Activity Feed

AI & ML interests

None defined yet.

Recent Activity

Nymbo 
posted an update 27 days ago
view post
Post
2128
Anthropic gave me six months of Claude Max 20x through the Claude for Open Source program, granted based on my Hugging Face work. Thank you
Anthropic
for supporting open source.

So far I've been pointing it at Markdown Minimap, an Obsidian plugin that adds a scrollable IDE-style minimap to your notes. This week I've been clearing a backlog of user-reported issues on it, with Claude often handling them end to end.

https://github.com/Nymbo/Markdown-Minimap — issues and PRs welcome.
BramVanroy 
posted an update 27 days ago
view post
Post
2703
**I benchmarked HF buckets against https access for Common Crawl.**

Took me a while to get round to do this but I benchmarked access to Common Crawl via https vs hf buckets. Both experiments were run at night in Europe. I do not think other hardware problems were impacting the speeds since CPU processing time of the non-download pipeline components were highly similar (within 2% identical) and below only the WarcReader speeds of datatrove are used.

Experiment: selected 5 disjoint samples of 64 files each (randomly from the latest crawl; 20,499 docs/file). Those five batches were then processed by 32 single-core tasks with 4GB/core (five batches to calculate CIs). Paired experiment between using https and hf bucket.

- https: 40.0 [39.3-40.6] (seconds per WARC file)
- hf bucket: 172.0 [122.7-221.2]

That is a difference of about 4x in streaming speed. You'll see that https is also more stable (smaller CI).

I also ran raw throughput tests to the endpoints to measure rate limiting (64MiB transfer at 8/32/128/256 concurrent readers) and rate limiting seems not an issue for either: at any of those parallel reader numbers, their respective speeds stay about the same.

Note that, given CC scale, this is still a small test. Rate limiting may become more obvious when processing a full crawl. I do not know whether the https endpoint vs HF bucket will shut you out earlier with which limits.
mlabonne 
posted an update about 1 month ago
view post
Post
4022
Deploy local agents everywhere with LiquidAI/LFM2.5-2.6B

Unlike agents that depend on cloud APIs, local agents give you free inference, low latency, and real privacy.

Removing the per-token cost changes how developers build: agents can now be massively parallelized on local hardware, running background tasks that burn through millions of tokens at no marginal cost!
  • 7 replies
·
Nymbo 
posted an update about 1 month ago
view post
Post
5865
Introducing Inflect-v2, two exceptionally small, open-weight English TTS models at just 3.9M and 9.3M parameters. Both generate speech multiple times faster than real-time on CPU. Despite their size, Inflect-v2 delivers quality that is competitive with much larger lightweight TTS systems, including KittenTTS, Piper, and Supertonic-3.

CPU, CUDA, PyTorch, and ONNX are supported. Apache 2.0.

See it for yourselves:
owensong/Inflect-Micro-v2
owensong/Inflect-Nano-v2

Try the Demos:
Nymbo/Inflect-TTS (unlimited CPU usage)
owensong/Inflect-v2 (ultra-fast ZeroGPU usage)
  • 6 replies
·