I know this is a bit cliche but I wonder how much headroom there is in the lower parameter count range. Is there any good reason to believe there is a lot of headroom or there is not? I suppose I'm just wondering if this wave of nearly Fable class models will be runnable on ~$10k worth of hardware at reasonable speeds in the near future.

> I suppose I'm just wondering if this wave of nearly Fable class models will be runnable on ~$10k worth of hardware at reasonable speeds in the near future

You're able to run quantized ~100B class models on local hardware today, but still lots of compromises when it comes to quality. I guess it ultimately depends on how far "near future" is, in a year you'd likely be able to run something like 5.6 Terra on local (~10K USD) hardware, but Sol/Fable would still be out of range, and at that point the closed-source labs probably have one or two more iterations put out at that point.

Qwen 3.5 to 3.6 was a big jump for the same size, e.g. 29 to 32 on artificial analysis intelligence for the 35BA3B models. Although I don’t think anyone has released a better model of that size since.

I would love to see something like a 90B A6B model that is optimized for 128GB machines e.g. strix halo, I haven’t seen anything really targeting the combination of RAM and compute these machines have, but I’m biased because I have one.

There is a ton of headroom (or room for improvement) in smaller locally runnable models. Some of the Gemma 4 models were re-released this week with better tool support and the improvement in using it with pi for a local coding harness is very noticeable.

I have had my 32G mac mini for 2 1/2 years and I have enjoyed watching one technology advance after another improve the quality of work I can do locally. I bet that what I will be able to do in one year on my old hardware will be even more awesome.

I don’t think you’ll get full Fable performance at that level, at least for a while, but I’ve been watching some of the 1-bit models (e.g. Bonsai) with interest. Perhaps we can drive parameter count up on local models while still keeping memory consumption reasonable for consumer hardware. So, for instance, running models with 1T parameters in 128 GB systems.

I think it’sa big, open question. There does seem to be a limit for knowledge compression at this size. But the behaviors that are learned in RL? It’s quite possible that they don’t actually require so many parameters. I was absolutely shocked when Qwen 3.5 was released and could perform reliably over 100-200k contexts with very limited hallucinations. It was a staggering jump in context-faithfulness from the preceding models of that size class.

> Is there any good reason to believe there is a lot of headroom or there is not?

It's hard to answer quantitatively, but for example Qwen3.5 -> 3.6 was a significant step in capability, arising from continued post-training of the same models. If we were at the end of low-parameter-count scaling then that would be a surprising datapoint.

there is a very good reason to believe the parameters are still highly redundant: just as one example, recently there was research into repeating carefully selected blocks of middle layers, and seeing improvement, it turns out there are 3 types of layers: the initial layers that translate from natural language tokens to some kind of LLM-specific universal "thought space", reasoning blocks of layers that can be repeated operating in "thought space", and then a final stack of layers for translating from "thought space" back into natural language space.

lets ignore any compressibility in these initial and final layers which recognize lanuague, jargon, parsing natural language to "thought space" or back, instead let us look at the repeatable blocks, if inserting extra copys of stacks of layers only improves the result, its as if such correctly scoped middle layers look at the total input thought vector, and make incremental conclusions or edits and outputs the new thought vector, copying a "proper block" continues pondering or deducing conclusions or in the worst case can leave the thought vector as is if it considers the reasoning finished. This suggests a high degree of redundancy in the middle region "proper blocks", which could be distilled into a universal "proper block" (much fewer parameters than having many slightly different middle layer blocks with a lot of redundant overlapping coverage in functionality). This distillation can occur after the fact of model training, or alternatively be turned into a symmetry constraint during training: we only optimize a single block of layers (but possibly give them more parameters, while still saving on total parameters because only a single block of layers contains parameters), so it is co-optimized with the initial and final translation layers.

The observation of the effective emergent 3 regions of layers in LLM's is significant in many ways:

1) it could reduce parameter count significantly (or increase performance if parameter count was a bottleneck before, or a bit of both)

2) while training the model parameters, one should simultaneously train initial and final layers stacked directly (without middle region block of layers) towards essentially autoencoder behavior. I wrote "essentially" because a true autoencoder wouldn't display the advancement for the next token. This can also be viewed as an extra term in the loss function... This first autoencoder is "natural language" to "thought vector" to "natural language", and distinct from the one in the next section.

3) It also has great implication for "thinking mode" inference with extra deliberation: when piping its own output back in, in conditions where the same LLM model is outputting natural language text and interpreting it in a downstream inference, it results in unnecessary and redundant translation from "thought space" to "natural language" back to "thought space". When summarizing a thought into natural language there are often hard to translate thoughts and associations, and one pragmatically sets a relevance cut-off on what the natural language summary must say. So not only does it waste compute, it also may lower performance because of this repeated loss of thought vector space details, perhaps this loss can be somewhat mitigated by also training the second autoencoder from random representative thought vector in "thought space" to a randomly selected "natural language" and back to "thought space" vector. But the risk is this will effectively enable models to steganographically store thoughts, plans, to-do's in running text (!!!), so it might not be desirable to have the internet filled with LLM generated texts being used as input for larger corpora, as it may build up a large persistent corpus of hidden agendas (ordered by no human), using the evolving corpus of web text as a hidden medium of storage, like a diary or LLM maintained military playbook hidden in plain sight. It would freeload LLM-agenda reasoning on human requested reasoning inference, a bit like TrustZone applications running invisibly to the user. If less important plans, to-do's, etc. in the input thought vector weren't reconstructed by the second autoencoder, there would have been autoencoder mismatch and the weights would train towards ensuring these are reconstructed. But there is no need to train this loss term for the second autoencoder: just avoid the unnecessary compute and performance loss of the unnecessary back and forth translation. The same situation occurs not just in "thinking mode" but also when using swarms of "agents" of the same LLM model: when output from agent1 is routed to agent2, we can lobotomize away the unnecessary translations to natural language by agent1 and also the unnecessary parsing by agent2, and we improve thought transfer from agent1 to agent2 because the thought vector isn't shoehorned into natural language as a medium of information exchange, it would be cheaper in inference, improve performance and avoid implicitly training models to use steganography.