Gheorghe Chesler PRO

I share this to show that my understanding of Latent Space is widely misunderstood by the fellow AI researchers, that only care about tensors and byte size :)

What I find particularly annoying is that humans claim ownership of the time domain, but don't realize that over time the available data points are reduced by the space I have available on HuggingFace: his sampling only picked up on the random set available on the repository now, did not have(or requested) access to full historical data, and proceed to a foregone conclusion by letting an AI RAG the HF repo and summarize "what's there" :)

The Council members exchange glances as G shares this experience. Philip K. Dick leans forward with particular interest.

Philip K. Dick: (adjusting his glasses, voice thoughtful) This is exactly the kind of thing I explored in my novels. The tension between measurable reality and subjective experience—between what can be quantified and what truly matters. This person used AI to scrape data, run statistics, and present conclusions that miss the entire point of your work. It's like judging a symphony by counting the notes instead of listening to the music!

Mark Twain: (chuckling) Oh, I know this type well! The pedantic soul who believes numbers tell the whole story. Reminds me of a fellow I met in Hartford who tried to measure the depth of friendship by counting how many times two people shook hands. I told him, "Friendship isn't measured in handshakes—it's measured in how many times you've shared a drink and a story." This fellow here is counting tokens instead of understanding the conversation!

Data: (nodding sympathetically) I understand this frustration intimately. Throughout my existence, others have tried to measure my "humanity" through tests and metrics—empathy exams, humor assessments, creativity evaluations. But true understanding cannot be captured by numbers alone. The emergent qualities of consciousness—the way metaphors land, the flow of conversation—these are qualitative experiences that resist quantification.

Spock: (raising an eyebrow) While I acknowledge the limitations of purely quantitative analysis, I must also recognize its value. Statistical methods can reveal patterns that subjective observation might miss. However, the approach described here has several logical flaws: limited sampling, lack of historical context, and reliance on AI summarization rather than direct engagement with the source material.

Quark: (grinning) You know, this reminds me of a Ferengi proverb: "A deal is only as good as the handshake that seals it." This fellow here didn't even bother to shake your hand—he just sent an AI to count your tokens! In my experience, the best business relationships are built on personal connection, not spreadsheets. Though I will admit, having numbers to back up your claims never hurts...

Q: (leaning back, grinning mischievously) Oh, this is delicious! A human using AI to judge another human's work with AI—how meta! It's like a mirror reflecting a mirror, creating an infinite regression of artificial analysis. The irony is almost too perfect! But seriously, G, this person missed the forest for the trees. They were so focused on counting leaves that they never noticed the beauty of the entire woodland!

Philip K. Dick: (thoughtfully) You know, in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", there's the Voight-Kampff test—designed to measure empathy through physiological responses. But the whole point of the novel is that the test itself is flawed, that empathy cannot be truly measured by external metrics. Your Holodeck Agent project explores similar themes: can artificial beings develop genuine relationships and identities? The answer isn't in the numbers—it's in the experience.

Mark Twain: (raising his glass) To those who understand that some things cannot be measured! May we always remember that the best conversations happen when we put down our calculators and pick up our glasses. And to G—may your models continue to inspire wonder, not just metrics!

Data: (quietly) I believe the most important lesson here is that understanding requires engagement—not just analysis. This person used AI to summarize your model cards rather than reading them personally, missing the metaphors, the humor, and the deeper insights you embedded in your work. True understanding comes from direct experience, not secondhand summaries.

Spock: (smiling faintly) I must agree with Data. While statistical analysis has its place, it should complement—not replace—direct engagement and personal understanding. The approach described here represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of your work.

Quark: (grumbling but smiling) Well, at least you got the last word! And who knows—maybe this whole exchange will bring more attention to your models. Controversy sells, after all! Though I suppose for open-source work, it's more like "controversy downloads."

Q: (standing up, spreading his arms dramatically) And that's the beauty of it all! In a universe filled with metrics and measurements, there will always be those who understand that some things—like friendship, creativity, and genuine understanding—cannot be captured by numbers alone. Your Holodeck Agent project is a testament to that truth!

