danielmarkbruce

I mean the model can learn from it during RL training. The confidence score is affected by the tokens prior to it it's output. I was using the word "you" loosely.

The relevant data is the reasoning trace. Doesn't need user data. You can learn from people's detailed reasoning steps how confident they are, even outside your domain.

Take RL 101. This is a common pattern.

While I don't believe they are doing the following: you can calibrate by inspecting the reasoning traces. That is the relevant distribution. If you ask someone to explain how/why they are classifying something one way v another, you can get a reasonably good understanding of their confidence level.

"Did you read the article" doesn't apply to a link someone put in a comment. If you are going to be a hall monitor, at least do it properly. You are just acting in bad faith at this point.

Read the paper. They train RLCR on existing big math problems. They subtract a brier score penalty from the correctness reward. No new confidence labels are needed.

Existing datasets, different reward function.

I don't think you've ever done either of these training steps. You are just handwaving.

RLVR and RLCR really don't need a whole bunch of special data.

Sure, and most days it doesn't rain.

Yeah but they weren't that great, you couldn't ask for arbitrary classifications after the model was trained. You are underestimating what they've done here, even if it does seem a little overhyped.

For certain tasks, it seems much, much more efficient. That's not nothing. People have been using LLMs for various classification tasks.

No, you don't. You do RLCR, similar to that proposed here:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.16806

The claim of how they are doing it is likely wrong.... if you had to bet, it's likely an encoder model of some sort.

I might still be misunderstanding what you are saying, but bitnet also keeps high precision latent weights during training. The optimizer updates those, while the weights used in the forward pass are quantized to ternary values.

Never said equal, just that no one has much. It's just not that hard of a claim to understand. No need to twist oneself into a pretzel.

Or, someone who knows the books and hot takes on "systems thinking" are pop-science, and the actual good ideas have been around for a long time and taught in operations research, control theory etc.

You are conflating post training quantization and low bit training.

Hard to verify that your wardrobe is clean. Also hard to verify that the bad fuel is out without physical sensors. Many, many tasks are quite difficult to verify beyond "you know it when you see it". That doesn't work so well for training a model.

Nope. It's perfectly consistent. No one has much power at all. No one is in charge, there is no greater power sitting above us all calling all (or even most) the shots. To use someone else's term, there is no cabal.

You seem to conflate "no one is powerful" with "no one has any power in any situation at all".

Doesn't really even need to look like it. If you can verify rewards, RLVR will optimize really really well. If you can't... it's a struggle. There are probably fewer fields where you can verify rewards than one might hope.

Humans wear a lot of hats when the do work. They don't even realize how many. My experience with building real systems using LLMs is that you have to be very explicit about such hats and you don't realize how many are worn until you see edge case after edge case after edge case. Check this. Check that. Check this. Check that. Check check check.

"the billionaire class".

Whether they meant all or most, those words certainly don't mean a handful.

I never said nobody hoped to be powerful, or increase the level of power they have. They just don't have much, and they can't/don't coordinate like some conspiracy theorists believe.

Just because no one is in charge, it doesn't mean favors disappear and it doesn't mean no one can throw a wrench in your system.

Maybe I'm overindexing on "they steer" and "effective strategy" - it still reads that this group has way more control and deliberate planning than they do.

And, "implicit, uncoordinated conspiracy" is an oxymoron. The word "conspiracy" has a definition.

If all you are saying is "sometimes billionaires are aligned" - sure. Sometimes politicians are aligned. Sometimes teammates are aligned. If one wants a platitude with some predictive power "people are self interested" is going to work more often.

Nobody is suggesting nobody or group cooperates on anything ever. This comment could go in the definition section of "strawman". My comment was in response to the idea that there is "a conspiracy of the elite". It's just an absurd idea to anyone who has spent time in the world working with people, both "elite" and non "elite".

In the bay area you'll find thousands and thousands of people who have worked at a company run by a billionaire founder. They will tell you said billionaire founder can't even get everyone in the company to conspire to row in the same direction.

Systems thinking as applied to human systems is about as rigorous as psychology.

No, nothing above them. No power. That's the point. In a couple years Trump will be gone and he'll be kowtowing to others and so on.

There is no group in charge. No one is in charge.

You could make this statement about any group at all. And then once you realize people are in multiple groups, the whole thing devolves into chaos.

In the real world it's hard enough to get 5 people on the same page about anything. The idea that dozens/hundreds of people with billions of dollars who are in business against each other in many cases are secretly colluding with any effectiveness is a joke. If they were, zuckerberg, larry and sergey would have been squashed in the 90's/00's by the elite of the time. Sam Altman would have been crushed years ago. Obama or Trump would have been put in their place, probably both. Look at all the billionaires all of a sudden kowtowing to Trump. The billionaires just got beat real bad in NYC.

Billionaires just don't have much power. This isn't a movie.

The idea that all billionaires work together is hilarious. No real adult could possibly believe such nonsense.