In one of my client projects we've had to do forced upgrades of LLM models because of deprecations (I believe three or four of them over the course of 2 years). Each time our internal benchmarks have shown REDUCED performance after upgrading to "better" models.

You don't seem to understand what the point of Jev is when you say "you can fine tune it for your use case". Building your own classifiers for your specific business problems is the type of work we all used to do back in 2016 or so. It costs very much. Jev is a cheap and fast general purpose classifier.

If you have an easy problem that can be solved by a classifier from pre LLM era, then sure, go ahead. But we have LLMs now and we can use those to expensively and slowly classify harder problems using general purpose models, without needing to spend a huge amount of time fine tuning a model for the specific task. Jev offers to do the same fast and cheap.

For clarity: no, a 0.8B model is not gonna do that.

The claim in OP is that "ASML currently sells no chipmaking machines in Europe". A single chipmaking machine purchase into a fab in Europe would be enough to prove that claim wrong. The number of fabs in Taiwan is irrelevant to this claim.

Is there any particular area of employment for algo geeks that you would approve of? Maybe we should just live off unemployment benefits instead of working?

Pick any subfield under the massive domain called “life sciences”.

Or do it as a hobby. I love shooting guns, I certainly wouldn’t shoot people if that was the only way to make a career shooting guns.

Fast and accurate general purpose classifiers DID NOT EXIST before Jev. You could either use an LLM to get a slow and accurate general purpose classifier, or you could use a smaller model to get a fast and inaccurate general purpose classifier, or you could fine tune your own model that would be both fast and accurate, but it wouldn't be general purpose.

But we still don't have a fast and accurate classifier.

All we have is a company that claims to have created one, with no proof.

I've seen enough proof to convince myself, but unfortunately I don't have enough to convince you. Maybe others will publish proper evals.

Except in this case it's not technically correct. Jev's claim is that it's frontier intelligence and these guys are pretending that a 8-bit quantized 0.6B param Qwen model is that. There's no universe in which that claim is technically correct.

Isn’t Jev built on top of Qwen?

Is Jev built on top of 8-bit quantized 0.6B param Qwen model? No.

You didn't specify time frames; 1) is doable for a very short time, with a lot of coulomb caching in between the computer and the potato :).

(For more realistic solution, surely someone must be working on optronics - these models just beg to have their weights cleverly etched into stacked sheets of plastic, so they can do inference for free on a beam of light.)

I'm so sick of seeing these people who "made Jev in 25 lines of Python" or whatever the flavor of the day is. Do you people seriously think that Qwen3-0.6B-Q8_0.gguf is frontier intelligence? If you want to argue that Jev is NOT frontier intelligence, then go make that argument. Don't try to pretend that Qwen3-0.6B-Q8_0.gguf is frontier intelligence. That's retarded.

I wonder if Qwen 3.0 0.6B q8 would have noticed

> note: this is a parody blog post

Don't cut the quote mid-sentence. Here's the full quote:

> note: this is a parody blog post, see these links for better/more complete open implementations of Jev: OpenJev, openjev-sglang, and OpenJev on DiffusionGemma.

Are OpenJev, openjev-sglang, and OpenJev on DiffusionGemma using Qwen3-0.6B-Q8_0.gguf, or did you just want to emphasize the part that was unrelated to your previous response?

Yes, all of those are using small models (not this particular model, but small models nonetheless). Small models are not frontier intelligence.

There are many other small markets as well, and yet, this law is not called the "Don't Corner Small Markets Act".

This came from the times when Congress wasn't deadlocked. If someone cornered a different small market they could make another law against that.

The point is that it's silly that the law is specific to onions, and the explanation "it's because onion market was small enough to be cornered" is unsatisfactory because there are other small markets too

Just like solving math or programming in a general sense is much harder than a specific solution , so is passing a broader law.

We don’t complain about switch cases in code when there is two or three switches we start refactoring once it starts to proliferate.

The law is no different , passing a wider ban would not get the votes easily or quickly and the interested parties the onion industry have no reason to push for it neither does the lawmaker acting on their interests.

If said small markets also had exceptions passed seeing the onion one there could have been case to be broad.

It would premature optimization to otherwise, based on just need for elegance , code or law has to work first even if dirty .

The law actually addressed public outcry, not regulatory malfeasance in a broader sense.

And therefore, yes, it was a silly, political reaction.