Why I do like Qwen 3.6 35B A3B, I have found that the difference improvement of Qwen 3.6 27B is massive. Sure, it is 3x slower (https://github.com/stared/benching-local-llms-on-apple-silic...), but for the total development time it felt that still 27B is faster to get the goal.
I would love to give it a try with OpenRouter, but I see it is still not there.
From a very subjective KingBench v3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkFThJWJgg8, the results are promising. Curious for more standardized results as well. And for Simmon's pelican.
On Apple Silicon, with MLX-LM, I am getting 20 tok/s with Macbook Max M5.
Not sure how it compares to llama.cpp performance.
In any case, while it is noticeably slower than this Nvidia RTX setup, being able to run such models on laptop is wild. Though, it heats my laptop rapidly.
I read this article since it was referred to often in philosophy of mind, including by Daniel Dennett in "Consciousness Explained".
Yet... while I expected some deeper dive into Umwelts, I got (in my experience) a tautology around the word "be". Which, IMHO, should be tabooed in all serious philosophical discussion, as "be" is the mother of word-lockpicks. Vide E-Prime, English without "be", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime.
Assuming you are planning to continue participating anyway, you should just respond. Presuming it's a good response, with a bit of luck someone will vouch for it and make it visible.
If (for any reason) we know that dreams cannot be achieved, there is a clear cut. And while it might take time to accept the situation, this realization is Stoic/Zen.
It is way harder if there is a chance, we try, yet fail. When do we keep trying, and how do we do so without losing hope piece by piece? It might be even harder when the dream is not something like "win a gold medal in snowboarding", "build a unicorn startup" or "publish a bestseller". But it is in the line of having kids, or being healthy, or other things that a lot of people take for granted.
Very often it involves spatial thinking. Vide one example there:
> Once I mentioned this phenomenon to Andy Gleason; he immediately responded that when he taught algebra courses, if he was discussing cyclic subgroups of a group, he had a mental image of group elements breaking into a formation organized into circular groups. He said that 'we' never would say anything like that to the students. His words made a vivid picture in my head, because it fit with how I thought about groups. I was reminded of my long struggle as a student, trying to attach meaning to 'group', rather than just a collection of symbols, words, definitions, theorems and proofs that I read in a textbook.
Daniel Dennet in „Consciousness Explained” argues that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, and when we look at its individual components, it is like seeing an illusionist’s trick.
We may wonder how many grains of sand make a dune, of how many molecules of water make a liquid. (John Conway would argue that it takes a single spin-1 particle to have free will, but I digress.)
The same way, even if individual chemical reactions are simple (you don’t want to use that phrasing when talking with a biologists) or neural activities are simple (likewise, with a neuroscientist), it does not mean that the collective process is simple.
- How many individual components do you need for it to emerge?
Most people would be okay with saying that individual cells are not conscious, maybe even that tree are not conscious even thought they are made of many cells. Neurons seem to be the determinant factor in deciding whether something could have a consciousness, but again how many do you need? Does growing 1B neurons count as a brain if they are not organized?
>- How many individual components do you need for it to emerge?
If it is about the relationship between components, then I would imagine just two. Then it is a matter of scale.
This seems to be anathema to many people. I'm not sure why but the notion of something having a tiny bit of consciousness that is imperceptible seems to be unacceptable. There are so many things that we cannot comprehend at small scales. Nobody really has a handle on how large a Planck length is.
For some reason it comforts people to think there is a threshold at which it all switches on, but for what reason would there be a threshold?
Is it that in your case is it different?
reply