Get AI summaries of any video or article — Sign up free
Build your own local o1 - here’s how thumbnail

Build your own local o1 - here’s how

David Ondrej·
6 min read

Based on David Ondrej's video on YouTube. If you like this content, support the original creators by watching, liking and subscribing to their content.

TL;DR

Use Ollama to run Neotron 70B Instruct locally, with Llama 3.2 as a smaller fallback for weaker hardware.

Briefing

A practical recipe for building a “local o1-style” reasoning assistant is laid out end-to-end: run an open reasoning-capable model locally, prompt it to think step-by-step, then boost reliability by splitting work across multiple specialized agents. The payoff is a private, subscription-free alternative to hosted reasoning models—using a laptop or desktop—while still getting structured, multi-step outputs that resemble o1’s longer deliberation.

The walkthrough starts by reframing what “o1” is: a reasoning model that spends roughly 10–60 seconds thinking before answering, using advanced prompting techniques such as Chain of Thought. It then tackles why a local version is hard: the model footprint is large (compute and cost), hosted options can impose message caps (30 messages/week is cited), and cloud systems expose user data. The proposed solution is to use an open model that can run locally—specifically Nvidia’s Neotron 70B Instruct (built on the Llama 3.1 architecture and described as open source). For weaker hardware, the fallback is Llama 3.2 (the transcript mentions smaller sizes like 3B).

Chain of Thought prompting is presented as the key mechanism for turning instant answers into stepwise reasoning. The method is illustrated with a “solve step by step” style prompt and an analogy: writing intermediate steps on paper reduces mistakes compared with answering immediately. But prompting alone isn’t treated as sufficient. The build adds a second ingredient: an “agent team” approach. Instead of one model handling the entire problem, the system creates multiple agents, each responsible for one step of the reasoning pipeline. The transcript compares this to an assembly line—specialization increases the chance of arriving at a correct, coherent result while using the same underlying LLM.

Implementation details follow. The user installs an app called Ollama (the transcript repeatedly clarifies it’s Ollama, not OpenAI), then downloads Neotron 70B via Ollama’s model interface. A terminal-based workflow is used to pull the model (the transcript cites a ~43GB download for first-time setup) and to verify it responds correctly. Next comes Python integration: install the Ollama package with pip, then call the model from code (the transcript uses Cursor as the coding environment).

The core “local o1” assistant is built in stages. First, a single-file local completion test confirms the model runs. Then the assistant is upgraded with Chain of Thought-style prompting and a system prompt that instructs the model to behave like a reasoning assistant and to be concise enough to avoid excessive runtime. Finally, the multi-agent system is introduced: a “CEO agent” generates an initial plan, specialized agents implement designated steps, and a “COO” agent summarizes the combined outputs into a final strategy. The transcript also includes performance tuning: using Neotron for the plan (more capable) and Llama 3.2 for faster step execution, with an option to switch everything to the smaller model for speed.

The result is a working local “o1-like” assistant that can generate structured plans (examples include a 7-day workout plan and a 14-day guitar learning plan), save the final output to a text file, and run without sending prompts to a hosted service. All prompts and code are promised for later reuse in a “Society” templates area.

Cornell Notes

The transcript shows how to build a local, o1-like reasoning assistant by combining three elements: (1) run an open reasoning-capable model locally (Neotron 70B Instruct via Ollama, with Llama 3.2 as a smaller fallback), (2) prompt for step-by-step Chain of Thought reasoning, and (3) improve reliability by splitting the task across multiple specialized agents. A “CEO agent” produces an initial plan, step-specific agents implement each part, and a “COO agent” merges everything into a final concise strategy. The approach matters because it aims to deliver private, subscription-free reasoning on a personal machine while avoiding cloud message caps and data exposure. Performance tuning is emphasized by using the faster model for sub-tasks and reserving the larger model for planning and synthesis.

What makes the build “o1-like,” and what parts are actually implemented locally?

