed potatoes, as you mentioned ten days ago. I need you to go get some potatoes."
A local AI system that hears your conversations, identifies problems, and then uses spare cycles to devise solutions for them is actually an incredible idea. I'm never going to give a cloud system the kind of access it would need to do a really good job, but a local one I control? Absolutely.
"Hey, are you still having trouble with[succinct summary of a problem it identified]?"
"Yes"
"I have a solution that meets your requirements as I understand them, and fits in your budget."
> A local AI system that hears your conversations, identifies problems, and then uses spare cycles to devise solutions for them is actually an incredible idea.
If you could get an AI to listen to the conversations that happen in your sphere of influence and simply jot down the problems it identifies over the course of the day/week/month/year, that in itself would be an amazing tool.
Doubly so if you could just talk and brainstorm while it's listening and condensing, so you can circle back later and see what raindrops formed from the brainstorm.
"Did you find how to make peace with $FRIEND_OF_SPOUSE after they came here last week and they were pretty mad at you because you should tell something to $SPOUSE ? I thought about it in my spare cycles and all psychologists agree that truth and trust are paramount in a healthy relationship"
I ponder the concept in the 90's. Initially I thought it should be an assistant but with age came wisdom and now I think it should be a virtual drill instructor. "Rise and shine $insult $insult, the sun is up, the store is open, we will be getting some potatoes today, $insult $insult, it was all your idea now apply yourself!" Bright lights flashing, loud music, the shower starts running. "Shower time, you have 7 minutes! $insult $insult" 4 minutes in the coffee machine boots up. "You will be wearing the blue pants, top shelve on the left stack, the green shirt, 7th from the left. Faster faster! $insult $insult"
Reminds me of a video from the 90's where some wizard put a camcorder and a giant antenna on a petrol powered rc car, an even bigger antenna on his house and controlled it from a 40's style sofa and a huge tube TV in his cramped garage. Over a mile range. Surrounded by enormous cars I think he was going 40-50 mph but with the screaming engine sound and the camera so low to the ground it looked like 500 mph. I'm still laughing, it looked like he was having all of the fun.
There is but that market doesn't sell subscriptions and that is what tech giants wants to sell - renewable flow of money that will keep flowing even if product stagnates because effort to move to competition is big.
We are in a free market with china still playing the open source game.
The market is not ready for building this due to costs etc. not because the big companies block them or anything. And nvidia is not selling subscriptions at all.
* you can use a number of things for the interactive devices (any touchscreen device, buttons, voice, etc)
* have it HA do the basic parsing (word for word matching), with optionally plugging into something more complex (cloud service like ChatGPT, or self-hosted Ollama or whatever) for more advanced parsing (logical parsing)
Every part of the ecosystem is interchangeable and very open. You can use a bunch of different devices, a bunch of different LLMs to do the advanced parsing if you want it. HA can control pretty much everything with an API, and can itself be controlled by pretty much anything that can talk an API.
And there never will be. You know why? Because the giant corporations can't suck up all your data and tailor advertisements to you. Why sell a good thing once, when you can sell crappy shovelware ridden with ads and a subscription service every month?
Open source is amazing for this. Honestly, I suspect this is much simpler than the jellyfin ecosystem and other open source projects out there. Really, we are so close to this now it is just missing a few things like a good 'how to' that ties it all together and turns into the opensource repo that bundles things.
The sota chatbots are getting more and more functionality that is not just LLM inference. They can search the web, process files, integrate with other apps. I think that's why most people will consider local LLMs to be insufficient very soon.
Nah I disagree, tool calling isn't that difficult. I've got my own Cats Effect based model orchestration project I'm working on, and while it's not 100% yet I can do web browse, web search, memory search (this one is cool), and others on my own hardware.
Yeah because dynamic digital price signs in shops based on what data vendors have about you and AI can extract from it are such fun!
Total surveillance. More than what's already happening. Such fun!
Although I am all for freedom, one forgets that this is one of the few places left on internet where discussions feel meaningful and I am not judging you if you want AI but do it at your own discretion using chatbots.
If you want, you can even hack around a simple extension (tampermonkey etc.) where you can have a button which can do this for you if you really so desire.
Ended up being bored and asked chatgpt to do this but chatgpt is having something wrong, it got just blinking mode so I asked claude web (4.5 sonnet) to do it and I ended up building it with tampermonkey script.
I was just writing this comment and I just got curious I guess so in the end ended up building it.
Although Edit: Thinking about it, I felt that we should read other people's articles as well. I just created this tool not out of endorsement of idea or anything but just curiosity or boredom but I think that we should probably read the articles themselves instead of asking chatgpt or LLM's about it.
There is this quote which I remembered right now
If something is worth talking/discussing about, its worth writing
If something is worth writing, then its worth reading.
Information that we write is fundamentally subjective (our writing style etc with our biases etc.), passing it through a black box which will try to homogenify all of it just feels like it misses the point.
<s>I'm not entirely sure but I think</s> if the file name ends with .user.js like HN%20ChatGPT%20Summarize.user.js it will prompt to install when opening the raw file.
Alright so I did change the name of the file from HN ChatGPT Summarize.js to hn-summarize-ai.user.js
Is this what you are talking about? If you need any cooperation from my side lemme know, I don't know too much about tampermonkey but I end up using it for my mini scripts because its way much easier to deal with compared to building pure extensions themselves and these have their own editors as well so I just copy paste for a faster way to prototype with stuff like this
Fair I guess, I think I myself might use it when sometimes the articles are more dense than my liking perhaps. As I said, I just built it out of curiosity but also a solution to their problem because I didnt like the idea of having an AI generated summary in the comments.
I mean, they didn't bury it far in the article, it's like a two second skim into it and it's labelled with a tl;dr. Not a bad idea in general but you don't even need it for this one.
Is there a good place for easy comparisons of different models? I know gpt-oss-20b and gpt-oss-120b have different numbers of parameters, but don't know what this means in practice. All my experience with AI has been with larger models like Gemini and GPT. I'm interested in running models on my own hardware but don't know how small I can go and still get useful output both for simple things like fixing spelling and grammar, as well as complex things like programming.
