2 ms·
This is a change from your response to the comment that I linked to, where you said it was a good point. Why the difference? Maybe I should clarify that I'm no
by lolinder 2y ago
This is a change from your response to the comment that I linked to, where you said it was a good point. Why the difference?
Maybe I should clarify that I'm not saying that the effort to enable a new backend is substantial, I'm saying that my understanding of that comment (the one you acknowledged made a good argument) is that the maintenance burden of having a new backend is substantial.
- buyucu 2y agoI didn't say it was a good point. I said I disagree, but it's a respectable opinion I could imagine someone having.
- lolinder 2y agoOkay, now we're playing semantics. "Reasonable argument" were your words. What changed between then and now to where the same argument is now "incorrect"?
- buyucu 2y agoI literally start the sentence with 'I disagree with this'
- lolinder 2y agoBut you never said why, and you never said it was incorrect, you said it was a reasonable argument and then appealed to the popularity of the PR as the reason why you disagree. But now suddenly what I said is not just an argument you disagree with but is also incorrect. I've been genuinely asking for several turns of conversation at this point why what I said is incorrect. Why is it incorrect that the maintenance burden of maintaining a Vulkan backend would be a sufficient explanation for why they don't want to merge it without having to appeal to some sort of conspiracy with Nvidia?
- buyucu 2y agollama.cpp already supports Vulkan. This is where all the hard work is at. Ollama hardly does anything on top of it to support Vulkan. You just check if the libraries are available, and get the available VRAM. That is all. It is very simple.