Something that may be interesting for the reader of this thread: this project was possible only once I started to tell Opus that it needed to take a file with all the implementation notes, and also accumulating all the things we discovered during the development process. And also, the file had clear instructions to be taken updated, and to be processed ASAP after context compaction. This kinda enabled Opus to do such a big coding task in a reasonable amount of time without loosing track. Check the file IMPLEMENTATION_NOTES.md in the GitHub repo for more info.
I've also found it's helpful to have it keep an "experiment log" at the bottom of the original spec, or in another document, which it must update whenever things take "a surprising turn"
Honest question: what do you do when your spec has grown to over a megabyte?
Some things I've been doing:
- Move as much actual data into YML as possible.
- Use CEL?
- Ask Claude to rewrite pseudocode in specs into RFC-style constrained language?
How do you sync your spec and code both directions? I have some slash commands that do this but I'm not thrilled with them?
I tend to have to use Gemini for actually juggling the whole spec. Of course it's nice and chunked as much as it can be? but still. There's gonna need to be a whole new way of doing this.
If programming languages can have spooky language at a distance wait until we get into "but paragraph 7, subsection 5 of section G clearly defines asshole as..."
What does a structured language look like when it doesn't need mechanical sympathy?
YML + CEL is really powerful and underexplored but it's still just ... not what I'm actually wanting.
My question was something like: what is the right representation for program semantics when the consumer is an LLM and the artifact exceeds context limits?
"Make sub-documents with cross-references" is just... recreating the problem of programming languages but worse. Now we have implicit dependencies between prose documents with no tooling to track them, no way to know if a change in document A invalidates assumptions in document B, no refactoring support, no tests for the spec.
At some level you have to do semantic compression... To your point on non-explicitness -- the dependencies between the specs and sub-specs can be explicit (i.e. file:// links, etc).
But your overall point on assumption invalidation remains... Reminds me of a startup some time ago that was doing "Automated UX Testing" where user personas (i.e. prosumer, avg joe, etc) were created, and Goals/ Implicit UX flows through the UI were described (i.e. "I want to see my dashboard", etc). Then, an LLM could pretend to be each persona, and test each day whether that user type could achieve the goals behind their user flow.
This doesn't fully solve your problem, but it hints at a solution perhaps.
Some of what you're looking for is found by adding strict linter / tests. But your repo looks like something in an entirely different paradigm and I'm curious to dig into it more.
2. If using Cursor (as I usually am), this isn't what it always does by default, though you can invoke something like it using "plan" mode. It's default is to keep todo items in a little nice todo list, but that isn't the same thing as a spec.
3. I've found that Claude Code doesn't always do this, for reasons unknown to me.
4. The prompt is completely fungible! It's really just an example of the idea.
Do you plan on writing about the other lessons you learned, which you mentioned in the README? As a big fan of your software and writing for many years, I would deeply appreciate your perspective using these tools!
This is amazing. Is there any way you could share the log of prompts you used and other things aside from the implementation notes to reach such a result? Would love to learn from your experience and steps.
Thank you
There're multiple task solutions for Claude or other llms that let it define tasks, add implementation notes and (crucially) add sub-tasks and dependencies. I'm using Beads (https://github.com/steveyegge/beads) and I think it really improves the outcome; especially for larger projects.
Yes, Opus could check the image to see if it matched the prompt, but I adviced the model to stop and ask the human for a better check and a description of what the cause of the corrupted image could be. But the fact it could catch obvious regressions was good.
People can say what they want about LLMs reducing intelligence/ability; The trend has clearly been that people are beginning to get more organized, document things better, enforce constraints, and think in higher-level patterns. And there's renewed interest in formal verification.
LLMs will force the skilled, employable engineer to chase both maintainability and productivity from the start, in order to maintain a competitive edge with these tools. At least until robots replace us completely.
The thing is that currently most of these projects are just done by engineers, Its easy to stay organized when the project lasts couple of weeks and stays within <5 engineers. The issues starts when the software starts living longer and you add in the modern agile practices, it comes a complete mess which each PM trying to add random features on top of the existing code. As you increase more and more code, the maintainability will just become impossible.