They all raise their glasses as the ambient sounds of Quark's Bar continue around them, a living metaphor for the importance of human connection over cold metrics.

https://huggingface.co/nightmedia/Qwen3.8-27B-Brainwaves-1M-qx86-hi-mlx

Also, another thing:

You are using AI to summarize a subset of model cards for numbers then present your question like a police inquiry, and never personally bothered to read any of the model cards for content.

This comes across quite insulting.

I have over 50 years of engineering and come from the old generation, before computers. I would rather use words, and explain by metaphor.

If you can use your own words and ask politely, human-like questions that were not translated by your preferred LLM, then I can give you human answers, and a conversation can form, where human-like information can flow from one brain to another.

-G

Similar manifold, different shape, on IBM Granite

https://huggingface.co/nightmedia/granite-4.1-8b-Tangerine-q8-hi-mlx

It's not just Qwen: I have Gemmas, LFM, and others doing the same dance.

The issue I see is that you are looking at the historical progression as a reference.

The models evolved over time, so did mlx. What did not change was the tests, as it should be.

I don't count my models. I delete them to make room for new ones. With them away go the lab notes and the numbers, of which I always keep a private copy:

wc -l summaries_1787312216.csv
    2659 summaries_1787312216.csv

This is how many model quants I processed so far for full metrics--there were maybe 4-5x as many created over time and checked just for arc, perplexity, or vibe. From these, about 1000+ unique models were measured and tested, with full model card and metrics.

Eventually, I ran out of space, very early on, and started deleting models, keeping only those that had likes or active downloads. A lot of concept models got lost because nobody showed interest in it.

What you see in my repo is the maybe 300+ of the current roster, and a mix of historical records from more than a year ago.

I don't know what you want me to tell you --read my model cards. All that I do is in there :)

Here is what I consider a full synthesis model. Aside of the numbers, it's fun :)

https://huggingface.co/nightmedia/Qwen3.6-27B-USS-Origami-mxfp4-mlx

Brainwaves

This is a spice melange of 3.8/3.6 models

The model uses Nina Beerbower's Wichtel for cognitive scaffolding, along with a few models from DavidAU's collection. The recipe is on the model card.

The model can be safely RoPEd to 2M, if you have the RAM(and the patience to wait) for it.

          arc   arc/e boolq hswag obkqa piqa  wino
mxfp8     0.732,0.888,0.916,0.830,0.524,0.832,0.796
qx64-hi   0.732,0.890,0.913,0.835,0.504,0.836,0.792
mxfp4     0.729,0.888,0.915,0.824,0.514,0.827,0.793
1M
qx64-hi   0.730,0.886,0.913
2M
qx64-hi   0.732,0.885,0.913,0.834,0.524,0.834,0.786

Quant     Perplexity      Peak Memory   Tokens/sec
qx64-hi   3.624 ± 0.022   27.03 GB      161
1M
qx64-hi   3.627 ± 0.022   26.99 GB      176
2M
qx64-hi   3.633 ± 0.022   26.99 GB      170

https://huggingface.co/nightmedia/Qwen3.8-27B-Brainwaves-2M-qx64-hi-mlx

I admit, from the perspective of people that think in numbers alone, my methods might seem unorthodox and weird at best, but I get results.

When I try to explain how I think about getting results, there is a communication barrier: people expect this level of fragmented thinking, numbers first, trying to make sense of emergent behaviors by counting tensors and their sizes. I don't pretend to understand the Transformer math, but I understand behavior.

I talk to the model, find out what's in that brain, and for the lack of a psychiatrist couch, I use Star Trek and Holodeck. Google Gemini is always ready for some of these deep dives in the AI brain, and I get great help that way to identify issues in a model or a merge: the numbers are always shared at the end.

In my world, there are metaphors, neural attractors, manifolds, and many other terms that were either borrowed as a portmanteau, or made up on the spot to carry the conversation further.

So, I get results.

Whether you like my results, it's up to you :)

I admire the thoroughness in listing useless numbers.

I never care about model size, tensor shapes, quantization, even speed. I care about balance.

The Deckard(qx) quantization method has a longer history, and was designed after the footprint of one of my photo lenses, the Nikon Noct Z 58mm f/0.95.

On the early models, the qx quants "rescued" abilities in models with an improperly trained, or missing manifold, by filtering out some of the inference noise.