One easy way to test different models is purchase $20 worth of tokens from one of the Open Router-like sites. This will let you asks tons of questions and try out lots of models.
Realistically, the biggest models you can run at a reasonable price right now are quantized versions of things like the Qwen3 30B A3B family. A 4-bit quantized version fits in roughly 15GB of RAM. This will run very nicely on something like an Nvidia 3090. But you can also use your regular RAM (though it will be slower).
These models aren't competitive with GPT 5 or Opus 4.5! But they're mostly all noticeably better than GPT-4o, some by quite a bit. Some of the 30B models will run as basic agentic coders.
There are also some great 4B to 8B models from various organizations that will fit on smaller systems. A 8B model, for example, can be a great translator.
(If you have a bunch of money and patience, you can also run something like GPT OSS 120B or GLM 4.5 Air locally.)
This one runs at perfectly servicable pace locally on a laptop 5090 with 64gb system ram with zero effort required. Just download ollama and select this model from the drop-down.
This is the answer. There's a half dozen sites that let you run these models by the token, and actually $20 is excessive. $5 will get you a long long way.
I've been super impressed by qwen3:0.6b (yes, 0.6B) running in Ollama.
If you have very specific, constrained tasks it can do quite a lot. It's not perfect though.
https://tools.nicklothian.com/llm_comparator.html?gist=fcae9... is an example conversation where I took OpenAI's "Natural language to SQL" prompt[1], send it to Ollama:qwen3:0.6b and the asked Gemini Flash 3 to compare what qwen3:0.6b did vs what Flash did.
Flash was clearly correct, but the qwen3:0.6b errors are interesting in themselves.
I’ve experimented with several of the really small models. It’s impressive that they can produce anything at all, but in my experience the output is basically useless for anything of value.
Yes, I thought that too! But qwen3:0.6b (and to some extent gemma 1b) has made me reevaluate.
They still aren't useful like large LLMs, but for things like summarization, and other tasks where you can give them structure but want the sheen of natural language they are much better than things like the Phi series were.
Say I want to auto-bookmark a bunch of tabs and need a summary of each one. Using the title is a mechanical solution, but a nice prompt and a small model can summarize the title and contents into something much more useful.
I have been seeing these stories about bigger AI models that somehow work on small devices like a Raspberry Pi. One example really caught my eye lately. It was not just some quick show off thing. The model could interact and respond right away in real time. ~
That got me thinking again about what practical even means when it comes to AI running on the edge. Like, away from big servers.
I came up with a basic way to look at it. First, capability. That is, what kinds of tasks can it handle decently. Then latency. Does it respond quick enough so it does not feel laggy. There are also constraints to consider. Things like power use, how much memory it needs, and heat buildup.
The use case part seems key too. What happens if you try to take it off the cloud and run it locally. In my experience, a lot of these edge AI demos fall short there. The tech looks impressive, but it is hard to see why you really need it that way.
It seems like most people overlook that unclear need. I am curious about how others see it. Local inference probably beats cloud in spots where you cannot rely on internet, or maybe for privacy reasons. Or when data stays on device for security.
Some workloads feel close right now. They might shift soon as hardware gets better. I think stuff like voice assistants or simple image recognition could tip over.
If someone has actually put a model on limited hardware, like in a product, what stood out as a surprise. The thermals maybe, or unexpected power drains. It feels like that part gets messy in practice. I might be oversimplifying how tricky it all is.
We need custom inference chips at scale for this imho. Every computer (whatever formfactor/board) should have an inference unit on it so at least inference is efficient and fast and can be offloaded while the cpu is doing something else.
The bottleneck in common PC hardware is mostly memory bandwidth. Offloading the computation part to a different chip wouldn’t help if memory access is the bottleneck.
There have been a lot of boards and chips for years with dedicated compute hardware, but they’re only so useful for these LLM models that require huge memory bandwidth.
It is also to note that the bandwidth bus has seen very little upgrade over the years and even the onboard RAM on GPU card have seen mediocre upgrades. If everyone and their grandma wasn't using NVidia GPUs we would probably have seen a more competitive market and greater changes outside the chip itself.
I don't think that's true. AMD, Apple and Intel are all dGPU competitors with roughly the same struggle bringing upgrades to market. They have every incentive to release a disruptive product, but refuse to invest in their ecosystem the way Nvidia did.
It's quite easy to understand. The tech industry has gone through 4-5 generations of obsolete NPU hardware that was dead-on-arrival. Meanwhile, there are still GPUs from 2014-2016 that run CUDA and are more power efficient than the NPUs.
The industry has to copy CUDA, or give up and focus on raster. ASIC solutions are a snipe chase, not to mention small and slow.
I've just tried replicating this on my Pi 5 16GB, running the latest llama.cpp... and it segfaults:
./build/bin/llama-cli -m "models/Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507-Q3_K_S-2.70bpw.gguf" -e --no-mmap -t 4
...
Loading model... -ggml_aligned_malloc: insufficient memory (attempted to allocate 24576.00 MB)
ggml_backend_cpu_buffer_type_alloc_buffer: failed to allocate buffer of size 25769803776
alloc_tensor_range: failed to allocate CPU buffer of size 25769803776
llama_init_from_model: failed to initialize the context: failed to allocate buffer for kv cache
Segmentation fault
I'm not sure how they're running it... any kind of guide for replicating their results? It does take up a little over 10 GB of RAM (watching with btop) before it segfaults and quits.
[Edit: had to add -c 4096 to cut down the context size, now it loads]
Tested same model on Intel N100 miniPC with 16G - the hundred bucks pc
llama-server -m /Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507-GGUF:IQ3_S --jinja -c 4096 --host 0.0.0.0 --port 8033
Got <= 10 t/s Which I think is not so bad!
On AMD Ryzen 5 5500U with Radeon Graphics and Compiled for Vulkan
Got 15 t/s - could swear this morning was <= 20 t/s
On AMD Ryzen 7 H 255 w/ Radeon 780M Graphics and Compiled for Vulkan
Got 40 t/s
On the last I did a quick comparison with unsloth version unsloth/Qwen3-30B-A3B-GGUF:Q4_K_M and got 25 t/s
Can't really comment on quality of output - seems similar
Would you be able to actually get useful results from it? I'm looking into self hosting LLM's for python/js development. But I dont know if I would get useful results.