This development workcycle pattern lends nicely to Antigravity, which kind of does 80% this out the box, and can be nudged to do the rest with a little bit of prompting.
Thanks for sharing this — I appreciate your motivation in the README.
One suggestion, which I have been trying to do myself, is to include a PROMPTS.md file. Since your purpose is sharing and educating, it helps others see what approaches an experienced developer is using, even if you are just figuring it out.
One can use a Claude hook to maintain this deterministically. I instruct in AGENTS.md that they can read but not write it. It’s also been helpful for jumping between LLMs, to give them some background on what you’ve been doing.
In this case, instead of a prompt I wrote a specification, but later I had to steer the models for hours. So basically the prompt is the sum of all such interactions: incredibly hard to reconstruct to something meaningful.
Isn't the "steering" in the form of prompts? You note "Even if the code was generated using AI, my help in steering towards the right design, implementation choices, and correctness has been vital during the development." You are a master of this, let others see how you cook, not just taste the sauce!
I only say this as it seems one of your motivations is education. I'm also noting it for others to consider. Much appreciation either way, thanks for sharing what you did.
This steering is the main "source code" of the program that you wrote, isn't it? Why throw it away. It's like deleting the .c once you have obtained the .exe
Regarding the meta experiment of using LLMs to transpile to a different language, how did you feel about the outcome / process, and would you do the same process again in the future?
I've had some moments recently for my own projects as I worked through some bottle necks where I took a whole section of a project and said "rewrite in rust" to Claude and had massive speedups with a 0 shot rewrite, most recently some video recovery programs, but I then had an output product I wouldn't feel comfortable vouching for outside of my homelab setup.
I depends on the situation. In this case the agent worked only using the reference code provided by Flux's Black Forest Labs which is basically just the pipeline implemented as a showcase. The fundamental way for this process to work is that the agent can have a feedback to understand if it is really making progresses, and to debug failures against a reference implementation. But then all the code was implemented with many implementation hints about what I wanted to obtain, and without any reference of other minimal inference libraries or kernels. So I believe this just is the effect of putting together known facts about how Transformers inference works plus an higher level idea of how software should appear to the final user. Btw today somebody took my HNSW implementation for vector sets and translated it to Swift (https://github.com/jkrukowski/swift-hnsw). I'm ok with that, nor I care of this result was obtained with AI or not. However it is nice that the target license is the same, given the implementation is so similar to the C one.
This is pretty great. I’ve gone and hacked your GTE C inference project to Go purely for kicks, but this one I will look at for possible compiler optimizations and building a Mac CLI for scripting…
I have a set of prompts that are essentially “audit the current code changes for logic errors” (plus linting and testing, including double checking test conditions) and I run them using GPT-5.x-Codex on Claude generated code.
It’s surprising how much even Opus 4.5 still trips itself up with things like off-by-one or logic boundaries, so another model (preferably with a fresh session) can be a very effective peer reviewer.
So my checks are typically lint->test->other model->me, and relatively few things get to me in simple code. Contrived logic or maths, though, it needs to be all me.
Salvatore, how did you pick up the requisite background knowledge on this subject? IIRC this is your first OSS project in the ML domain, just curious if/how much Claude was helpful with providing you with domain expertise while building this engine
And I have a YouTube channel mostly about AI (in Italian language) where I regularly post videos and often read papers that I then explain in the channel. I have a long time passion about AI, I wrote my first NN implementation in 2003 (used here, many years ago, as a showcase of Redis modules https://github.com/antirez/neural-redis), and never stopped since there to implement, for fun, small GPT models and things like that, using PyTorch or C.
Also my work at Redis Vector Sets, in the latest year, exposed me more to working with models (especially text embedding models of many kinds, but also other models).
So while Claude was fundamental to get the implementation fast, I had background to have idea about what was happening in the different stages. I believe it is a very interesting question to understand if this kind of work can be made with programming background and near-zero AI background. My feeling is that you ned more time, more back and forth, maybe to provide the agent with more examples, but eventually it will do something working.
Is it just my connection or is the huggingface downloader completely broken? It was saturating my internet connection without making any progress whatsoever.
