AI & ML interests

Contact: arxivgpt@gmail.com

Recent Activity

SeaWolf-AIย  updated a collection about 1 hour ago
POCKET-MODELs
SeaWolf-AIย  updated a collection about 1 hour ago
POCKET-MODELs
SeaWolf-AIย  published a Space about 2 hours ago
FINAL-Bench/POCKET-Zimage-CPU
View all activity

Articles

View all articles

SeaWolf-AIย 
posted an update about 1 hour ago
view post
Post
34
๐Ÿ–ผ๏ธ NO GPU, Only CPU : Z-Image model

Zero graphics cards. 46 seconds. Photoreal.

That laptop you're reading this on. No graphics card, right? It generates images.

No CUDA install. No Python environment. No driver changes. One binary, three model files. Done.

๐Ÿ“Š Measured โ€” GPU count used: zero

512ร—512 : 46.4 s
Korean prompt : 45.3 s (faster than English)
1024ร—1024 : 192.7 s
Peak RAM : 6.42 GB
GPUs used : 0

(Intel Xeon Gold 6526Y ร—2, 48 threads, Q4_0, 3 steps)

โšก From 244 seconds to 46 โ€” 5.3ร—

Run it on defaults and it takes 244 s. Switch to 3 steps and it's 48.6 s. Add VAE tiling and it's 46.4 s.

The biggest culprit was the default. Z-Image Turbo is distilled to paint in few strokes, but the tool's default is 20. We were throwing away 5ร— for no reason. So were we, at first.

3 is the floor. Put 4 and 3 side by side and you cannot tell them apart. At 2 it collapses โ€” water droplets and wood grain vanish, and the surface turns cloth-like.

๐Ÿ”— Links

Model
FINAL-Bench/POCKET-Zimage-CPU

Live demo Space (runs on CPU)
FINAL-Bench/POCKET-Zimage-CPU

POCKET collection
FINAL-Bench/pocket-models-6a618ee5d23eafb7e185a5c6
SeaWolf-AIย 
posted an update 2 days ago
view post
Post
3350
The cost of a judging gate is usually quoted as a number. This puts it on a Tetris board.

Three boards get the same piece order, and on every move the same proposal and the same noise โ€” a paired comparison. The gate decides one thing: keep this move, or draw again. Each board gets the same 60 seconds of gate time.

The text-writing gates get through 15โ€“22 moves. The generation-free gate gets through 40โ€“50. The boards that stop simply run out of clock.

It does not win on accuracy: on the same 2,018-question LODO set, JEV scores AUC 0.7350 against ZTC-Judge-27B's 0.7289. The separation is elsewhere. Clock โ€” 2.1 s vs 0.0615 s per call, and on a 200-candidate agent screen one judging call measured 3.206 s generative vs 0.033 s readout, same server. Calibration โ€” a gate is a threshold, and at ECE 0.4985 (vs ZTC 0.0245) a threshold stops carrying information. Mechanism โ€” a text judge can name option 42 when there is no option 42; a scoring readout cannot. Not a lower error rate. No path.

The curve in the ZTC panel is real online fitting, scored prequentially โ€” predict first, learn after โ€” with base weights untouched. Not recursive self-improvement.

Limits, also stated on the page: Laya's AUC and latency are not our measurements and are set equal to JEV's, so calibration is the only measured axis it differs on. The page is a simulation driven by measured constants.

KO / EN / ZH.

FINAL-Bench/Tetris-JEV-LAYA-ZTC
FINAL-Bench/ZTC-Judge-27B
  • 5 replies
ยท