I have been thinking the same and have tried a little. I have tried some small models and got some useful results.
I have not figured out what models that fit in the available memory (say 16Gb) that would be best for doing this. A CPU model I can run on a laptop would be nice. The models I have tried are much smaller than 30B.
No, just updated the parent comment, I added -c 4096 to cut down the context size, and now the model loads.
I'm able to get 6-7 tokens/sec generation with 10-11 tokens/sec prompt processing with their model. Seems quite good, actually—much more useful than llama 3.2:3b, which has comparable performance on this Pi.
That’s a pretty big caveat. In my experience, using a small context size is only okay for very short answers and questions. The output looks coherent until you try to use it for anything, then it turns into the classic LLM babble that looks like words are being put into a coherent order but the sum total of the output is just rambling.
Some more benchmarking, and with larger outputs (like writing an entire relatively complex TODO list app) it seems to go down to 4-6 tokens/s. Still impressive.
Decided to run an actual llama-bench run and let it go for the hour or two it needs. I'm posting my full results here (https://github.com/geerlingguy/ai-benchmarks/issues/47), but 8-10 t/s pp, and 7.99 t/s tg128, this is on a Pi 5 with no overclocking. Could probably increase the numbers slightly with an overclock.
You need to have a fan/heatsink to get that speed of course, it's maxing out the CPU for the entire time.
I can’t wait to get home and try this on my Pi. Past few months, I’ve been building a fully local agent [0] that runs inference entirely on a Raspberry Pi, and I’ve been extensively testing a plethora of small, open models as part of my studies. This is an incredibly exciting field, and I hope it gains more attention as we shift away from massive, centralized AI platforms and toward improving the performance of local models.
For anyone interested in a comparative review of different models that can run on a Pi, here’s a great article [1] I came across while working on my project.
So basically the quantization in a byteshape model is per-tensor and can be variable and is an "average" in the final result? The results look good - curious why this isn't more prevalent! Would also love to better understand what factors into "accuracy" since there might be some nuance there depending on the measure.
Does anyone have any use-cases for long-running, interesting tasks that do not require perfect accuracy? Seems like this would be the sweet spot for running local models on low-powered hardware.
This is impressive work on quantization.
It really validates the hypothesis that software optimization (and proper memory management) matters more than just raw FLOPs.
I feel like calling it a “30B” model is slightly disingenuous. It’s a 30B-A3B. So only 3B parameters is active at a given time. While still impressive nevertheless, being able to get 8T/s for a “A3B” compared to a dense 30B is very different.
Out of curiosity, I just tried Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507-Q3_K_S-2.70bpw.gguf (the version they recommend for the Raspberry Pi) on a Blackwell GPU. It cranked out 200+ tokens per second on some private benchmark queries, and it is surprisingly sharp.
It punches well above the weight class expected from 3B active parameters. You could build the bear in Spielberg's "AI" with this thing, if not the kid.
I've asked Gemini about it the other day(I'm dumb and shameless). Apparently it means that the model branches into bunch of 3B sections in the middle and joins at both ends, totaling in parameters at 30B. This means computational footprint reduces to (bottom "router" parts + 3B + top parts) of effectively-5B or whatever specific to that model implied by "3B", rather than the full 30B.
MoE models still operate on token-by-token basis, i.e. "pot/at/o" -> "12345/7654/8472". "Experts" are selected on per-token basis, not per-interation, so "expert" naming might be a bit of a misnomer, or marketing.
> What does it mean that only 3B parameters are active at a time?
In a nutshell: LLMs generate tokens one at a time. "only 3B parameters active a a time" means that for each of those tokens only 3B parameters need to be fetched from memory, instead of all of them (30B).
Then I don't understand why it would matter. Or does it really mean that for each input token 10% of the total network runs, and then another 10% for the next token, rather than running each 10 batches of 10% for each token? If so, any idea or pointer to how the selection works?
Yes, for each token only, say, 10% of the weights are necessary, so you don't have to fetch the remaining 90% from memory, which makes inference much faster (if you're memory bound; if you're doing single batch inference then you're certainly memory bound).
As to how the selection works - each mixture-of-experts layer in the netwosk has essentially a small subnetwork called a "router" which looks at the input and calculates the scores for each expert; then the best scoring experts are picked and the inputs are only routed to them.
LLMs are, by definition, real time at any speed. 50,000 tokens per second? Real time. Only 0.0002 tokens per minute? Still real time.
Eight tokens per second is "real time" in that sense, but that's also the kind of speeds that we used to mock old video games for, when they would show "computers" but the text would slowly get printed to a screen letter for letter or word for word.
In this context by "real time" people usually mean "as fast as I can read the reply", so, 0.0002 tokens per minute would not be considered "real time".
Real time is defined as ‘no slower than some critical speed’, in case of conversation with humans this should be around 10 tok/s including speech synthesis.
There is a huge market segment waiting here. At least I think there is. Well, at least people like me want this. Ok, tens of dollars can be made at least. It is just missing a critical tipping point. Basically, I want an alexa like device for the home backed by local inference and storage with some standardized components identified:
- the interactive devices - all the alexa/google/apple devices out there are this interface, also, probably some TV input that stays local and I can voice control. That kind of thing. It should have a good speaker and voice control. It probably should also do other things like act as a wifi range extender or be the router. That would actually be good. I would buy one for each room so no need for crazy antennas if they are close and can create true mesh network for me. But I digress.
- the home 'cloud' server that is storage and control. This is a cheap CPU, a little ram and potentially a lot of storage. It should hold the 'apps' for my home and be the one place I can back-up everything about my network (including the network config!)
- the inference engines. That is where this kind of repo/device combo comes in. I buy it and it knows how to advertise in a standard way its services and the controlling node connects it to the home devices. It would be great to just plug it in and go.
Of course all of these could be combined but conceptually I want to be able to swap and mix and match at these levels so options here and interoperability is what really matters.
I know a lot of (all of) these pieces exist, but they don't work well together. There isn't a simple standard 'buy this turn it on and pair with your local network' kind of plug and play environment.
