Yeah, they're the good guys. I suspect the open source work is mostly advertisements for them to sell consulting and services to enterprises. Otherwise, the work they do doesn't make sense to offer for free.
Amazing work and people should really appreciate that the opportunity costs of your work are immense (given the hype).
On another note: I'm a bit paranoid about quantization. I know people are not good at discerning model quality at these levels of "intelligence" anymore, I don't think a vibe check really catches the nuances. How hard would it be to systematically evaluate the different quantizations? E.g. on the Aider benchmark that you used in the past?
I was recently trying Qwen 3 Coder Next and there are benchmark numbers in your article but they seem to be for the official checkpoint, not the quantized ones. But it is not even really clear (and chatbots confuse them for benchmarks of the quantized versions btw.)
I think systematic/automated benchmarks would really bring the whole effort to the next level. Basically something like the bar chart from the Dynamic Quantization 2.0 article but always updated with all kinds of recent models.
Thanks! Yes we actually did think about that - it can get quite expensive sadly - perplexity benchmarks over short context lengths with small datasets are doable, but it's not an accurate measure sadly. We're actually investigating currently what would be the best efficient course of action on evaluating quants - will keep you posted!
Yes sadly very expensive :( Maybe a select few quants could happen - we're still figuring out what is the most economical and most efficient way to benchmark!