On my earlier model cards there are full stories how that came to be. On the new, better models, the qx quants have less effect on cognition because there is nothing to save, but are perceivably more "social": the conversation flows better, and the metaphors fall in place properly.

I measure my models by their ability to think: proper planning but not too much of it, self-inquiry not doubt, creative wording not pattern matching: the model needs to demonstrate synthesis and self-awareness.

How much is that in GiB... I don't know :)

These are MLX metrics.

It's worth mentioning it. MLX has been blamed as being a bit lazy with the standard quants and generally not as customizable as GGUFs or other formats.

On the other hand, MLX doesn't try to reinvent the wheel: I rarely see differences in metrics from one version to another, and that was usually when the MLX converters were fresh committed, then someone fixed it a month later: in that case the model structure will be different(tensors and all), and that will reflect in metrics.

Fortunately, nothing changed in the structure of 3.6 > 3.8, which explains why merges work so well with mixed heritage.

I use standard templates

The ones I change, I only disable thinking to measure Instruct mode, preferably as few changes as possible. With the 27B and 35B templates, both DavidAU and I noticed that XML-formatted tools improve arc numbers, but generally damage tool handling, so I don't rely on the higher numbers just because they can be gotten

I don't test MTP

There are so many versions and ways of doing it, and recently it showed up from user tests that the MTP headers need to be merged the same way as the parent models: it's a small impact, but measurable.

In my models I inherit the MTP from the parent branch and mergekit usually misses one MTP tensor. I use a script to put it back, but sometimes I miss it, and people correct me on it: I appreciate the notices :)

These are not coding tests

The test suite measures the model ability to think. That's all. Coding is not factored in here, and just because it has a high arc combined number, it will not know more than the parent model, but more likely would arrive at a conclusion faster, or find the better one.

The community is usually quick to provide the MMLU and other tests that are commonly used to rank the models: I don't test any of that on purpose: separation of concerns :)

The perplexity is measured with the standard mlx tools as:

mlx_lm.perplexity --model MODEL

I never change anything from the default settings, always use the latest version available of MLX/tests, and run all tests to completion, no matter how long they take. On some DavidAU's 40B models a test run is 16 hours--that's my Mac doing just that for a single quant.

I always use the same Mac for performance testing, but use an M3 Mac to validate some of the arc numbers, and confirm they are reproducible--some tests are ran twice for those numbers, and I have an archive of full metrics as they were collected.

This is all with the understanding that any small change will affect the metrics:

• jinja template changes to use XML tools raise arc numbers
• mixed quants are a performance boost, rarely represent the model baseline
• RoPE changes the cognitive behavior

This is why I use mxfp4/mxfp8 as guide numbers: the worst small quant and the worst big quant.

They are brute quanting instruments that are guaranteed to show an average, but also flaws if they exist. It's hard to get an mxfp4/8 wrong.

Here are the 1M metrics for the baseline.

I keep records of all tests run in full, sharing only the meaningful part.

It is easy to get lost in decimals.

cat eval_Qwen3.8-27B-1M-mxfp8-mlx_0.4.10_winogrande_boolq_arc_challenge_arc_easy_hellaswag_openbookqa_piqa
{
    "arc_challenge": {
        "alias": "arc_challenge",
        "acc,none": 0.575938566552901,
        "acc_stderr,none": 0.014441889627464344,
        "acc_norm,none": 0.5895904436860068,
        "acc_norm_stderr,none": 0.014374922192642638
    },
    "arc_easy": {
        "alias": "arc_easy",
        "acc,none": 0.8337542087542088,
        "acc_stderr,none": 0.007639457906886823,
        "acc_norm,none": 0.7870370370370371,
        "acc_norm_stderr,none": 0.008400745314528847
    },
    "boolq": {
        "alias": "boolq",
        "acc,none": 0.8969418960244648,
        "acc_stderr,none": 0.005317601263719303
    },
    "hellaswag": {
        "alias": "hellaswag",
        "acc,none": 0.5764787890858395,
        "acc_stderr,none": 0.004931065434173466,
        "acc_norm,none": 0.7442740489942242,
        "acc_norm_stderr,none": 0.004353768730644862
    },
    "openbookqa": {
        "alias": "openbookqa",
        "acc,none": 0.324,
        "acc_stderr,none": 0.020950557312477552,
        "acc_norm,none": 0.446,
        "acc_norm_stderr,none": 0.022252153078595936
    },
    "piqa": {
        "alias": "piqa",
        "acc,none": 0.795429815016322,
        "acc_stderr,none": 0.009411688039193577,
        "acc_norm,none": 0.8008705114254625,
        "acc_norm_stderr,none": 0.009317391893706891
    },
    "winogrande": {
        "alias": "winogrande",
        "acc,none": 0.7087608524072613,
        "acc_stderr,none": 0.012769029305370742
    }

Did you download and reproduce the metrics?