My core requirements are really privacy and that it starts taking over the unitaskers/plays well together with other things. There is a reason I am buying all this local stuff. If you phone home/require me to set up an account with you I probably don't want to buy your product. I want to be able to say 'Freddy, set timer for 10 mins' or 'Freddy, what is the number one tourist attraction in South Dakota' (wall drugs if you were wondering)
No, there isn't a plug and play one yet, but I've have great success with Home Assistant and the Home Assistant Voice Preview edition and its goal is pretty much to get rid of Alexa.
I'd imagine you'd have a bunch of cheap ones in the house that are all WiFi + Mic + Speakers, streaming back to your actual voice processing box (which would cost a wee bit more, but also have local access to all the data it needs).
You can see quite quickly that this becomes just another program running on a host, so if you use a slightly beefier machine and chuck a WiFi card in as well you've got your WiFi extenders.
> but I've have great success with Home Assistant and the Home Assistant Voice Preview edition
As compared to Alexa? I bought their preview hardware (and had a home-rolled ESP32 version before that even) and things are getting closer, I can see the future where this works but we aren't there today IMHO. HA Voice (the current hardware) does not do well enough in the mic or speaker [0] department when compared to the Echos. My Echo can hear me over just about anything and I can hear it back, the HA Voice hardware is too quiet and the mic does not pick my up from the same distances or noise pollution levels as the Echo.
I _love_ my HA setup and run everything through it. I'd like nothing more than to trash all my Echos, I cam close to ordering multiple of the preview devices but convinced myself to get just 1 to test (glad I did).
Bottom line: I think HA Voice is the future (for me) but it's not ready yet, it doesn't compare to the Echos. I wish so much that my Sonos speakers could integrate with HA Voice since I already have those everywhere and I know they sound good.
[0] I use Sonos for all my music/audio listening in my house so I only care about the speaker for hearing it talk back to me, I don't need high-end audiophile speakers.
I've not had any issues with the audio picking up, but its in the living room rather than the kitchen. I have Alexa's in most rooms. I don't play music through it, which I do from the Alexa. Tbh I think the mic and the speakers will be fine when the rest of the 'product' is sorted.
I failed to mention I have Claude connected to it rather than their default assistant. To us, this just beats Alexa hands down. I have the default assistant another wake word and mistral on the last, they're about as good as Alexa but I rarely use them.
Interesting, well I'm glad it's working well for you all. I tested with local, HA Cloud, and ChatGPT/Claude and that wasn't the sticking point, it was getting the hardware to hear me or for me to hear it.
I will say, while it was too slow (today) with the my local inference hardware (CPU, older computer and a little on my newer MBP) it was magically to talk to and hear back from HA all locally. I look forward to a future where I can do that at the same speed/quality as the cloud models. Yes, I know cloud models will continue to get better but turning on/off my fans/lights/etc doesn't need to best model available, just needs to be reliable and fast, I'm even fine with it "shelling out" to the cloud if I ask it for something outside of the basics though I doubt I'll care to do that.
> Yes, I know cloud models will continue to get better but turning on/off my fans/lights/etc doesn't need to best model available, just needs to be reliable and fast, I'm even fine with it "shelling out" to the cloud if I ask it for something outside of the basics though I doubt I'll care to do that.
This is exactly how I feel. Its also why I like the multiple wake words - one for remote and one for local.
One of the amazing things I've found with the LLM powered voice assistants is being able to 'recover' from mistakes - e.g. when cooking and forgetting to set the next timer, I can recover by asking about another event like when the last timer ended or when I turned off the bedroom light. Its annoying you can't do that with Alexa. This 'complexity' doesn't need a huge or SOTA model to resolve! I also enjoy being able to ask for a song by half title and half description - my wife was trying to play Ghost by Au/Ra, which we just can't get the Alexa to do, and I can't reasonably get my local LLMs to fail at.
After your comment earlier I took the preview edition into the kitchen, where it did perform a lot worse with the multiple bits of white noise and odd room shape.
I had the same experience, eBay suggests that I'll have a Jabra speakerphone in my mailbox tomorrow to try moving everything to a better audio setup. The software seems good but the audio performance is miserable on the preview device, you essentially have to be talking directly at the microphone from not more than a few feet away for anything to recognize.
Sadly, the Jabra (or any USB) audio device means I'll need to shift over to an rPi which comes with it's own lifecycle challenges.
And if it is plugged in to the wall, I'd be tempted to add a touch screen display and a camera just in case.
But really my use case is as simple as
1. Wake word, what time is it in ____
2. Wake word, how is the weather in ____
3. Wake word, will it rain/snow/?? in _____ today / tomorrow / ??
4. Wake word, what is ______
5. Wake word, when is the next new moon / full moon?
6. Wake word, when is sunrise / sunset?
And something similar like that
So you need a clock maybe? Plus something like wttr.in
A bit like HomeAssistant Voice? https://www.home-assistant.io/voice-pe/
I've just started using it but I'd recommend https://github.com/steipete/clawdis, you need to set it up a bit but it's really cool to just be able to do things on the go by just texting an assistant. You can see all the different ways people are using it @clawdbot on twitter.
Can you give us some highlights on how this is helpful in your day-to-day life for those of us who aren't on twitter?
Why does it require an online AI service? Why can it not work with ollama or some other locally hosted setup?
Keen for this also. Been having issues getting a smooth voice experience from HA to ChatGPT. I dont like the whole wakeword concept for the receiver either. I think theres work to be done on the whole stack.
What's wrong with the wakeword stuff?
Great timing as I was looking into it yesterday as was thinking about writing my own set of agents to run house stuff. I don't want to spent loads of time on voice interaction so HA wakeword stuff would've been useful. If not I'll bypass HA for voice and really only use HA via mcp.
I can do fw dev for micros...but omg do I not want to spend the time looking thru a datasheet and getting something to run efficiently myself these days.
You can use the vendor supported wakewords, and they are generally pretty good.
However-> These are device specific. The devices I purchased for this purpose have very few vendor supported wakewords, but even more prominently, refuse to integrate with HA. Possible firmware issue, but I have reloaded the firmware 30 times. I dont necessarily want to purchase something else for this purpose. Which is where building a bespoke HA audio box becomes its own can of worms.
