Apple-Silicon

BLUF (bottom line up front): This weekend Satya Nadella published Models as Insider Risks in the Super Intelligence Era. His line: “The most trustworthy Super Intelligence system will not be the one with the model we trust most. It will be the one that enables us to trust the model the least.” I agree, and I didn’t have to start this weekend. On my own hardware and my own time I’ve been running that architecture for months, and I’ve been writing it up in public as I went. ...

BLUF (bottom line up front): I’m just starting too. My data has lived in my Obsidian vault, my 2nd brain, for a while, but the practices around it were fragmented. They’re now coming together as a whole, and that whole complements, and at times runs ahead of, what I focus on at work: observability, accountability, governance and ownership. My rule for all of it: if you can’t see it, you can’t observe it; if you can’t observe it, you can’t measure it; if you can’t measure it, you can’t improve on it; and if you can’t improve on it, you get left behind. Qui non proficit deficit. This post is that rule applied to AI: worry less about the Terminator and more about what we teach the machines, share the responsibility with the labs, and own your data. ...

This week is Fix, Hack, Learn (FHL) at work (Microsoft), our internal week to chase a build we care about. Last FHL I worked on my agents and agentic loops, helping me scale myself and my work as a product manager. This time my project is personal, and it starts with a question I could not stop turning over: when a camera watches the front of my house, who owns what it sees? ...

Two days ago I posted 36 barrier-synchronized loads against 1 local model and let the numbers answer a question Reddit handed me. That post ended with a promise. A reader named Doug Ware, who builds applied AI systems for a living, had replied with the one caveat I had not tested, and I said out loud that measuring it was the next thing I would do. This is that measurement. I did not wait, I did not hand-wave it, and I kept every honest asterisk in. ...

Over last week and these last 2 days in this week I posted measured answers to readers both in Twitter and Reddit who asked whether my experiments of 2 local agents on 1 Mac run in parallel or take turns. The answers was that they share one continuous batch, batching is real, and 3 quiet choices collapse it. I thought that was the end of it. It was not. The comments were better than my post, WHICH IS AWESOME, becaue this is the crowdsourcing of brain power I love. I not trying to be a KNOW IT ALL Im trying to be a LEARN IT ALL! ...

This week I trialed a second local coding agent, Hermes from Nous Research, on my own MacBook Pro M3 Max, pointed at the same local Qwen 3.8 model I already run. I installed it additively, so nothing already working could break, governed it with manual approvals, and did not stop until it proved it behaves. Here is the trial, in tables and screenshots. One housekeeping note before the story. Last week’s post got called AI slop on Reddit. My full answer to that, and the standing standard I now hold my writing to, lives on its own page: On Slop, And Who Gets To Call It That. It is not the point of this post, so I moved it out of the way. Back to Hermes. ...

A reader on Reddit asked me a sharp question about my last post. I had trialed a second local coding agent, Hermes, pointed at the same local Qwen 3.8 model my other agent already uses. His question was simple. Did I ever run both agents at the same time, two separate harnesses hammering one model on one Mac at once. And what about Hermes spawning its own sub-agents against that same endpoint. Is any of that predictable. ...

TL;DR Local models are how I run my community work, my volunteer projects, my side hustles, and my musings. Two reasons, both simple: Cost. None of this work should bill against a frontier account. Trust. Client and customer data stays on my own disk, away from the labs. Bottom line up front: I am running Qwen3.8-27B (4-bit) on my MacBook Pro M3 Max, 128 GB of unified memory and a 40-core GPU, my personal dev rig, driven by an OpenCode harness. ...

TL;DR I published a post last week about replacing gpt-oss:120b with Qwen 3.6 on my MacBook Pro M3 Max. The numbers in that post were real, but one set of tests was structurally gameable — 38 of 40 baseline images were the same class, so an “always-say-A” stub also scored 95 percent. I went back, designed three un-gameable reasoning tasks, and ran them against both local models on identical hardware. gpt-oss:120b finished the three tasks in 137 seconds. qwen3.6:27b-q8_0 took 1593 seconds — 11.6 times slower, on the same M3 Max, for the same prompts and essentially the same answers. This post is the methodology, the receipts, and the honest correction to the migration narrative. ...

TL;DR I spent two days benchmarking three Qwen3.6 variants against gpt-oss:120b on my MacBook Pro M3 Max. The shocking result: a 21 GB coding-tuned model ran an OpenClaw-shaped research-brief workload that I use for the non profit MACONA.org in 6 seconds — 10x faster than gpt-oss:120b on the same prompt. Fast enough that I now have reasonable confidence I could move this kind of work off the SaaS-hosted frontier models I have been paying for and onto local hardware on my dev machine. The deeper finding: the same local model confidently hallucinated a description of an image it could not see, with no error and no warning. Local models are ready for production agent work — at least on hardware like this. Operational asymmetries are real. Verification is not optional. ...