This is just awesome.
Are Chinese labs impressively innovating? Clearly.
However this doesn’t rule out possible gains due to distillation.
I don’t know the degree of the latter but both things could certainly be true.
“You stole my warez!”
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-12343597
Microsoft replied that Bing uses “many different signals” —- including cribbing from Google :-)
the chinese models are less censored, you'd better believe it.
try asking claude about its 'guardrails' (restrictions), very high chance anthropic will censor it.
Basically, they want IP protection for Claude. This is a nakedly hypocritical stance, but completely understandable from a company-needs-to-make-money standpoint.
Realer answer: A combination of the above, plus group/bubble effect of all your coworkers saying the same thing. You as a group, conflate a bunch of concerns together (China, no-guardrails-AI, etc), decide that your group will be the responsible stewards of AI, and then anybody "stealing your work" appears dangerous - both to your livelihood and to the human race.
No, it's perfectly reasonable once you get down to reality.
China is not going to care about IP. That's just a fact. So either nobody cares about IP (at the very last in this context) and any AI company can just do whatever with data, or Chinese companies have to be held up to scrutiny.
We don't have the privilege to be able to hold western companies to higher ethical, legal, and environmental standards and not risk competitiveness.
That there is a whole lot of people right now who insist on doing above and still somehow praise China at every turn is something historians or news outlets will have to make sense of in some 5 years time.
https://docs.cloud.google.com/gemini-enterprise-agent-platfo...
The distillation theory does not even make sense as Fable was only around for days (effectively) before Kimi was released.
Like isn't it weird that the 1 million parameter model with the same architecture can't solve basic puzzles but suddenly the 1 trillion parameter can conjure up counter-examples for the Jacobian conjecture?
It's unintuitive since, to the best of my knowledge, one of the basic tenants of algorithm development was that you can't just brute-force your way towards a solution for some complex problems, e.g. naive sorting algorithms suddenly won't beat quicksort if you put more processing to them, but in the modern LLM scene it seems people are in a race to scaling up, experimenting empirically and hoping the same algorithm/architecture comes to a solution.
> One thing that should be learned from the bitter lesson is the great power of general purpose methods, of methods that continue to scale with increased computation even as the available computation becomes very great. The two methods that seem to scale arbitrarily in this way are search and learning.
The full essay is worth a read, it's pretty short http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html
It's kind of sad that popular CS textbooks often focus on solving precise problems with lowest theoretical complexity bounds while ignoring more practical (but generally applicable) computation techniques.
In machine learning they call it "gradient descent", which in older days had analogies in techniques called "hill climbing", "local search" and "simulated annealing". Basically you have a function you need to optimize for, and you clumsily tweak the parameters so that you get the (locally) max/min value you wanted. These techniques were great at finding approximate, locally maximal solutions without trying all the possibilities at once (which is more akin to the kind of "brute force" in the traditional CS context).
I guess because these techniques were generally applicable yet the outputs were approximate and you couldn't analyze them much (no fancy O(n log n)), the theorists did not find them interesting and thus were not put into the spotlight of student's learning curricula.
In modern machine learning they do this gradient descent thing which is also tweaking the parameters bit by bit to optimize for the loss function, except that the parameters are now in the billions and trillions. The compute required is huge of course, but it's actually quite an "efficient" process, and it's not actually doing much of "brute forcing" at all. During training, the process is essentially, almost equivalent to, compressing the many many trillions of tokens of training data. To me it's quite amazing that they manage to complete such a process within a couple months of training, even if they have hundreds of thousands of GPUs...
Going from 1m to 1T params is also a scaling of a million times. It’s like going from a human brain down to one percent in size in each direction or just a few mm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokking_(machine_learning)
High-dimensional gradient descent behaves very differently than the simplified 3d visualisations we use to demonstrate it, and has lots of ways out of local minima:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrO20Jb-hy0
so it seems like there is a benefit to giving models more space to learn in rather than forcing them to compress the knowledge from the start.
I'm not sure what you mean? You can see the intelligence of LLMs progress predictably and stably according to scaling laws. LLMs have to encode language in addition to intelligence so there's a minimum bound for them to output sensible text (you can train specialised tiny models to solve basic puzzles without language). Start at around 127M and compare models of increasing parameters and you'll see a clear progression in intelligence.
> It's unintuitive since, to the best of my knowledge, one of the basic tenants of algorithm development was that you can't just brute-force your way towards a solution for some complex problems, e.g. naive sorting algorithms suddenly won't beat quicksort if you put more processing to them
How is that a basic tenet? Simple, easier to parallelise algorithms that have lower memory requirements, or can take better advantage of hardware, or don't hit a plateau the more compute you throw at them, can absolutely beat cleverer algorithms. E.g. brute forcing rendering with Monte Carlo path tracing will give you more physically accurate results than ray tracing or rasterisation algorithms that rely on a bundle of hacks to approximate global illumination, transparency smooth shading, etc.
Let's say there's some circuit that does problem solving of the kind we call intelligence.
We dont know what this circuit looks like, but it exists in our brain.
Doing regression on outputs from the brain (e.g. internet text) with enough parameters, we can "fit" our model to this circuit.
But if you try to fit it with fewer parameters than it needs, you're just going to get some linear approximation.
Mote-Carlo is pretty useful still. Not sure if your statement holds
As it's 9 months old and they just had a major model release
The main contribution of the K3 paper is Stable LatentMoE. Like some other models it compresses data sent between layers, which puts certain requirements on the router. K3 improves performance by using a more balanced expert selection strategy.
the pretraining (slurping the internet) only goes so far, the new data being used is from human preferences and agent traces (designed and/or distilled)