But if you want a custom wake word, or more like a wake phrase, you go down a rabbit hole of training/cost/memory etc that starts to get annoying fast.
I kind of know I am being unreasonable. I dont want a device that just ships off everything it hears to an LLM, even local, that would suck. I just want a third way.
Then theres other stuff. Like HA has a hard time with providing context to an LLM, because it sends the whole conversation thus far off to the LLM for context. It can get really weird really quickly. This caused me a lot of issues with lights for example. It would remember switching a light on, and if that was in the context, would refuse to switch it on a second time if it turned off due to a rule or manual intervention. But if you dont send the context, you cant have deeper conversations. You cant ask subsequent questions basically.
you can use a physical button instead of wakeword.
Doesnt suit my use case sadly.
Back to the drawing board. What about a proximity sensor?
I think what I want to do, is have a dodgy local LLM that picks up the context that the user is speaking to the LLM, and then enables it for 20 minutes or so.
But even thats a bit of a wild tradeoff.
It should participate in all conversations, take initiative and experiment.
"Hey, hey, are you still asleep? Using spare cycles, I have designed an optimal recipe for mashed potatoes, as you mentioned ten days ago. I need you to go get some potatoes."
A local AI system that hears your conversations, identifies problems, and then uses spare cycles to devise solutions for them is actually an incredible idea. I'm never going to give a cloud system the kind of access it would need to do a really good job, but a local one I control? Absolutely.
"Hey, are you still having trouble with[succinct summary of a problem it identified]?" "Yes" "I have a solution that meets your requirements as I understand them, and fits in your budget."
> A local AI system that hears your conversations, identifies problems, and then uses spare cycles to devise solutions for them is actually an incredible idea.
I call that Dreaming.
(TM)
If you could get an AI to listen to the conversations that happen in your sphere of influence and simply jot down the problems it identifies over the course of the day/week/month/year, that in itself would be an amazing tool.
Doubly so if you could just talk and brainstorm while it's listening and condensing, so you can circle back later and see what raindrops formed from the brainstorm.
Call that DayDreaming (TM)
"Did you find how to make peace with $FRIEND_OF_SPOUSE after they came here last week and they were pretty mad at you because you should tell something to $SPOUSE ? I thought about it in my spare cycles and all psychologists agree that truth and trust are paramount in a healthy relationship"
I unironically want this.
I forget who but someone onhere a while back said he made a contraption that listens in and tries to determine the winner of each conversation.
I ponder the concept in the 90's. Initially I thought it should be an assistant but with age came wisdom and now I think it should be a virtual drill instructor. "Rise and shine $insult $insult, the sun is up, the store is open, we will be getting some potatoes today, $insult $insult, it was all your idea now apply yourself!" Bright lights flashing, loud music, the shower starts running. "Shower time, you have 7 minutes! $insult $insult" 4 minutes in the coffee machine boots up. "You will be wearing the blue pants, top shelve on the left stack, the green shirt, 7th from the left. Faster faster! $insult $insult"
This sounds a lot like gptars. I want a little gptars tearing around my house.
https://youtube.com/shorts/e2t0RxX4b54
I forgot about him. Great project!
Reminds me of a video from the 90's where some wizard put a camcorder and a giant antenna on a petrol powered rc car, an even bigger antenna on his house and controlled it from a 40's style sofa and a huge tube TV in his cramped garage. Over a mile range. Surrounded by enormous cars I think he was going 40-50 mph but with the screaming engine sound and the camera so low to the ground it looked like 500 mph. I'm still laughing, it looked like he was having all of the fun.
There is but that market doesn't sell subscriptions and that is what tech giants wants to sell - renewable flow of money that will keep flowing even if product stagnates because effort to move to competition is big.
We are in a free market with china still playing the open source game.
The market is not ready for building this due to costs etc. not because the big companies block them or anything. And nvidia is not selling subscriptions at all.
It sounds like you want Home Asisstant.
You have all of the different components:
* you can use a number of things for the interactive devices (any touchscreen device, buttons, voice, etc)
* have it HA do the basic parsing (word for word matching), with optionally plugging into something more complex (cloud service like ChatGPT, or self-hosted Ollama or whatever) for more advanced parsing (logical parsing)
Every part of the ecosystem is interchangeable and very open. You can use a bunch of different devices, a bunch of different LLMs to do the advanced parsing if you want it. HA can control pretty much everything with an API, and can itself be controlled by pretty much anything that can talk an API.
And there never will be. You know why? Because the giant corporations can't suck up all your data and tailor advertisements to you. Why sell a good thing once, when you can sell crappy shovelware ridden with ads and a subscription service every month?
Open source is amazing for this. Honestly, I suspect this is much simpler than the jellyfin ecosystem and other open source projects out there. Really, we are so close to this now it is just missing a few things like a good 'how to' that ties it all together and turns into the opensource repo that bundles things.
The sota chatbots are getting more and more functionality that is not just LLM inference. They can search the web, process files, integrate with other apps. I think that's why most people will consider local LLMs to be insufficient very soon.
But that's just software that also runs fine locally. A few tools with a local LLM can do it.
Well I don't see people running their web search locally, so I don't think they will run their own search+LLM.
Nah I disagree, tool calling isn't that difficult. I've got my own Cats Effect based model orchestration project I'm working on, and while it's not 100% yet I can do web browse, web search, memory search (this one is cool), and others on my own hardware.
I've been working on this on and off for a couple of years now, the loop is definitely closing, I think it's possible at this point but not yet easy.
And toys
> Well, at least people like me want this.
Yeah because dynamic digital price signs in shops based on what data vendors have about you and AI can extract from it are such fun! Total surveillance. More than what's already happening. Such fun!
In case anyone else clicked in wondering what counts as "real time" for this:
> On a Pi 5 (16GB), Q3_K_S-2.70bpw [KQ-2] hits 8.03 TPS at 2.70 BPW and maintains 94.18% of BF16 quality.
And they talk about other hardware and details. But that's the expanded version of the headline claim.
