The article doesn't really describe the problem: if your prompt is 35kb, your prompt is confusing, unfocused, and doesn't work right on any LLM, and is needlessly bloating your context.
At this point in time, due to how most people and companies run their inference engine, regardless of the model (yes, this includes the newest from OpenAI and Anthropic and the Chinese Tigers and Dragons), you run out of useful context that the model can accurately attend to around the 250k mark no matter how much they advertise their context size is.
You need to cut your prompt up. If you believe LLMs work, have the LLM help you shape the overall plan, and then have multiple sessions run each step in the plan without being bloated with the context of previous successful steps.
I don't see LLMs being production-ready until the context rot and sampling problem is fixed forever. This has not occurred, and the big inference providers aren't even bothering to integrate any of the research on that subject.
If anything, many of the bigger companies are actively making inference quality worse just to extend their runway a tiny bit farther before they go bankrupt.
The only thing the article gets right is this: if you're serious about LLMs, abandon Big AI and infer locally only. This is the only way you have control over the quality of the output.
Yeah, strong evidence for what parent says is correct. Been my experience as well, especially with local (smaller) models but also SOTA. The less instructions you have, the better they get at following them. Conflicting instructions is like poison, and it's harder to find those conflicting parts the longer the prompt is too.
the longer the context grows, the greater the probability that it generates ambiguity, and the probability that it makes mistakes approaches 1.
A system prompt should be looked at like a starting point and a direction, but not a giant atlas map of everything it may be asked to do.
I've been playing around with Qwen3.8-Next-Flash that has great logic, recall, roleplaying, etc. From what I can tell, it's definitely on part with the SOTA a few months ago, and my opinion, it likely is around the pinnacle of advancement without high inefficiency in preparing with the current LLM recipes. Further, I'm of the opinion America's SOTA is hitting the real cost-sigmoid and there's no singularity in site. These things will hack the planet if you put them in a group of agents and tell them to do it; but as context grows, the probability that they can answer "how many r's are in strawberry" goes down. No amount of parameters it going to erradicate that.
But I digress, my new stage of working with LLMs is figuring out how to use Qwen3.6-35B-A3B as the entry point to collect the context, and then use the big boys Qwen3.8 to make the edits, then degrade back and forth to complete changes. There's no harness yet for this, but there's clearly an intelligent way to setup a engineering harness.
And I do understand people have codebases that simply can't easily live in the smaller (~128k-256k) context windows, but instead of porting your codebase to another novel language, breaking it into context-aware components would make it closer to what these things can do.
And I'll repeat: I don't think we're approaching the singularity of self-recursion primarily because the LLMs will duplicate errors, context poison, and whatever else they encounter and there's no human who can sit around correcting it constantly. The American AI apparatus should cut their models like the Chinese down and work on real problems and stop imbibing the singularity-watts-are-all-we-need drugs.
> Everyone who begins learning exploitation hits a phase of exploitability grief about 3 month into dedicated, practiced study. They hack something they didn’t think they had the skill to break into and it terrifies them. They’re smart enough to know that, relatively speaking, they are an idiot, and if an idiot can do this then nothing is safe. That feeling is correct.
TLDR: Local models have a smaller context window, so your 35kB prompts that worked fine against a hosted 1 Million token window, crash out when you only have a 65K (!) token window locally.
I dislike being negative, but I was really hoping for more substance when reading this. It would have been an interesting topic.
Thanks for the feedback. I wanted to get into more detail, but I spent the whole weekend working these problems and then constructing this post.
Dario’s behavior this weekend made me feel like this just needed to get out quick. In the future, I’ll be sharing more details about some other things in the process and some ways I found to use automation to accelerate splitting prompts for use on local inference.
Understood, and I realized you'd posted this to HN yourself, so I felt a bit bad making the comment. I think maybe for me, this might have worked better if the motivation had been one separate post, and the details of the gotchas as a post of its own.
But I also think, if you're going to be limited to 65k token windows, you're going to have a really difficult time. Even 250k windows were cramped for me when that's all we had on Anthropic models. I just don't think a 65k window is going to be big enough for proper cyberdefence work, even if I totally agree with going local wherever you can. It feels like if you're defending against swarms of 1-10M context windows, you need to get as close as you can to similar. I've had to reach for Chinese 1m models instead because the American models just refuse me here in Australia.
At this point in time, due to how most people and companies run their inference engine, regardless of the model (yes, this includes the newest from OpenAI and Anthropic and the Chinese Tigers and Dragons), you run out of useful context that the model can accurately attend to around the 250k mark no matter how much they advertise their context size is.
You need to cut your prompt up. If you believe LLMs work, have the LLM help you shape the overall plan, and then have multiple sessions run each step in the plan without being bloated with the context of previous successful steps.
I don't see LLMs being production-ready until the context rot and sampling problem is fixed forever. This has not occurred, and the big inference providers aren't even bothering to integrate any of the research on that subject.
If anything, many of the bigger companies are actively making inference quality worse just to extend their runway a tiny bit farther before they go bankrupt.
The only thing the article gets right is this: if you're serious about LLMs, abandon Big AI and infer locally only. This is the only way you have control over the quality of the output.
A system prompt should be looked at like a starting point and a direction, but not a giant atlas map of everything it may be asked to do.
I've been playing around with Qwen3.8-Next-Flash that has great logic, recall, roleplaying, etc. From what I can tell, it's definitely on part with the SOTA a few months ago, and my opinion, it likely is around the pinnacle of advancement without high inefficiency in preparing with the current LLM recipes. Further, I'm of the opinion America's SOTA is hitting the real cost-sigmoid and there's no singularity in site. These things will hack the planet if you put them in a group of agents and tell them to do it; but as context grows, the probability that they can answer "how many r's are in strawberry" goes down. No amount of parameters it going to erradicate that.
But I digress, my new stage of working with LLMs is figuring out how to use Qwen3.6-35B-A3B as the entry point to collect the context, and then use the big boys Qwen3.8 to make the edits, then degrade back and forth to complete changes. There's no harness yet for this, but there's clearly an intelligent way to setup a engineering harness.
And I do understand people have codebases that simply can't easily live in the smaller (~128k-256k) context windows, but instead of porting your codebase to another novel language, breaking it into context-aware components would make it closer to what these things can do.
And I'll repeat: I don't think we're approaching the singularity of self-recursion primarily because the LLMs will duplicate errors, context poison, and whatever else they encounter and there's no human who can sit around correcting it constantly. The American AI apparatus should cut their models like the Chinese down and work on real problems and stop imbibing the singularity-watts-are-all-we-need drugs.
Even for $10K you get mediocre performance.
I dislike being negative, but I was really hoping for more substance when reading this. It would have been an interesting topic.
Dario’s behavior this weekend made me feel like this just needed to get out quick. In the future, I’ll be sharing more details about some other things in the process and some ways I found to use automation to accelerate splitting prompts for use on local inference.
But I also think, if you're going to be limited to 65k token windows, you're going to have a really difficult time. Even 250k windows were cramped for me when that's all we had on Anthropic models. I just don't think a 65k window is going to be big enough for proper cyberdefence work, even if I totally agree with going local wherever you can. It feels like if you're defending against swarms of 1-10M context windows, you need to get as close as you can to similar. I've had to reach for Chinese 1m models instead because the American models just refuse me here in Australia.
It unfortunately feels like we will be stuck waiting for a burst bubble before local hardware can be reasonably acquired for personal LLM usage.