4 ms·

It’s definitely on purpose - but if the purpose was to help the users making good choices they could actually give information - and explain what is what - inst

by kgwgk 2y ago

It’s definitely on purpose - but if the purpose was to help the users making good choices they could actually give information - and explain what is what - instead of hiding it.

k__ 2y ago
I read, they don't merge PRs for Intel or AMD hardware, so it seems to be generally a bit of a shady project.
- v3ss0n 2y ago
  Just use Llamacpp directly
- vergessenmir 2y ago
  Could you expand on this, is there any disadvantage to continuing with ollama? I use Ollama for prototyping and then move what I can to a vLLM set up
  - diggan 2y ago
    I think if you find Ollama useful, use it regardless of others say. I did give it a try, but found it lands in a weird place of "Meant for developers, marketed to non-developers", where llama.cpp sits on one extreme, and apps like LM Studio sits on the other extreme, Ollama landing somewhere in the middle. I think the main point that turned me off was how they have their custom way of storing weights/metadata on disk, which makes it too complicated to share models between applications, I much prefer to be able to use the same weights across all applications I use, as some of them end up being like 50GB. I ended up using llama.cpp directly (since I am a developer) for prototyping and recommending LM Studio for people who want to run local models but aren't developers. But again, if you find Ollama useful, I don't think there is any reasons for dropping it immediately.
diggan 2y ago
Yeah, I made the same argument but they seem convinced it's better to just provide their own naming instead of separating the two. Maybe marketing gets a bit easier when people believe them to be the same? ollama has their own way of releasing their models. when you download r1 you get 7b. this is due to not everyone is able to run 671b. if its missleading then more likely due to user not reading. I'm not super convinced by their argument to blame users for not reading, but after all it is their project so.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  If nothing is specified the rule of least surprise would be the full vanilla version I would say.
- kaaskop 2y ago
  The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that it's deliberate sabotage of a Chinese model.
  - anticensor 2y ago
    No, those checkpoints have also been provided by DeepSeek.

by kgwgk 2y ago

It’s definitely on purpose - but if the purpose was to help the users making good choices they could actually give information - and explain what is what - instead of hiding it.

k__ 2y ago

I read, they don't merge PRs for Intel or AMD hardware, so it seems to be generally a bit of a shady project.

v3ss0n 2y ago
Just use Llamacpp directly
vergessenmir 2y ago
Could you expand on this, is there any disadvantage to continuing with ollama? I use Ollama for prototyping and then move what I can to a vLLM set up
- diggan 2y ago
  I think if you find Ollama useful, use it regardless of others say. I did give it a try, but found it lands in a weird place of "Meant for developers, marketed to non-developers", where llama.cpp sits on one extreme, and apps like LM Studio sits on the other extreme, Ollama landing somewhere in the middle. I think the main point that turned me off was how they have their custom way of storing weights/metadata on disk, which makes it too complicated to share models between applications, I much prefer to be able to use the same weights across all applications I use, as some of them end up being like 50GB. I ended up using llama.cpp directly (since I am a developer) for prototyping and recommending LM Studio for people who want to run local models but aren't developers. But again, if you find Ollama useful, I don't think there is any reasons for dropping it immediately.

diggan 2y ago

Yeah, I made the same argument but they seem convinced it's better to just provide their own naming instead of separating the two. Maybe marketing gets a bit easier when people believe them to be the same? ollama has their own way of releasing their models. when you download r1 you get 7b. this is due to not everyone is able to run 671b. if its missleading then more likely due to user not reading. I'm not super convinced by their argument to blame users for not reading, but after all it is their project so.

rightbyte 2y ago
If nothing is specified the rule of least surprise would be the full vanilla version I would say.
kaaskop 2y ago
The conspiracy theorist in me thinks that it's deliberate sabotage of a Chinese model.
- anticensor 2y ago
  No, those checkpoints have also been provided by DeepSeek.