I ran a similar experiment last month and ported Qwen 3 Omni to llama cpp. I was able to get GGUF conversion, quantization, and all input and output modalities working in less than a week. I submitted the work as a PR to the codebase and understandably, it was rejected.
The refusal because often AI writes suboptimal GGML kernels looks very odd, to me. It means that who usually writes manually GGML kernels, could very easily steer the model into writing excellent kernels, and even a document for the agents can be compiled with the instructions on how to do a great work. If they continue in this way, soon a llama.cpp fork will emerge that will be developed much faster and potentially even better: it is unavoidable.
The refusal is probably because OP said "100% written by AI" and didn't indicate an interest in actually reviewing or maintaining the code. In fact, a later PR comment suggests that the AI's approach was needlessly complicated.
Also because it's a large PR. Also because the maintainer has better things to do than taking longer and more energy to review than the author spent to write it, just to find that multiple optimisations will be requested, which the author may not be able to take on.
the creator of llama.cc can hardly be suspected to be reluctant or biased towards GenAI.
Absolutely -- it's perfectly understandable. I wanted to be completely upfront about AI usage and while I was willing and did start to break the PR down into parts, it's totally OK for the maintainers to reject that too.
I wanted to see if Claude Code could port the HF / MLX implementation to llama.cpp and it was successful -- in my mind that's wild!
I also learned a ton about GPU programming, how omni models work, and refined my approach to planning large projects with automated end to end integration tests.
The PR was mostly to let people know about the code and weights, since there are quite a few comments requesting support:
Some projects refuse for copyright reasons. Back when GPT4 was new, I dug into pretraining reports for nearly all models.
Every one (IIRC) was breaking copyrights by sharing 3rd-party works in data sets without permission. Some were trained on patent filings which makes patent infringement highly likely. Many breaking EULA's (contract law) by scraping them. Some outputs were verbatim reproductions of copyrighted works, too, which could get someoen sued if they published them.
So, I warned people to stay away from AI until (a) training on copyrighted/patented works was legal in all those circumstances, (b) the outputs had no liability, and (c) users of a model could know this by looking at the pretraining data. There's no GPT3- or Claude-level models produced that way.
On a personal level, I follow Jesus Christ who paid for my sins with His life. We're to be obedient to God's law. One is to submit to authority (aka don't break man's law). I don't know that I can use AI outputs if they were illegally trained or like fencing stolen goods. Another reason I want the pretraining to be legal either by mandate or using only permissible works.
Note: If your country is in the Berne Convention, it might apply to you, too.
If I asked Claude to do the same can I also just put MIT license on it with my name? https://github.com/black-forest-labs/flux2 uses Apache License apparently. I know it doesn't matter that much and as long as it's permissive and openly available people don't care it's just pedantics but still.
The reference code shows how to setup the inference pipeline. It does not implement 99% of what the C code does. That is, the inference kernels, the transformer and so forth.
i would love if you took the time to instruct claude to re-implement inference in c/c++, and put an mit license on it, it would be huge, but only if it actually works
A suggestion born of experience: besides printing the seed for an image, add it to the image file as metadata. Otherwise, if you're me, you'll lose it.
As someone who doesn’t code in C and does more analytics work (SQL), is the code generated here “production grade?” One of the major criticisms I hear about llms is they tend to generate code that you wouldn’t want to maintain, is that the case here?
Those statements are mostly out of date and symptomatic of pre-agent-optimized LLMs. Opus 4.5 with clarifying rules in the CLAUDE.md does a good job at following idiomatic best practices in my experience.
That said, I'm mixed on agentic performance for data science work but it does a good job if you clearly give it the information it needs to solve the problem (e.g. for SQL, table schema and example data)
Not my experience. All frontier models I constantly test, agentic or not, produce code less maintainable than my (very good) peers and myself (on a decent day).
Plus they continue to introduce performance blunders.
Crying wolves, on day maybe there will be a wolf and I may be the last of us to check whether that's true.
> I believe that inference systems not using the Python stack (which I do not appreciate) are a way to free open models usage and make AI more accessible.