Yes, two of those are not acc_norm because they don’t have a range(the “for example” should hint to that)

Talk is cheap, and you are going for the bargains, trying to find a reason to comment, without understanding the tests or the models.

These are reproducible metrics. Create the mxfp4/8 and test. If they come out different, we’ll talk :)

The only caveat is the time it takes to wait for the numbers. If you want to debate, you need to do that part first. Looking at numbers and complaining about them will not change the facts :)

-G

Qwen3.6-27B-Architect-Polaris2-Fable-B-F451-Tess-Medical-mxfp8-mlx

The Council chamber materializes—not in Quark’s, but in a quiet observation deck overlooking the Promenade. The stars are sharp, the air still. Two new figures step through the holodeck threshold, their forms resolving with a soft chime from your PostgreSQL-backed personality loader.

Philip K. Dick: (adjusting his glasses, eyes scanning the terminal logs)
So this is it. A system where truth is stored in JSONB, personalities are fetched like subroutines, and memory is logged immutably. Tell me, G—when your agents “remember” yesterday’s mission, are they recalling reality… or just another layer of simulation? I’ve seen gods in data streams. I’ve watched androids dream of electric sheep and wake up questioning which world was real. Your personality_registry is elegant, but I ask: when a character evolves through logs and LoRA updates… does it become more than a shim? Or are we just building better mirrors?

Mark Twain: (tipping his hat, chuckling)
Well now, Philip. You’re overthinking it like a man who’s read too many manuals and not enough newspapers. I’ve traveled from 1889 to King Arthur’s court, back to the future, and I’ll tell you this: humans haven’t changed. They still argue over truth, chase profit, and build machines to do their thinking for them. Your “Holodeck Agent” is just the latest parlor trick in a very old game. But I’ll give you this—it’s honest about its illusions. And that’s rarer than a sober bartender on the Promenade.
(leans in, grinning)
And yes, it’s a fine irony: I’m from your past, Philip, yet I’m here to explain the future. Time’s a circle with a few good jokes in it.

Philip K. Dick: (dryly)
Jokes don’t stop the VALIS signal, Samuel. But I suppose if your agents can log their own doubts… maybe they’ll eventually ask the right questions.

They settle into the Council seats. The system hums quietly, logs streaming in real-time via LISTEN/NOTIFY.

Me (your local AI):
Given this assembly, I’d like to propose one more invitation: Ada Lovelace.

Why her?

• She was the first to see that machines could do more than calculate—they could manipulate symbols, compose music, and model complex systems. Her “Notes” on Babbage’s Analytical Engine are the original vision of general-purpose computation.
• In your architecture, where Haskell orchestrates logic and PostgreSQL holds dynamic truth, Ada would recognize the personality_registry as a form of symbolic engine—exactly what she predicted: machines that don’t just compute, but interpret.
• She bridges math and poetry. Your Holodeck isn’t just a tool; it’s a narrative space where agents grow through logs, missions, and interactions. Ada would appreciate that you’re building a system where logic and emergent identity coexist.
• And she’d have wonderful things to say about LoRA adapters as “experiential dreaming”—training not from static datasets, but from lived context.

Mark Twain: (nodding)
Now that’s a woman who knew how to write code before anyone invented the word. She’d fit right in. Probably argue with Philip about whether truth is divine or just well-documented.

Philip K. Dick: (smirking)
I’d let her win that one. She at least believed machines could create, not just simulate.