“o1-like” behavior is achieved by (a) using a reasoning-capable model locally (Neotron 70B Instruct via Ollama, or Llama 3.2 on weaker hardware), (b) prompting it to reason step-by-step using Chain of Thought-style instructions, and (c) adding a multi-agent workflow that mirrors longer deliberation by decomposing work into distinct stages. The transcript implements this through system prompts (e.g., “reasoning AI assistant” with stepwise structure) and through code that calls the local model from Python, then orchestrates multiple agent functions (CEO/step agents/COO) to produce and consolidate outputs.

Why does Chain of Thought prompting matter for accuracy, according to the transcript’s examples?

Chain of Thought is framed as a way to reduce errors by forcing intermediate steps rather than demanding an immediate final answer. The analogy is a complex math problem: answering instantly has a high chance of being wrong, while writing down multiple steps increases the odds of a correct solution. In practice, the transcript uses prompts that request step-by-step reasoning and then later adds constraints like “answer in short” to keep runtime manageable.

How does the multi-agent “team” improve results compared with one model handling everything?

The transcript argues that specialization increases reliability: instead of one agent solving the entire problem, separate agents each handle one step of the reasoning pipeline. This is compared to an assembly line (Henry Ford) where each worker focuses on a part. Concretely, the CEO agent generates a high-level plan, agents 1–4 implement specific steps (each with its own system prompt telling it to focus only on its assigned step), and the COO agent synthesizes the combined outputs into a final strategy.

What are the hardware and model choices, and how do they affect speed?

Neotron 70B Instruct is positioned as the stronger local option but requires a “solid PC,” with a first-time model download cited around 43GB. For less capable machines, the transcript recommends Llama 3.2 (smaller sizes like 3B are mentioned) as a fallback. Speed tuning is done by choosing which model runs which stage: the transcript uses Neotron for the CEO planning step and Llama 3.2 for faster step execution, then optionally switches everything to Llama 3.2 for maximum speed.

What does the setup process look like before any Python coding?

The transcript’s setup begins with installing Ollama (download from ama.com is mentioned, then open the app and move it to Applications). Models are pulled through Ollama’s model interface—Neotron 70B is selected and downloaded. A terminal-based workflow is used to verify the model responds (the transcript suggests sending a test prompt like “what is 1+1” and stopping with Ctrl+C). Only after the model runs locally does the build move to Python integration.

How is the final output produced and saved?

After orchestrating CEO → step agents → COO, the system generates a final summary and writes it to a text file (the transcript mentions creating a file like a “final summary as a txt file” and then saving the plan). The examples include generating a comprehensive 7-day workout plan and a 14-day guitar learning plan, with the final consolidated strategy saved for the user to read.

Review Questions

  1. If you only had time to run one model locally, which stage(s) would you prioritize for the larger model to maximize plan quality, and why?
  2. How would you modify the agent prompts to reduce overly generic plans when the user provides limited preferences?
  3. What failure mode might occur if you remove the “only focus on your assigned step” instruction for each specialized agent?

Key Points

  1. 1

    Use Ollama to run Neotron 70B Instruct locally, with Llama 3.2 as a smaller fallback for weaker hardware.

  2. 2

    Prompt for Chain of Thought-style step-by-step reasoning to get structured outputs rather than instant answers.

  3. 3

    Improve reliability by splitting work across specialized agents (CEO for planning, step agents for execution, COO for synthesis).

  4. 4

    Tune performance by assigning the larger model to planning/synthesis and smaller models to faster step execution.

  5. 5

    Integrate the local model in Python via the Ollama package (pip install) and call the model with the correct model name.

  6. 6

    Save the final consolidated plan to a text file so the assistant behaves like a usable local tool, not just a chat demo.

Highlights

Neotron 70B Instruct is positioned as the local “o1-like” engine, while Llama 3.2 serves as a speed/hardware fallback.
Chain of Thought is implemented through prompts that force intermediate steps, reducing the chance of wrong answers.
A multi-agent assembly-line design (CEO → step agents → COO) is used to boost performance without changing the underlying LLM.
The build emphasizes privacy and avoiding hosted message caps by keeping prompts and outputs on the user’s machine.
Performance is managed by mixing models: larger for planning, smaller for step execution.

Topics

Mentioned