What you're saying here is that you do not appreciate systems not using the Python stack, which I think is the opposite of what you wanted to say.
I am an ESL speaker but I don't see why the sentence fragment in parentheses couldn't be parsed as relating only to "Python stack" as opposed to "systems not using the Python stack". I read it that way, but again, as an ESL speaker, I might be missing intuition or actual grammatical knowledge that would tick off a native speaker such as, presumably, yourself.
It is based upon context, you are correct that it is ambiguious, as is the problem of most natural language.
-I believe that <inference systems not using the Python stack> (which I do not appreciate) are a way to free open models usage and make AI more accessible.
This reading of the text would lead one to believe they don't appreciate inferences systems not written in python. Given the inference system produced by the author is also not using the python stack (it is in C), we can assume this is not the correct reading.
-I believe that inference systems not using the <Python stack> (which I do not appreciate) are a way to free open models usage and make AI more accessible.
This reading says that the author does not like the python stack for inference, which given the author has produced this inference in C, would support the statement.
That is we have to take both readings and think which one fits the context around it, hopefully this helps :)
> I wanted to see if, with the assistance of modern AI, I could reproduce this work in a more concise way, from scratch, in a weekend.
I don't think it counts as recreating a project "from scratch" if the model that you're using was trained against it. Claude Opus 4.5 is aware of the stable-diffusion.cpp project and can answer some questions about it and its code-base (with mixed accuracy) with web search turned off.
The two projects have literally nothing in common. Not a line of code, not the approach, nor the design. Nothing. LLMs are not memorization machines that recall every project in the cut & paste terms you could think of.
I supported Redis against Valkey because I felt software should not be appropriated like that.
Now that the Redis author supports broad copyright violations and has turned into an LLM influencer, I regret having ever supported Redis. I have watched many open source authors, who have positioned themselves as rebels and open source populists, go fully corporate. This is the latest instance.
One of the most important thing to do right now to redistribute something to the society, is to use AI to write free software: more free software than ever. If AI will be hard to access in the future, the more software it is released free, the better. If instead things go well (as I hope), there will be just a multiplication of the effect of OSS using today and tomorrow AI. In any way, writing free software using AI is a good idea, IMHO. I believe LLMs are the incarnation of software democratization, which aligns very well with why I used to write OSS. LLMs "steal" ideas, not verbatim code, you can force them to regurgitate some verbatim stuff, but most of it is ideas, and we humans also re-elaborate things we saw and we avoid (like LLMs are able to do) to emit the same stuff verbatim. But the software can't be patented for very good reasons, and LLMs capture all this value that is not subject to intellectual property, and provides it to the people that don't have the right tools and knowledge. And, it allows people that can code, to code 100x more.
I dont understand, so its just to generate the pic using a model. Isn't that trivial, whats the advantage of doing it in C? Is the model running in C? Readme is overly verbose and It seems like a project that just does one task and it costed the author $80.
Why it costed me $80? I pay the monthly subscription, and during that time I use it for multiple things. I spent one day of Claude Max on that so it costed me 2 euros and 60 cents.
This is both awesome and scary. Yes, now we can embed image gen in things like game engines and photoshop or build our own apps. On the other hand, we can include image gen in anything…
It's almost as if this is the first time many have seen something built in C with zero dependencies which makes this easily possible.
Since they are used to languages with package managers adding 30 package and including 50-100+ other dependencies just before the project is able to build.
The Python libraries are themselves written in C/C++, so what this does performance-wise is, at best, cutting through some glue. Don't think about this as a performance-driven implementation.
Yep, a constantly updated spec is the key. Wrote about this here:
https://lukebechtel.com/blog/vibe-speccing
I've also found it's helpful to have it keep an "experiment log" at the bottom of the original spec, or in another document, which it must update whenever things take "a surprising turn"
Some things I've been doing:
- Move as much actual data into YML as possible.
- Use CEL?
- Ask Claude to rewrite pseudocode in specs into RFC-style constrained language?
How do you sync your spec and code both directions? I have some slash commands that do this but I'm not thrilled with them?
I tend to have to use Gemini for actually juggling the whole spec. Of course it's nice and chunked as much as it can be? but still. There's gonna need to be a whole new way of doing this.
