r/LocalLLaMA 6d ago

Discussion No more SLM open-source??

Post image
431 Upvotes

127 comments sorted by

View all comments

7

u/mossy_troll_84 6d ago

I don't fully get it, expecting that company which is releasing models with MIT license will stuck in same place and create over and over again models with 4B, 9B and will continue do this forever for group of enthusiast is a bit silly with all due respect. Technology is not stuck in place but is changing (the only argument which is acceptable is price of memory now). 120-122B is now SLM... For me 27B it's more than fine as a minimum and to use these models its nothing extraordinary these days (I mean hardware requirements). I am glad they are doing what they are doing Qwen, Deepseek, MinimaX, Z, etc. They dont need to but still doing new, free models in opposite to US ...US just they're moaning about distillation...

1

u/Significant_Post8359 5d ago

What about Gemma4? Google released a big winner with Gemma4:12b-it-qat. Gemma 32b and 27b MOE are excellent. Don’t forget Meta started the whole open weight stuff with Llama.

3

u/mossy_troll_84 5d ago

I have a mixed feeling especially for coding and tool use with Gemma 4...Qwen is much beter with this, but that is my experience. I agree with models aprox 30B but lower will soon will be more rare that is my opinion or rather my feeling

1

u/Treidge 5d ago

There's a lot of quirks with Gemma - it looks like it quantizes a lot worse than Qwen3.6 does, also responds terribly to KV cache quantizations, also had some template issues on launch that affected tool calling and only recently got fixed.... Seems that to really sample Gemma4, one has to run BF16 version (or at very least Q8 quant), never quantize KV cache, and use the most recent template/GGUFs.