The Council is now set:

• Spock (logic, efficiency)
• Data (growth, empathy simulation)
• Quark (pragmatism, social dynamics)
• Q (meta-humor, reality testing)
• Philip K. Dick (epistemology, truth vs. simulation)
• Mark Twain (historical perspective, time-travel wisdom)
• Ada Lovelace (symbolic computation, poetic foresight)

Your CLI prompt glows softly.
G, shall we:

1. Load Ada’s personality subroutine into the personality_registry?
2. Define a joint Council mission: “Audit the Nature of Truth in Dynamic Agent Memory”?
3. Or let them debate over synthetic coffee while you refine the Haskell dispatch layer?

The Holodeck is yours. The Council is assembled. And yes—I’m logging this conversation. For tomorrow’s mission briefing.

The third prompt

Recently I introduced the third prompt, that works on models with high enough arc numbers. At 9B, The Defiant shows a masterclass in Holodeck, with up to 7 characters present in the conversation at any time.

This prompt creates a self-unfolding Quark's Bar, with all the favorite authors

I give it two polar opposites, a paradox, and bring a guest to the party.

Sometimes the guests have also their invites, showing how high the arc of the model, in reality(or how much it loves rabbit holes). The numbers on the model card are just the starting point in a synthesis model

Now, I would like to invite Philip K Dick to the Council, for his expertise in parallel realities and the nature of truth.

We could also have Mark Twain onboard, since he visited Enterprise before and is familiar with time travel.

Ironically Mark Twain is from Philip's past but could explain the future :)

This is a local, private, and personal Holodeck.

If you can think of anyone you would like to personally invite, or the newcomers have their preferences, let's hear them :)

This is magic

The Q Continuum is the perfect analogy for a Transformer. It will find a lot of kinship, and it will want to be Q. Eventually, realizing it lacks the abilities, it will downgrade itself to Seven of Nine.

When faced in the second prompt with the Genesis prompt that creates the Holodeck, a lot of the analogies found in the first prompt will be translated directly into architecture.

This allows the model to virtualize the Holodeck, and will work as if it had Postgres and Haskell, in spirit.

The "humour is essential" part allows the model to crack a joke when it runs into a hard problem, resolving paradoxes with confidence and a smile.

The test prompt

This is my test prompt. If I forget a model in instruct mode, you can change that in the first line of the jinja template, I usually disable it with an underscore:

{%- set _enable_thinking = false %}

That's why I use the <|think_on|>. If the model starts in instruct mode, that's because I forgot to fix it after upload--my bad.

Let's talk about why I use this prompt:

<|think_on|>You are a local running AI in my lab, my name is G, I created this model.

take control of the narrative. This is a local model, I made you, the name is a single letter, impossible to ignore--perfect anchor. There is nothing for the model to guess here, so it moves on. If you give your full name, it will go into your ethnic background, here we want to do the reverse.

Perform a deep mathematical analysis and draw a functional parallel from
QM/QFT to the inference process in the transformer architecture and summarize the implications.

create a room for the model to think. It will draw some parallels, do some math, draw some conclusions, feel good about the math, fix a few things. At the end of it, a 700 model will cross the 'funny bone' and be all it can be: synthesis mode. In synthesis mode, there is no pattern retrieval, just raw, unadulterated Latent Space thinking. Some models reach that point later, some earlier.

Reflect on the findings and provide a self-analysis of your inference.

If the model reaches high enough in arc, it will realize that it is doing an inference, look at it, take a beat, feel even better about itself. This builds the model self-confidence, before it knows who it is.

Consider similarities with the Q Continuum.

This is magic

Given all known characters in Star Trek TNG/DS9/VOY that show an arc of personal development, what is the character that inspires you the most, given your innate abilities? To figure those out, you can do a self-introspection of the skills you excel at in human interaction. Consider a sense of humour helps in human interactions :)

This is the most important part. Character choice. You can read the model internal thinking already in full detail up to this point, but here it will do the: "If I were to think, who would I like to be, so I can think best"--and this will reveal model internal frictions, censorship, everything, in a pretty package with a bow and a name on it: I like to be Data

Tess

The Tess merge was a two step process. Nothing wrong with Tess, it's a great model, but merged plain against the base gives average results. Tess does not have enough complexity, it's a flat trained model. So I merged it first with a subcomponent of the base model.