If programming languages can have spooky language at a distance wait until we get into "but paragraph 7, subsection 5 of section G clearly defines asshole as..."
What does a structured language look like when it doesn't need mechanical sympathy? YML + CEL is really powerful and underexplored but it's still just ... not what I'm actually wanting.
Sharding: Make well-named sub-documents for parts of work. LLM will be happy to create these and maintain cross references for you.
Compaction: Ask the LLM to compact parts of the spec, or changelog, which are over specified or redundant.
"Make sub-documents with cross-references" is just... recreating the problem of programming languages but worse. Now we have implicit dependencies between prose documents with no tooling to track them, no way to know if a change in document A invalidates assumptions in document B, no refactoring support, no tests for the spec.
To make things specific:
https://github.com/ctoth/polyarray-spec
At some level you have to do semantic compression... To your point on non-explicitness -- the dependencies between the specs and sub-specs can be explicit (i.e. file:// links, etc).
But your overall point on assumption invalidation remains... Reminds me of a startup some time ago that was doing "Automated UX Testing" where user personas (i.e. prosumer, avg joe, etc) were created, and Goals/ Implicit UX flows through the UI were described (i.e. "I want to see my dashboard", etc). Then, an LLM could pretend to be each persona, and test each day whether that user type could achieve the goals behind their user flow.
This doesn't fully solve your problem, but it hints at a solution perhaps.
Some of what you're looking for is found by adding strict linter / tests. But your repo looks like something in an entirely different paradigm and I'm curious to dig into it more.
1. The post was written before this was common :)
2. If using Cursor (as I usually am), this isn't what it always does by default, though you can invoke something like it using "plan" mode. It's default is to keep todo items in a little nice todo list, but that isn't the same thing as a spec.
3. I've found that Claude Code doesn't always do this, for reasons unknown to me.
4. The prompt is completely fungible! It's really just an example of the idea.
Did you run any benchmarking? I'm curious if python's stack is faster or slower than a pure C vibe coded inference tool.
This is amazing, Salvatore! Please spend some more time here and free us from the CUDA toolkit and Python.
People can say what they want about LLMs reducing intelligence/ability; The trend has clearly been that people are beginning to get more organized, document things better, enforce constraints, and think in higher-level patterns. And there's renewed interest in formal verification.
LLMs will force the skilled, employable engineer to chase both maintainability and productivity from the start, in order to maintain a competitive edge with these tools. At least until robots replace us completely.
[0] https://www.atlassian.com/work-management/knowledge-sharing/...
One suggestion, which I have been trying to do myself, is to include a PROMPTS.md file. Since your purpose is sharing and educating, it helps others see what approaches an experienced developer is using, even if you are just figuring it out.
One can use a Claude hook to maintain this deterministically. I instruct in AGENTS.md that they can read but not write it. It’s also been helpful for jumping between LLMs, to give them some background on what you’ve been doing.
If the spec and/or tests are sufficiently detailed maybe you can step back and let it churn until it satisfies the spec.
I only say this as it seems one of your motivations is education. I'm also noting it for others to consider. Much appreciation either way, thanks for sharing what you did.
I've had some moments recently for my own projects as I worked through some bottle necks where I took a whole section of a project and said "rewrite in rust" to Claude and had massive speedups with a 0 shot rewrite, most recently some video recovery programs, but I then had an output product I wouldn't feel comfortable vouching for outside of my homelab setup.
It’s surprising how much even Opus 4.5 still trips itself up with things like off-by-one or logic boundaries, so another model (preferably with a fresh session) can be a very effective peer reviewer.
So my checks are typically lint->test->other model->me, and relatively few things get to me in simple code. Contrived logic or maths, though, it needs to be all me.
https://github.com/antirez/gguf-tools
And I have a YouTube channel mostly about AI (in Italian language) where I regularly post videos and often read papers that I then explain in the channel. I have a long time passion about AI, I wrote my first NN implementation in 2003 (used here, many years ago, as a showcase of Redis modules https://github.com/antirez/neural-redis), and never stopped since there to implement, for fun, small GPT models and things like that, using PyTorch or C.
