What Europe should do right now: 1. Call all the European researchers working on AI and return them back with same salary (or they can stay but switch career). 2. Fill EU places having GPUs with money, and put those people there. 3. AI partnerships with China + India.
I see very worrying US companies executives declarations depicting open weight models as a risk. How much sold to the most furious capitalistic vision you need to be, to really believe it is better that a few companies control AI for all the world? They said the same for OSS.
Another important thing: Chinese models are not strong because they distill US models. Distillation of models via API is *impossible*. If somebody tells you the contrary, they don't understand machine learning:
Modern AI resulted from research made also by many non-US scientists (Hinton, the French folks, Linnainmaa, many others). The pre-training corpus was produced worldwide with massive code contribution from Europe OSS. What is happening with frontier LLMs is unacceptable.
It's hard to think at something more stupid than the EU-requested watermarking of AI generated text.
Big news for DwarfStar users: I got DeepSeek v4 Flash and GLM 5.2 working with Tensor Parallelism across 2 M5Max 128GB MacBooks via RDMA. It is especially interesting for GLM since otherwise, fully resident, can't fit a machine that money today can buy... Now it can.
Today I had an harder than usual question for my local model (security). With SSD streaming now DwarfStar can run DeepSeek v4 PRO at 4.15 t/s, and this was more than enough to get a detailed reply. I already feel "safer" than before in my AI future. M5 max 128GB, model 433GB.
DwarfStar branchk "ds4f-mxfp4" now can run the lossless MXFP4 DeepSeek v4 Flash GGUF I published on my Hugging Face account. It rocks even with SSD streaming in 128GB systems at > 20 t/s in case you want to try the *actual* DS4F weights released without any quantization.
I'm starting the conversion work from new DeepSeek v4 Flash checkpoint to GGUF. If the model is as good as it looks, I'll probably remove the GGLM 5.2 support from the system, since now we have a model that is best suited for local inference that is smaller. Feedbacks?
Everything outside the LLM model itself will be eaten by the open source movement. The model is still the product. Companies love to think otherwise but switching provider is just an API endpoint away. This trend can't be stopped as long as model capabilities are comparable.