Someone should make a version of the Hacker News homepage that is just LLM extracts of key article details like this.
Not sure if it is still updating https://hackyournews.com/
Thanks for pointing this out, https://hackyournews.com should be up and running again!
Is this your project? It would be great to bolster it with links to comment sections and the current points tally.
If you read a lot of comment sections, there are bot accounts showing up on LLM that try to do this constantly.
Their output is not great so they get downvoted and spotted quickly.
If you spot any that live longer than a few comments please pass that info to Dan & Tom.
https://chatgpt.com/share/695d9ac2-c314-8011-8938-b0d7de7059...
You can paste any article and chatgpt (took the most laymen AI thing) and just writing summarize this article https://byteshape.com/blogs/Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507/
can give you insights about it.
Although I am all for freedom, one forgets that this is one of the few places left on internet where discussions feel meaningful and I am not judging you if you want AI but do it at your own discretion using chatbots.
If you want, you can even hack around a simple extension (tampermonkey etc.) where you can have a button which can do this for you if you really so desire.
Ended up being bored and asked chatgpt to do this but chatgpt is having something wrong, it got just blinking mode so I asked claude web (4.5 sonnet) to do it and I ended up building it with tampermonkey script.
Created the code. https://github.com/SerJaimeLannister/tampermonkey-hn-summari...
I was just writing this comment and I just got curious I guess so in the end ended up building it.
Although Edit: Thinking about it, I felt that we should read other people's articles as well. I just created this tool not out of endorsement of idea or anything but just curiosity or boredom but I think that we should probably read the articles themselves instead of asking chatgpt or LLM's about it.
There is this quote which I remembered right now
If something is worth talking/discussing about, its worth writing
If something is worth writing, then its worth reading.
Information that we write is fundamentally subjective (our writing style etc with our biases etc.), passing it through a black box which will try to homogenify all of it just feels like it misses the point.
<s>I'm not entirely sure but I think</s> if the file name ends with .user.js like HN%20ChatGPT%20Summarize.user.js it will prompt to install when opening the raw file.
haha, like so works too
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/SerJaimeLannister/tampermo...
Alright so I did change the name of the file from HN ChatGPT Summarize.js to hn-summarize-ai.user.js
Is this what you are talking about? If you need any cooperation from my side lemme know, I don't know too much about tampermonkey but I end up using it for my mini scripts because its way much easier to deal with compared to building pure extensions themselves and these have their own editors as well so I just copy paste for a faster way to prototype with stuff like this
>we should read other people's articles
sure, and reading a LLM summary allows one to decide whether the full article is worth reading or not.
Fair I guess, I think I myself might use it when sometimes the articles are more dense than my liking perhaps. As I said, I just built it out of curiosity but also a solution to their problem because I didnt like the idea of having an AI generated summary in the comments.
Seems like a bad habit for media literacy.
Please not. There were some bots (or karma-farming users) doing this and yuck, was it annoying.
Counterpoint: if somebody builds that elsewhere, that's one fewer person posting slop on HN proper
I mean, they didn't bury it far in the article, it's like a two second skim into it and it's labelled with a tl;dr. Not a bad idea in general but you don't even need it for this one.
I wonder what "94.18% of quality" means
Is there a good place for easy comparisons of different models? I know gpt-oss-20b and gpt-oss-120b have different numbers of parameters, but don't know what this means in practice. All my experience with AI has been with larger models like Gemini and GPT. I'm interested in running models on my own hardware but don't know how small I can go and still get useful output both for simple things like fixing spelling and grammar, as well as complex things like programming.
One easy way to test different models is purchase $20 worth of tokens from one of the Open Router-like sites. This will let you asks tons of questions and try out lots of models.
Realistically, the biggest models you can run at a reasonable price right now are quantized versions of things like the Qwen3 30B A3B family. A 4-bit quantized version fits in roughly 15GB of RAM. This will run very nicely on something like an Nvidia 3090. But you can also use your regular RAM (though it will be slower).
These models aren't competitive with GPT 5 or Opus 4.5! But they're mostly all noticeably better than GPT-4o, some by quite a bit. Some of the 30B models will run as basic agentic coders.
There are also some great 4B to 8B models from various organizations that will fit on smaller systems. A 8B model, for example, can be a great translator.
(If you have a bunch of money and patience, you can also run something like GPT OSS 120B or GLM 4.5 Air locally.)
I wrote https://tools.nicklothian.com/llm_comparator.html so you can compare different models.
OpenRouter gives you $10 credit when you sign up - stick your API key in and compare as many models as you want. It's all browser local storage.
> (If you have a bunch of money and patience, you can also run something like GPT OSS 120B or GLM 4.5 Air locally.)
Don't need patience for these, just money. A single RTX 6000 Pro runs those great and super fast.
Oh... 8 thousand of eurobucks for the thing.
Or 4 thousand for the NVIDIA RTX A6000 which also runs the 120b just fine (quantized).
> GPT OSS 120B
This one runs at perfectly servicable pace locally on a laptop 5090 with 64gb system ram with zero effort required. Just download ollama and select this model from the drop-down.
Or a single AMD Strix Halo with lots of RAM, which could be had before the RAM crisis for ~1.5k eur.
Or why not just buy a blackwell rack?
Runs everything today with bleeding edge performance.
Overall whats the difference between 8k or 30k?
/s
You jest, but there's a ton of people on /r/localLLaMA which have an RTX 6000 Pro. No one has a Blackwell rack.
As long as you have the money this hardware is easily accessible to normal people, unlike fancy server hardware.
This is the answer. There's a half dozen sites that let you run these models by the token, and actually $20 is excessive. $5 will get you a long long way.
https://swe-rebench.com/
I've been super impressed by qwen3:0.6b (yes, 0.6B) running in Ollama.
If you have very specific, constrained tasks it can do quite a lot. It's not perfect though.
https://tools.nicklothian.com/llm_comparator.html?gist=fcae9... is an example conversation where I took OpenAI's "Natural language to SQL" prompt[1], send it to Ollama:qwen3:0.6b and the asked Gemini Flash 3 to compare what qwen3:0.6b did vs what Flash did.
Flash was clearly correct, but the qwen3:0.6b errors are interesting in themselves.
