So your argument boils down to having to add `reqwest = "0.13.3"` to your `Cargo.toml`.

- Maximum intelligence per VRAM (you dont have much)

- Dense models can benefit from MTP to get an almost 2x speedup in decode (ie, a 27b dense model with mtp decodes at about the same speed as a MoE model with 14b active param model would). This is important because local llm rarely has parallel streams to batch together.

When running on large unified memory like Strix Halo or Spark Dgx, MoE models are usually best:

- You can get similar intelligence as a smaller dense model with fewer active params (to compensate for the slower memory) by throwing ram at the problem.

Neither has any hope of doing any good for the world as they don't understand evolutionary pressures. They are set up to reward making members feel smart, not accomplishing anything.

And if they ever gain any real power, they will be corrupted immediately.

This is such a common thing among software engineers nowadays that I was very surprised that OpenAI would open with that line as if it were mind blowing.

But then I saw it was published in February and OP is just reposting it to farm karma.

I'm not sure what you are claiming. Decode is bottle-necked by memory bandwidth. To see a speed up of 2x, you have to ensure each expert weight memory fetch can be used by 2 parallel streams. What exactly is the average factor you are claiming for 5x parallel streams (due to "birthday paradox" factors)? The Birthday paradox isn't really relevant here. It's about coverage, not parallelism.

> Memory for context is an issue, but recent models like DeepSeek V4 use very little of it even at relatively large contexts.

This is not true.

For prefill, it's really easy to batch MoE and get really good tk/s, even on a single stream.

For decode, you will run into the problem that:

1) you need more parallel requests which means more memory for context

2) 5 requests will not give you very much expert overlap on parallel requests

Being "anti illegal immigrant" doesn't have to imply you let in whoever wants as long as they follow some process. You are taking away the agency of the people to select its immigrants.

1) Someone can be against illegal immigration and for legal immigration.

2) That same person's idea about who should immigrate to the country may exclude most or all of the people who are currently immigrating illegally.

It's not like you can only be against illegal immigration because they forgot to fill out some form. Legal immigration has a component of deciding who gets in.

But if some or all players are bench-maxing it, then it becomes a much less useful metric for comparison.

Also, this doesn't address what OpenAI says about the test suite disallowing valid solutions.