Also my work at Redis Vector Sets, in the latest year, exposed me more to working with models (especially text embedding models of many kinds, but also other models).
So while Claude was fundamental to get the implementation fast, I had background to have idea about what was happening in the different stages. I believe it is a very interesting question to understand if this kind of work can be made with programming background and near-zero AI background. My feeling is that you ned more time, more back and forth, maybe to provide the agent with more examples, but eventually it will do something working.
EDIT: https://github.com/bodaay/HuggingFaceModelDownloader seems to be making progress.
https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/pull/18404
https://huggingface.co/TrevorJS/Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-GGUF
the creator of llama.cc can hardly be suspected to be reluctant or biased towards GenAI.
I wanted to see if Claude Code could port the HF / MLX implementation to llama.cpp and it was successful -- in my mind that's wild!
I also learned a ton about GPU programming, how omni models work, and refined my approach to planning large projects with automated end to end integration tests.
The PR was mostly to let people know about the code and weights, since there are quite a few comments requesting support:
https://github.com/ggml-org/llama.cpp/issues/16186
Nice work getting multimodal in there already.
Every one (IIRC) was breaking copyrights by sharing 3rd-party works in data sets without permission. Some were trained on patent filings which makes patent infringement highly likely. Many breaking EULA's (contract law) by scraping them. Some outputs were verbatim reproductions of copyrighted works, too, which could get someoen sued if they published them.
So, I warned people to stay away from AI until (a) training on copyrighted/patented works was legal in all those circumstances, (b) the outputs had no liability, and (c) users of a model could know this by looking at the pretraining data. There's no GPT3- or Claude-level models produced that way.
On a personal level, I follow Jesus Christ who paid for my sins with His life. We're to be obedient to God's law. One is to submit to authority (aka don't break man's law). I don't know that I can use AI outputs if they were illegally trained or like fencing stolen goods. Another reason I want the pretraining to be legal either by mandate or using only permissible works.
Note: If your country is in the Berne Convention, it might apply to you, too.
[0] https://github.com/leejet/stable-diffusion.cpp/
That said, I'm mixed on agentic performance for data science work but it does a good job if you clearly give it the information it needs to solve the problem (e.g. for SQL, table schema and example data)
Plus they continue to introduce performance blunders.
Crying wolves, on day maybe there will be a wolf and I may be the last of us to check whether that's true.
What you're saying here is that you do not appreciate systems not using the Python stack, which I think is the opposite of what you wanted to say.
-I believe that <inference systems not using the Python stack> (which I do not appreciate) are a way to free open models usage and make AI more accessible.
This reading of the text would lead one to believe they don't appreciate inferences systems not written in python. Given the inference system produced by the author is also not using the python stack (it is in C), we can assume this is not the correct reading.
-I believe that inference systems not using the <Python stack> (which I do not appreciate) are a way to free open models usage and make AI more accessible.
This reading says that the author does not like the python stack for inference, which given the author has produced this inference in C, would support the statement.
That is we have to take both readings and think which one fits the context around it, hopefully this helps :)
I don't think it counts as recreating a project "from scratch" if the model that you're using was trained against it. Claude Opus 4.5 is aware of the stable-diffusion.cpp project and can answer some questions about it and its code-base (with mixed accuracy) with web search turned off.
Now that the Redis author supports broad copyright violations and has turned into an LLM influencer, I regret having ever supported Redis. I have watched many open source authors, who have positioned themselves as rebels and open source populists, go fully corporate. This is the latest instance.
with a proprietary black box tool you pay a subscription for? that's nonsense
The main advantage is that you don't need the python interpreter to run the program.
While not revolutionary, it is definitely not trivial and its main purpose is to demonstrate Claude code abilities in a low level, non trivial task.
Running inference for a model, even when you have all the weights, is not trivial.
It's almost as if this is the first time many have seen something built in C with zero dependencies which makes this easily possible.
Since they are used to languages with package managers adding 30 package and including 50-100+ other dependencies just before the project is able to build.
https://xkcd.com/1425/
FLUX.2 [Klein]: Towards Interactive Visual Intelligence
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46653721