[1] https://platform.openai.com/docs/examples/default-sql-transl...
I’ve experimented with several of the really small models. It’s impressive that they can produce anything at all, but in my experience the output is basically useless for anything of value.
Yes, I thought that too! But qwen3:0.6b (and to some extent gemma 1b) has made me reevaluate.
They still aren't useful like large LLMs, but for things like summarization, and other tasks where you can give them structure but want the sheen of natural language they are much better than things like the Phi series were.
That's interesting. For what projects would you want the "sheen of natural language" though?
Say I want to auto-bookmark a bunch of tabs and need a summary of each one. Using the title is a mechanical solution, but a nice prompt and a small model can summarize the title and contents into something much more useful.
qwen3 family, mostly 4B and 8B are absolutely amazing. the VL versions even more
I have been seeing these stories about bigger AI models that somehow work on small devices like a Raspberry Pi. One example really caught my eye lately. It was not just some quick show off thing. The model could interact and respond right away in real time. ~
That got me thinking again about what practical even means when it comes to AI running on the edge. Like, away from big servers.
I came up with a basic way to look at it. First, capability. That is, what kinds of tasks can it handle decently. Then latency. Does it respond quick enough so it does not feel laggy. There are also constraints to consider. Things like power use, how much memory it needs, and heat buildup.
The use case part seems key too. What happens if you try to take it off the cloud and run it locally. In my experience, a lot of these edge AI demos fall short there. The tech looks impressive, but it is hard to see why you really need it that way.
It seems like most people overlook that unclear need. I am curious about how others see it. Local inference probably beats cloud in spots where you cannot rely on internet, or maybe for privacy reasons. Or when data stays on device for security.
Some workloads feel close right now. They might shift soon as hardware gets better. I think stuff like voice assistants or simple image recognition could tip over.
If someone has actually put a model on limited hardware, like in a product, what stood out as a surprise. The thermals maybe, or unexpected power drains. It feels like that part gets messy in practice. I might be oversimplifying how tricky it all is.
Had to try this on my laptop (vs my non-byteshape qwen3-30-a3b)
Original: 11tok/s Byteshape: 16tok/s
Quite a nice improvement!
We need custom inference chips at scale for this imho. Every computer (whatever formfactor/board) should have an inference unit on it so at least inference is efficient and fast and can be offloaded while the cpu is doing something else.
The bottleneck in common PC hardware is mostly memory bandwidth. Offloading the computation part to a different chip wouldn’t help if memory access is the bottleneck.
There have been a lot of boards and chips for years with dedicated compute hardware, but they’re only so useful for these LLM models that require huge memory bandwidth.
It is also to note that the bandwidth bus has seen very little upgrade over the years and even the onboard RAM on GPU card have seen mediocre upgrades. If everyone and their grandma wasn't using NVidia GPUs we would probably have seen a more competitive market and greater changes outside the chip itself.
I don't think that's true. AMD, Apple and Intel are all dGPU competitors with roughly the same struggle bringing upgrades to market. They have every incentive to release a disruptive product, but refuse to invest in their ecosystem the way Nvidia did.
Look at the specs of this Orange Pi 6+ board - dedicated 30 TPU NPU.
https://boilingsteam.com/orange-pi-6-plus-review/
Almost all of them have it already. Microsoft's "Copilot+" branding includes a prerequisite for an NPU with a minimal amount of TOPS.
It's just that practically nothing uses those NPUs.
At this point of the timeline compute is cheap, it’s RAM which is basically unavailable.
I can't believe this was downvoted. It makes a lot of sense that it would be highly useful to have mass custom inference chips.
It's quite easy to understand. The tech industry has gone through 4-5 generations of obsolete NPU hardware that was dead-on-arrival. Meanwhile, there are still GPUs from 2014-2016 that run CUDA and are more power efficient than the NPUs.
The industry has to copy CUDA, or give up and focus on raster. ASIC solutions are a snipe chase, not to mention small and slow.
I've just tried replicating this on my Pi 5 16GB, running the latest llama.cpp... and it segfaults:
I'm not sure how they're running it... any kind of guide for replicating their results? It does take up a little over 10 GB of RAM (watching with btop) before it segfaults and quits.[Edit: had to add -c 4096 to cut down the context size, now it loads]
Tested same model on Intel N100 miniPC with 16G - the hundred bucks pc
llama-server -m /Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507-GGUF:IQ3_S --jinja -c 4096 --host 0.0.0.0 --port 8033 Got <= 10 t/s Which I think is not so bad!
On AMD Ryzen 5 5500U with Radeon Graphics and Compiled for Vulkan Got 15 t/s - could swear this morning was <= 20 t/s
On AMD Ryzen 7 H 255 w/ Radeon 780M Graphics and Compiled for Vulkan Got 40 t/s On the last I did a quick comparison with unsloth version unsloth/Qwen3-30B-A3B-GGUF:Q4_K_M and got 25 t/s Can't really comment on quality of output - seems similar
Would you be able to actually get useful results from it? I'm looking into self hosting LLM's for python/js development. But I dont know if I would get useful results.
I have been thinking the same and have tried a little. I have tried some small models and got some useful results.
I have not figured out what models that fit in the available memory (say 16Gb) that would be best for doing this. A CPU model I can run on a laptop would be nice. The models I have tried are much smaller than 30B.
Could they have added some swap?
No, just updated the parent comment, I added -c 4096 to cut down the context size, and now the model loads.
I'm able to get 6-7 tokens/sec generation with 10-11 tokens/sec prompt processing with their model. Seems quite good, actually—much more useful than llama 3.2:3b, which has comparable performance on this Pi.
> I added -c 4096 to cut down the context size
That’s a pretty big caveat. In my experience, using a small context size is only okay for very short answers and questions. The output looks coherent until you try to use it for anything, then it turns into the classic LLM babble that looks like words are being put into a coherent order but the sum total of the output is just rambling.
Thanks for posting the performance numbers from your own validation. 6-7 tokens/sec is quite remarkable for the hardware.
Some more benchmarking, and with larger outputs (like writing an entire relatively complex TODO list app) it seems to go down to 4-6 tokens/s. Still impressive.
