re community already did this: People are unreasonably attracted to things that are "minimal", at least 3 different local LLM codebase communities will tell yo

re community already did this: People are unreasonably attracted to things that are "minimal", at least 3 different local LLM codebase communities will tell you _they_ are the minimal solution.[1] It's genuinely helpful to have a static target for technical understanding. Other projects end up with a lot of rushed Python defining the borders in a primordial ecosystem with too many people too early. [1] Lifecycle: A lone hacker wants to gain understanding of the complicated word of LLMs. They implement some suboptimal, but code golfed, C code over the weekend. They attract a small working group and public interest. Once the working group is outputting tokens, it sees an optimization. This is landed. It is applauded. People discuss how this shows the open source community is where innovation happens. Isn't it unbelievable the closed source people didn't see this?[2] Repeat N times. Y steps into this loop, a new base model is released. The project adds support for it. However, it reeks of the "old" ways. There's even CLI arguments for the old thing from 3 weeks ago. A small working group, frustrated, starts building a new, more minimal solution... [2] The closed source people did. You have their model, not their inference code.