5,301 karma · joined December 7, 2016
Edit: I saw online they do in fact plan to release this openly at some point – x.com/Alibaba_Qwen/status/2078759124914098291
Check it out: https://github.com/samyak112/pym-particles/blob/main/arithme...
Model A: A_1, …, A_n Model B: B_1, …, B_n
C_i = A_i * p + B_i * (1 - p)
In other words, it’s just a linear combination of the other models’ weights, per position.
I love clever, low-or-no-code engineering solutions like this. You typically need to understand a systems very deeply to reach this level of elegance. In this case, one has to understand exactly what happens when the play button is pressed in Mac OS, how bundle identifiers work, etc. And the outcome is an app with almost no code at all – just a collision – it's beautiful.
(As an aside, coding agents are terrible at this kind of thing; I'd guess Codex as of right now would write some overpowered application that polls in a loop looking for Music App starts and killing them)
I especially like this taxonomy
> I think of continual learning as two subproblems:
> Generalization: given a piece of data (user feedback, a piece of experience, etc.), what update should we do to learn the “important bits” from that data?
> Forgetting/Integration: given a piece of data, how do we integrate it with what we already know?
My personal feeling is that generalization is a data issue: given a datapoint x, what are all the examples in the distribution of things that can be inferred from x? Maybe we can solve this with synthetic datagen. And forgetting might be solvable architecturally, e.g. with Cartridges (https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.06266) or something of that nature.
Here's a link to the model if you want to dive deeper: https://huggingface.co/philomath-1209/programming-language-i...
I once saw a LessWrong post claiming that the Platonic Representation Hypothesis doesn't hold when you only embed random noise, as opposed to natural images: http://lesswrong.com/posts/Su2pg7iwBM55yjQdt/exploring-the-p...
> How to Scale RL to 10^26 FLOPs (blog.jxmo.io/p/how-to-scale-rl-to-1026-flops)
The basic premise behind both essays is that for AI to make another big jump in capabilities, we need to find new data to train on.
My proposal was reusing text from the Internet and doing RL on next-token prediction. The linked post here instead suggests doing 'replication training', which they define as "tasking AIs with duplicating existing software products, or specific features within them".
We tested all of the methods in the Python Optimal Transport package (https://pythonot.github.io/) and reported the max in most of our tables. So some of this is covered. A lot of these methods also require a seed dictionary, which we don't have in our case. That said, you're welcome to take any number of these tools and plug them into our codebase; the results would definitely be interesting, although we can expect the adversarial methods still work best, as they do in the problem settings you mention.
As for the name – the paper you recommend is called 'vecmap' which seems equally general, doesn't it? Google shows me there are others who have developed their own 'vec2vec'. There is a lot of repetition in AI these days, so collisions happen.
The GAN works way better than traditional OT methods though. I really don't know why, this is the part that feels like magic to me.
> Does this extend to being able to analytically determine which concepts are encodable in one embedding but not another? An embedding from a deft tiny stories LLM presumably cannot encode concepts about RNA replication.
Yeah, this is a great point. We're mostly building off of this prior work on the Platonic Representation Hypothesis (https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.07987). I think our findings go-so-far as to apply to large-enough models that are well-enough trained on The Internet. So, text and images. Maybe audio, too, if the audio is scraped from the Internet.
So I don't think your tinystories example qualifies for the PRH, since it's not enough data and it's not representative of the whole Internet. And RNA data is (I would guess) something very different altogether.
> Assuming that is true. If you can detect when you are trying to put a square peg into a round hole, does this mean you have the ability to remove square holes from a system?
Not sure I follow this part.
And there's obviously always ArXiv. Maybe we should make a blog or something, but the updates really don't come that often.