Yup, I hate to engage in anything that looks like a "shallow dismissal" but the project documentation seems to outright contradict itself wrt. whether it's running the model at genuinely native precision (though the claimed 3-bit quant is potentially interesting) and the headline claim of achieving 2 secs/token in a mere 29GB RAM footprint looks outright nonsensical given what we know about K3 itself (~115GB in dense parameters alone at native precision, plus ~25GB active sparse experts per token and some comparatively minor footprint for the KV cache). This is just not very helpful.

I wrote tons of software, even a programming language by hand https://github.com/marcobambini/gravity.

I'm using my skills to orchestrate LLMs and agents, and I can write better code much faster. As developers, we can choose to adapt to new technologies or become extinct.

>Contributors

>...

>claude

You don't need to presume. If someone is so lazy that they tell claude to commit their code (ie. they're too lazy to run git commit themselves), the chances they reviewed the code is slim.

Yeah I'm begging these authors to at least *read* the LLM generated README's. They're so, so incomprehensible because the LLM has a super limited theory of mind for readers. They always assume that external readers have access to the full context and history of decisions in the project development. These decisions and instructions from the user are extremely important for the model and almost completely irrelevant for an outside reader looking at a "finished" product. So, we get sentences like this:

"Where the levers were is not where they are. Overlapping the expert reads with the arithmetic was worth ~1.6x and shipped; the two that looked bigger — reading fewer bytes per token, and keeping more of them in RAM — were both measured and both refused, one because this family's router has no tail to demote and one because a cache the machine will not leave resident cannot be bought at any price."

What the fuck does that mean? Obviously some internal development decision, using the absolutely inscrutable internal terminology that Claude loves. If people would just read what they publish, I'm sure this would stick out immediately.

I'm not an LLM hater, I use them a ton and they work very well for writing complex code, it's undeniable. But they generate absolute dogshit first draft writing.

Does it matter?

do people think these projects related to LLMs are ever going to be in anyway a pure human endevour?

How bout we make a new rule: only complain about LLM writing when the product as zero relevents to use with LLMs.

i thought, here on HN, we were past the "oooh it's written by a LLM it's bad!".

I care about the craft, well designed systems, good clean architecture and code, etc...

But i also care about reaching goals. Whether i do it working on my own, or with human coworkers or with AI coworkers doesn't matter that much to me. Yes, the result is sometimes the most important thing.