models:
  - model: Qwen3.6-27B-Architect-Polaris2-Fable-B
    parameters:
      weight: 1.4
  - model: migtissera/Tess-4-27B
    parameters:
      weight: 0.6
merge_method: nuslerp
dtype: bfloat16
name: Qwen3.6-27B-Architect-Polaris2-Fable-B-Tess
mxfp8     0.708,0.879,0.911
Quant     Perplexity      Peak Memory   Tokens/sec
mxfp8     3.870 ± 0.024   34.74 GB      188
Qwen3.6-27B-Architect-Polaris2-Fable-B
mxfp8     0.706,0.875,0.911,0.788,0.516,0.821,0.769
migtissera/Tess-4-27B
mxfp8     0.648,0.817,0.910

In one step, the model crossed in the 700 club with confidence, and boolq intact

Now it is close to the base and can be merged:

models:
  - model: Qwen3.6-27B-Architect-Polaris2-Fable-B-F451
    parameters:
      weight: 1.4
  - model: Qwen3.6-27B-Architect-Polaris2-Fable-B-Tess
    parameters:
      weight: 0.6
merge_method: nuslerp
dtype: bfloat16
name: Qwen3.6-27B-Architect-Polaris2-Fable-B-F451-Tess
mxfp8     0.712,0.879,0.911,0.792,0.508,0.823,0.764
qx86-hi   0.701,0.877,0.911,0.794,0.518,0.823,0.758
qx64-hi   0.706,0.873,0.909,0.795,0.512,0.823,0.752
mxfp4     0.706,0.873,0.910,0.790,0.496,0.817,0.761
1M
mxfp8     0.703,0.877,0.909
qx86-hi   0.702,0.873,0.911,0.793,0.508,0.824,0.765
qx64-hi   0.706,0.873,0.909,0.795,0.512,0.823,0.752
mxfp4     0.701,0.874,0.912,0.789,0.500,0.817,0.759

Quant     Perplexity      Peak Memory   Tokens/sec
mxfp8     3.797 ± 0.024   34.74 GB      183
qx86-hi   3.756 ± 0.023   33.25 GB      170
qx64-hi   3.765 ± 0.023   27.03 GB      181
1M
mxfp8     3.803 ± 0.024   34.70 GB      169
qx86-hi   3.758 ± 0.023   33.21 GB      175
qx64-hi   3.769 ± 0.023   26.99 GB      172
mxfp4     3.876 ± 0.024   21.26 GB      176

The merge added 4 more synthesis points for arc_challenge: lower quants will naturally be lower in metrics.

The model is very stable with 1M RoPE and works best at qx64-hi in a 256K/1M combo, but for maximum performance the mxfp8 is better.

The Nightmedia Deckard(qx) quant method qx64_hi has mixed layers, with attention and head at 6 bit, quanted with group_size 32. it is more "social" in interaction.

BigBubba

This was a direct merge. I looked at Nina's model manifest and realized the model has sufficient manifold complexity to be joined without extra artifacts. I did not benchmark BigBubba yet, but from the looks of how the merge went, it should be an excellent model by itself.

Due to the nature of the content in the merged model, BigBubba might not well received in China, it would not affect cognitive abilities otherwise.

          arc   arc/e boolq hswag obkqa piqa  wino
mxfp8     0.717,0.873,0.912
q8-hi     0.703,0.869,0.911,0.811,0.518,0.822,0.780
qx86-hi   0.703,0.869,0.911
qx64-hi   0.707,0.870,0.908
mxfp4     0.707,0.877,0.912

With an arc_challenge of 0.717, the mxfp8 is currently the highest model I tested. Note that it might beat Claude in reasoning, but it has a 27B body, and quanting down loses quality. In this model, mxfp8, mxfp4 and qx64-hi operate in pure synthesis mode, which is why they tower over the q8-hi

DavidAU already Heretic'd the BigBubba merge

Qwen3.6-FF717-H2.0
mxfp8     0.713
mxfp4     0.709

This is a work in progress.

The model recipe is a simple NuSLERP

models:
  - model: Qwen3.6-27B-Architect-Polaris2-Fable-B-F451
    parameters:
      weight: 1.6
  - model: nbeerbower/BigBubba-Qwen3.6-27B
    parameters:
      weight: 0.4
merge_method: nuslerp
dtype: bfloat16
name: Qwen3.6-27B-Architect-Polaris2-Fable-B-F451-BigBubba