Philip Bontrager

@pbontrager.bsky.social

AI researcher & engineer @Meta working on @PyTorch torchtune in NYC; interests in generative models, RL, and evolutionary strategies 💻 https://github.com/pbontrager 📝 https://tinyurl.com/philips-papers

this seems like a decent LLM test. 3 sequential game states of Qwirkle. Sonnet 3.5 gets the first play but not the second o1 is very bad at this. first play it takes 59 seconds and it’s answer isn’t even a play that’s on the board. same with second play, but only 36 seconds

BildBildBild

New encoder using all the latest training tricks! One thing I’m wondering is how this compares to something like SmolLM (similar size). I know encoder models should provide better embeddings but I wonder what this looks like in practice.

Jeremy Howard @howard.fm · 2y ago

I'll get straight to the point. We trained 2 new models. Like BERT, but modern. ModernBERT. Not some hypey GenAI thing, but a proper workhorse model, for retrieval, classification, etc. Real practical stuff. It's much faster, more accurate, longer context, and more useful. 🧵

Just 10 days after o1's public debut, we’re thrilled to unveil the open-source version of the technique behind its success: scaling test-time compute By giving models more "time to think," Llama 1B outperforms Llama 8B in math—beating a model 8x its size. The full recipe is open-source!

Bild

1/ Okay, one thing that has been revealed to me from the replies to this is that many people don't know (or refuse to recognize) the following fact: The unts in ANN are actually not a terrible approximation of how real neurons work! A tiny 🧵. 🧠📈 #NeuroAI #MLSky

Blake Richards@tyrellturing.bsky.social · 2y ago

Why does anyone have any issue with this? I've seen people suggesting it's problematic, that neuroscientists won't like it, and so on. But, I literally don't see why this is problematic...

"pre training as we know it will end (because we will run out of data)" is, in other words, "learning to complete partial observations is not sufficient to get to intelligence". i think this was kinda obvious to many, but maybe noteworthy that a true scale-believer said it.

A very nice blog from Przemek Pietrzkiewicz, offering thoughts on our recent result in AI for competitive programming 🏆 Przemek co-led the Hash Code contest, which we used as the main test-bed to evaluate our approach 🚀 Worth a read if you want to understand implications of our work! Link below ⬇️

Bild

If the internet gets filled up with AI generated text, presumably it’s the good text that humans decided to keep from the models. Does that mean over time all model training becomes RLHF? 🤔

How to drive your research forward? “I tested the idea we discussed last time. Here are some results. It does not work. (… awkward silence)” Such conversations happen so many times when meetings with students. How do we move forward? You need …

When building torchtune we’ve had lots of discussions on where to put code. All in the top level recipe? In utilities? Build a trainer? The goal is always to make experimentation and hacking with the recipes easy. I’m curious what your opinions are on using trainers vs recipes style scripts.

Looking at CMA-ES again and noticed that the next generation sampling rule is “x = m + σ * N(0,C)” looks very similar to an online version of the diffusion algorithm, the main difference is that diffusion usually assumes feature independence.