Confirmed: Reflection 70B's official API is a wrapper for Sonnet 3.5

Yeah I managed to get it to admit that it was Claude without much effort (telling it not to lie), and then it magically stopped doing that. FWIW Constitutional AI is great.

One more reason not to pay attention to things that only seem to exist on x.com

As far as I can tell he's the founder of GlaiveAI. There were messages suggesting Matt was an investor, but I haven't been able to confirm this.

I recognize that surname from Twitter spams. Twitter has had financial rebates program for paying accounts for a while, and for months tons of paid spam accounts have been reply squatting trending tweets with garbage. Initially they appeared Sub-Saharan African, but the demographic seem to be constantly shifting eastward from there for some reason, through the Middle East and now around South-Indian/Pakistani regions. This one and variants thereof are common one in the Indian category among those.

Maybe someone got lucky with that and trying their hands at LLM finetuning biz?

Matt and Sahil did an interview and it was mostly Matt doing the talking while Sahil looked like a hostage forced by Matt to do the interview.

An AI engagement farmer on twitter claimed to create a llama 3.1 fine tine, trained on "reflection" (ie internal thinking) prompting that outperformed the likes of Llama 405B and even the closed source models on benchmarks.

The guy says that the model is so good because it was tuned on data generated by Glaive AI. He tells everyone he uses Glaive AI and that everyone else should use it too.

Releases the model on HF, is an absolute poopstorm. People cannot recreate the stated benchmarks, the guy who released the model literally said "they uploaded it wrong". Pretty much turns to dog-ate-my-homework type excuses that don't make sense either. Turns out people find it's just llama 3.0 with some lora applied.

Then some others do some digging to find out that Glaive AI is a company that Matt Schumer invested in, which he did not disclose on Twitter.

He does a holding pattern on Twitter, saying something to the effect of "the weight got scrambled!" and says that they're going to give access to a hosted endpoint and then figure out the weight issue later.

People try out this hosted model and find out it's actually just proxying requests through to anthropic's sonnet 3.5 api, with some filtering for words like "Claude".

After he was found out, they switch the proxy over to gpt 4o.

The endgame of this guy was probably 1. to promote his company and 2. to raise funding for another company. Both failed spectacularly, this guy is a scammer to the nth degree.

Edit: uncensored "Glaive AI".

I doubt it considering he’s been overselling his scam all over LinkedIn.

I wonder if the other investors will sue.

But not really, which is what confuses the heck out of me. Thousands of people downloaded and used the model. It obviously wasn’t spectacular.

It’s like claiming to have turned water into wine, then giving away thousands free samples all over the world (of water) so that everyone instantly knows you’re full of crap.

The only explanation I can imagine for perpetrating this fraud is a fundamental misunderstanding that the model would be published for all to try?

I just can’t wrap my head around the incentives here. I guess mental illness or vindictive action are possibilities?

Hard to imagine how this plays out.

> Lots of influencers did fraud, and they do just fine.

Since the current created legal landscape does not punish fraudsters they keep doing it and succeeding. Same thing as society allowing people to fail upward.

Sure, it's complicated. The core of the AI world right now isn't that large and in many ecosystems it's common for people to speak to each other behind the scenes and to learn about alleged incidents regarding individuals in the space. Such whispering can become an impediment for someone with a "name" in a space, even if not necessarily a full loss of their reputation or opportunities.

This may sound harsh but it's true.

You could do shit things and still come out with people perceiving you as a "winner"; because you got money, status, whatever you wanted, e.g. Adam Neumann. This is "fine" because people want to associate themselves with winners.

Or, you could do pretty much the exact same thing but come out looking as an absolute loser; e.g. SBF, this guy, etc... This is terrible as people do not want to be associated with losers.

IMO, this guy's career is dead, forever.

Wait till some idiot reposts it on Mastodon lol

But wouldn't the model then also learn to make reasoning mistakes in the first place, where in some cases those mistakes could have been avoided by not training the model on incorrect reasoning?

Of course if all mistakes are corrected before the final output tokens this is fine, but I could see this method introducing new errors altogether.