Can we please as a community stop parroting these false premises as a basis of every argument against doing anything new? It's plainly obvious to anybody that uses LLMs on a regular basis that it's not true.

You are comparing dense models to MoE. You can't just take a qhen3.8:27b, a dense model, and extrapolate that math to make your arguments for the MoE model being discussed in the review.

All this takes is a simple bit of research, it's not like this author is the only person that's ever used qwen3.8-flash-next or another MoE on a mac ultra. https://tbreak.com/mac-studio-m5-max-review-local-ai/

> people like you in the industry are the reason I can work 8 hours a week and still get get paid a lot while being reviewed highly.

LOL. No offense but you sound like a carriage return. I'm pretty sure you sit at your computer hitting enter on a mechanical keyboard next to your fabulous mini pc living in 2025. You couldn't even imagine another use case besides being a carriage return for a local llm.

No thanks, you're not in a position to do that clearly.

> Since you clearly don't use local llms

I do, probably a lot longer than you have actually.

> anything under 100 tok/sec is USELESS

Objectively wrong. You sound like you're really behind and you're so myopic that you think coding is the only use case for local LLMs. I'm a professional software dev and that's the least interesting use case of local LLMs.

> Looking at the article, which you clearly didn't read,the m5 ultra runs Qwen3.8, which fits on one GPU conveniently, at ~20 tok/sec.

You clearly didn't read the article or have reading comprehension issues. The model is Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 4 and 5-bit quant, neither of which "conveniently fits on one GPU". Sorry that your hardware doesn't live up to your own delusions and can't even run Qwen3.8-Flash-Next at 4/5 bit quant. You are taking the Quen3.8-27B numbers, something that the article isn't really that concerned with, and trying to make it fit into your narrative.

> So I ask you again, which one are you?

Well I'm someone that suggests that you should touch some grass and reevaluate your personal issues. You seem angry. Perhaps it's best to figure your own issues before trying to figure out why people are excited about Apple hardware for local llms. I am sure the people that need to interact with you in society would be very grateful if you took the time to do this.

Well, if those are the only two options you can come up with it's pretty clear that this isn't about me or what I am, you have a false model of reality.

> Running very large models on Mac is unusable at 10 tok/sec.

There are plenty of examples of models running at well over 10 tok/sec that aren't viable on the 3090. In fact such examples are found in the review in the OP. Did you not read the article?

I think you're projecting pretty hard with the two options you've listed. Go touch some grass, you seem overly frustrated that reality doesn't meet your expectations.

Elaborate on why LLMs are so capable that they are a threat to humanity and at the same time, they are so incapable of defending us?

I'll give you a clue, nobody, including Dario, can answer this question because one contradicts the other.

I know you think you explained it but you didn't. You explained how an LLM might become misaligned and hide it but for the LLMs that are not, why would they not be capable of detecting that something harmful is happening and defending against the misaligned LLMs actions? After all, it was LLMs that defended hugging face.

Can you be specific about the damage? We currently live in the most prosperous times on earth for humans. I'm not sure what you mean by damage.

Nobody can explain why an LLM can be so capable as to be able to wipe out humanity and pose a greater threat than nuclear bombs but not be so capable as to be able to protect humanity against that threat. Are we just handwaving this with "entropy"?

> Maybe saying, "let's slow down", is another way of saying, "I love you." Or, maybe it's just: "let's not all of humanity kill ourselves like some bad ending to a Shakespearean tragedy."

Okay nevermind, I think it's pretty clear you just want to wax poetic about all of this.

Claude is becoming a highly capable Redditor

Nuclear, Overpopulation, Peak Oil, Y2K Bug, Global Warming.

No, we aren't going extinct in the next 10 years.

I am sure the Europeans rolling up their sleeves right now and getting to "work"

Notice the original comment is asking people to validate their false premise about next token prediction.

The deeper subtext of the original comment is that they are surprised that there's dissonance from observed reality and this false premise that they have convinced themself is true.

I'm explaining that dissonance because it doesn't matter what the actual mechanism is if they are still working with their false premise. The dissonance exists because they, without evidence and a very weak understanding of how LLMs work, believed an oversimplification and meme about them being stochastic parrots. Here's a tip: Just because you hear something repeated over and over on social media, doesn't mean it's true, or at the very least: you don't need to take it literally to the point where it conflicts with demonstrated reality.

It is deeply disturbing that such a large cohort of HN writers and redditors exemplify such stubbornness, because I must imagine that some of this cohort hold real positions of responsibility within society. If you can't get this simple thing right about reality, I firmly believe much of your model of reality is wrong and you should have no business shaping society.

Another comment to the original comment frames it perfectly: "At what point do you challenge your own assumptions?"

The author of the original comment has demonstrated no progress towards making this trivial act of self reflection. It's straight up intellectual dishonesty, the opposite of how you're framing it.

Their judgment in all other matters must be questioned as well. I am alarmed that I have to participate in the same reality and be affected by such people that can't seem to get it together.

So yes, it is derision and sometimes that's called for.