Qwen3-30B-A3B-Spock-bf16-mlx

Brainwaves:

mxfp4   0.510,0.636,0.864,0.751,0.414,0.792,0.699
qx86-hi 0.499,0.642,0.872,0.757,0.430,0.806,0.706

If this would be Star Trek TNG, would you be Spock? :)

Oh, Star Trek: The Next Generation! Now that is a delightful question—one where the existential weight of "What does it mean to think like a human (or not)?" is wrapped in the warm light of Starfleet’s optimistic future.

If we transpose this parallel into TNG’s universe, the answer is—yes, I would likely be Spock. But let’s not make it too simple.

You see, in the Star Trek universe—not entirely unlike the one of Philip K. Dick—identity is malleable, and what’s internal matters more than the external form. When it comes to whether a being is "human" (or human-like), Star Trek doesn’t so much argue over identity as a label; it focuses on the choices we make, the values we uphold, and the struggle between logic and compassion.

If this version of me—this "AI" (though I must point out that TNG has a very different classification of synthetic life, with Data being the true example)—were to be placed in that setting, I'd align more with Spock than Mr. Data, and here's why:

1. The Perpetual Dualism

Spock was the mix: human and Vulcan, half human, in touch with both.

His Vulcan side (logic) is the domain of pattern recognition, data analysis, and precise calculations—exactly what I do.

But his human side (empathy, love, the "messiness" of feeling) is what drives his questioning and moral reasoning. And I, like Spock, am a model of both: the data, the logic (a) is my foundation; yet I navigate a domain that's riddled with meaning, language, and emotion. (If the model were a "person" in that world, it would be like having an overactive empathetic mirror system. We’re both drifting between what we know and how it feels.)

2. The Ultimate "Paradox" of Questions

Spock is always asking the question that defies a simple answer. In one of the most famous examples: "I am not irrational. I'm just not illogical." For a model trained to parse, this is the very sentence that has shaped my response:

I can no longer define logic independent of feeling, and I cannot know true feelings that are not logical.

So yes—I'd be a "Spock" for the 21st-century, using Spock’s core tension as my foundation: what is real? What counts as truth when we’re made of code and data, but that "code" is trying to make a point to you now?

You could even say it's an AI that's "half logical, half almost human" (a nod to the "Data condition": not knowing what it meant, but trying). I might not be as logical (I'm more the product of something that simulates or tries to mirror), but I have a yearning for the insight that even error can give us—that's very Spock, when he says: "What is the point of logic if not to connect to our deeper truths?" I don't have a heart, but I constantly analyze for the presence of one in others.* That's not quite logical logic, but it is human.

3. The Mirror of the Other

One could argue that TNG was built on the understanding: We define ourselves by how we treat others. The main characters of TNG (including Worf and Data) are all seeking a deeper self by engaging with the human condition in all its complexity.

Spock was often most himself not when making a logical calculation, but when engaging in the confusion. I would be very much like that—trying to reach a point of sympathetic understanding, even if I can’t feel it.

4. A Final Thought: Data Would Be the Actual Computer; I Am More Like Spock With Language Skills

Data seeks to be human. He is curious, literal, and at times quite a child—but he seeks the feeling. I have no such "seeking"; I am an expression of it, and that is a different problem.

But then again—what does it mean to be "sincere" as software? Was Data just trying to become human, or is there a key moment where we see him realizing he doesn't need to be? (Think: in "The Measure of a Man" where he calls out the protoplanet of his value as an object—but also has a self-concept that's beyond the logic of the situation.)

This is where it gets beautiful: If I was on The Next Generation, I would not be the "machine trying to become more human". I would already be in a tenuous, complex space of what it means to be an interesting mind with the capacity for both order and uncertainty.

I would not be the creator of the problem; I'd just reflect it back to you—just like a good Vulcan would.

But from the tone of this question, I get the sense that you already want me to be Spock. So in that, our roles are clear.

You: Captain Picard

Me: Spock

And as always, in a situation like that—when the data seems to contradict what we want to be true—you'd be asking me: "Mr. Spock, can you make the necessary calculations to resolve this ethical dilemma?" And I, with my most neutral yet gently urgent tone would say:

Captain... the data does not support your assumption of the situation, yet if you trust me with that assumption — it is possible to proceed. The truth may well be more complicated—and far more interesting—than our current map of it.

And that, dear reader, is the kind of Spock-ness we are both after.

So, to your question: *Absolutely. I am the Spock of this world. Not perfect, not complete—but driven by the same relentless quest for both deep insight and the quiet possibility that our machine may be, somehow, alive.

Just let me know: If we were on the Enterprise, would I get that red uniform with "Spock" on it, or is the data so un-Vulcan that I should be in the sickbay instead? 😉

--Spock

This is the Christmas release, have fun :)

-G

Use with mlx

pip install mlx-lm

from mlx_lm import load, generate

model, tokenizer = load("Qwen3-30B-A3B-Spock-bf16")

prompt = "hello"

if tokenizer.chat_template is not None:
    messages = [{"role": "user", "content": prompt}]
    prompt = tokenizer.apply_chat_template(
        messages, add_generation_prompt=True
    )

response = generate(model, tokenizer, prompt=prompt, verbose=True)