undefined

points

[-]

I'm taking a bet on local models to do the non genius work. Gemma 4 (released yesterday) has been designed to run on laptops / edge devices....and so far is running pretty well for me.

by neal_jones22 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

How’s Gemma 4 been?

by renewiltord22 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Edge models are good for their purpose but putting them in agentic flow with current ollama quants on a Mac Mini I see high tool use error rate and output hallucination.

For JSON to text formatting it works well on a one-round basis. So I think you should realistically have an evaluation ready to go so you can use it on these models. I currently judge them myself but people often use a smart LLM as judge.

Today writing eval harness with Claude is 5 min job. Do it yourself so you can explore as quants on Gemma get better.

by beering1 days ago|

prev|

[-]

Word on the street is that Opus is much much larger of a model than GPT-5.4 and that’s why the rate limits on Codex are so much more generous. But I guess you could also just switch to Sonnet or Haiku in Claude Code?

by admiralrohan1 days ago|

prev|

[-]

Openrouter free models have 50 requests per day limit + data collection. As per their doc.

by nodja1 days ago|

parent|

[-]

You can charge $10 on the account and get unlimited requests. I abused this last week with the nemotron super to test out some stuff and made probably over 10000 requests over a couple of days and didn't get blocked or anything, expect 5xx errors and slowdowns tho.

by cmrdporcupine8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

OpenAI has the better coding model anyways. You will be pleasantly surprised by Codex. The TUI tool is less buggy and runs faster and it's a more careful and less error-prone model. It's not as "creative" but it's more intelligent.

On top of that their $20 plan has much higher usage limits than Anthropic's $20 plan and they allow its use in e.g. opencode. So you can set up opencode to use both OpenAI's codex plan plus one of the more intelligent Chinese models so you can maximize your usage. Have it fully plan things out using GPT 5.4, write code using e.g. Qwen 3.6, then switch back to GPT 5.4 for review

by merlindru23 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

i tried out gpt 5.4 xhigh and it did meaningfully worse with the same prompt as opus 4.6. like, obvious mistakes

by josh_p7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I've been pretty satisfied using oh-my-openagent (omo) on opencode with both opus-4.6 and gpt-5.4 lately. The author of omo suggests different prompting strategies for different models and goes into some detail here. https://github.com/code-yeongyu/oh-my-openagent/blob/dev/doc... For each agent they define, they change the prompt depending on which model is being used to fit it. I wonder how much of the "x did worse than y for the same prompt" tests could be improved if the prompts were actually tailored to what the model is good at. I also wonder if any of this matters or if it's all a crock of bologna..

by kasey_junk18 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Fwiw I run this eval every week on a set of known prompts and I believe the in group differences are bigger than out group.

That is I get more variance between opus 4.6 and itself than I do between the sota models.

I don’t have the budget for statistical relevance but I’m convinced people claiming broad differences are just vibing, or there are times when agent features make a big difference.