Decided to run an actual llama-bench run and let it go for the hour or two it needs. I'm posting my full results here (https://github.com/geerlingguy/ai-benchmarks/issues/47), but 8-10 t/s pp, and 7.99 t/s tg128, this is on a Pi 5 with no overclocking. Could probably increase the numbers slightly with an overclock.
You need to have a fan/heatsink to get that speed of course, it's maxing out the CPU for the entire time.
for some reason I only get 3-4 tokens/sec. I checked the CPU does not throttle or anything.
Have you tried anything with https://codeberg.org/ikawrakow/illama
https://github.com/ikawrakow/ik_llama.cpp and their 4Bit-quants?
Or maybe even Microsofts Bitnet? https://github.com/microsoft/BitNet
https://github.com/ikawrakow/ik_llama.cpp/pull/337
https://huggingface.co/microsoft/bitnet-b1.58-2B-4T-gguf ?
That would be an interesting comparison for running local LLMs on such low-end/edge-devices. Or common office machines with only iGPU.
I can’t wait to get home and try this on my Pi. Past few months, I’ve been building a fully local agent [0] that runs inference entirely on a Raspberry Pi, and I’ve been extensively testing a plethora of small, open models as part of my studies. This is an incredibly exciting field, and I hope it gains more attention as we shift away from massive, centralized AI platforms and toward improving the performance of local models.
For anyone interested in a comparative review of different models that can run on a Pi, here’s a great article [1] I came across while working on my project.
[0] https://github.com/syxanash/maxheadbox
[1] https://www.stratosphereips.org/blog/2025/6/5/how-well-do-ll...
How can I use ByteShape to run LLMs faster on my 32GB MacBook M1 Max? Or has Ollama already optimized that?
don't use ollama. llama.cpp is better because ollama has an outdated llama.cpp
So basically the quantization in a byteshape model is per-tensor and can be variable and is an "average" in the final result? The results look good - curious why this isn't more prevalent! Would also love to better understand what factors into "accuracy" since there might be some nuance there depending on the measure.
> Would also love to better understand what factors into "accuracy" since there might be some nuance there depending on the measure.
It's accuracy across GSM8K, MMLU, IFEVAL and LiveCodeBench.
They detail their methodology here: https://byteshape.com/blogs/Qwen3-4B-I-2507/
Does anyone have any use-cases for long-running, interesting tasks that do not require perfect accuracy? Seems like this would be the sweet spot for running local models on low-powered hardware.
looking at the dump of your home assistant server and sensor data and saying 'hmm that's interesting' if it notices something interesting
Is there something different about that accuracy measure? i.e. relative to perplexity term usually used
Going from BF16 to 2.8 and losing only ~5% sounds odd to me.
It's accuracy across GSM8K, MMLU, IFEVAL and LiveCodeBench.
They detail their methodology here: https://byteshape.com/blogs/Qwen3-4B-I-2507/
This is impressive work on quantization. It really validates the hypothesis that software optimization (and proper memory management) matters more than just raw FLOPs.
How would this run on a Jetson Orin Nano dev kit?
I feel like calling it a “30B” model is slightly disingenuous. It’s a 30B-A3B. So only 3B parameters is active at a given time. While still impressive nevertheless, being able to get 8T/s for a “A3B” compared to a dense 30B is very different.
Out of curiosity, I just tried Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507-Q3_K_S-2.70bpw.gguf (the version they recommend for the Raspberry Pi) on a Blackwell GPU. It cranked out 200+ tokens per second on some private benchmark queries, and it is surprisingly sharp.
It punches well above the weight class expected from 3B active parameters. You could build the bear in Spielberg's "AI" with this thing, if not the kid.
I’m bearish about that kind of future :)
What does it mean that only 3B parameters are active at a time? Also any indication of whether this was purely CPU or if it’s using the Pi’s GPU?
I've asked Gemini about it the other day(I'm dumb and shameless). Apparently it means that the model branches into bunch of 3B sections in the middle and joins at both ends, totaling in parameters at 30B. This means computational footprint reduces to (bottom "router" parts + 3B + top parts) of effectively-5B or whatever specific to that model implied by "3B", rather than the full 30B.
MoE models still operate on token-by-token basis, i.e. "pot/at/o" -> "12345/7654/8472". "Experts" are selected on per-token basis, not per-interation, so "expert" naming might be a bit of a misnomer, or marketing.
> What does it mean that only 3B parameters are active at a time?
In a nutshell: LLMs generate tokens one at a time. "only 3B parameters active a a time" means that for each of those tokens only 3B parameters need to be fetched from memory, instead of all of them (30B).
Then I don't understand why it would matter. Or does it really mean that for each input token 10% of the total network runs, and then another 10% for the next token, rather than running each 10 batches of 10% for each token? If so, any idea or pointer to how the selection works?
Yes, for each token only, say, 10% of the weights are necessary, so you don't have to fetch the remaining 90% from memory, which makes inference much faster (if you're memory bound; if you're doing single batch inference then you're certainly memory bound).
As to how the selection works - each mixture-of-experts layer in the netwosk has essentially a small subnetwork called a "router" which looks at the input and calculates the scores for each expert; then the best scoring experts are picked and the inputs are only routed to them.
GPT-OSS-20B is only 11.2GB. Should fit in any 16GB machine with descent context without any quality degradation.
We're approaching the point where we could have sophisticated sound controlled sex toys.
LLMs are, by definition, real time at any speed. 50,000 tokens per second? Real time. Only 0.0002 tokens per minute? Still real time.
Eight tokens per second is "real time" in that sense, but that's also the kind of speeds that we used to mock old video games for, when they would show "computers" but the text would slowly get printed to a screen letter for letter or word for word.
In this context by "real time" people usually mean "as fast as I can read the reply", so, 0.0002 tokens per minute would not be considered "real time".
Real time typically means guaranteed reaction time below 30ms, because slower reactions will make the body through up.
Real time is defined as ‘no slower than some critical speed’, in case of conversation with humans this should be around 10 tok/s including speech synthesis.
I'm just pulling stuff out of my butt here but is this an area where an fpga might be worth it for a particular type of model?