//
sign in
Profile
by @danabra.mov
Profile
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
Profile
by @jimpick.com
AviHandle
by @danabra.mov
AviHandle
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
AviHandle
by @katherine.computer
EventsList
by @katherine.computer
ProfileHeader
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileHeader
by @danabra.mov
ProfileMedia
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePlays
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @danabra.mov
ProfilePosts
by @dansshadow.bsky.social
ProfileReplies
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @atsui.org
Skircle
by @danabra.mov
StreamPlacePlaylist
by @katherine.computer
+ new component
ProfileReplies









Loading...
OLMo 2 tech report is out! We get in the weeds with this one, with 50+ pages on 4 crucial components of LLM development pipeline:
Great to see clarification comments. o3 is impressive nonetheless. Played around with o1 and the ‘thinking’ Gemini model. The cot output (for Gemini) can confusing and convoluted, but it got 3/5 problems right. Stopped on the remaining 2. These models are an impressive interpretability test bed.
Is the final output actually “causally” dependent on the long COT generated? How key are these traces to the search/planning clearly happening here? Some many questions but so little answers.
Looks like Tesla’s models sometimes confuse train tracks with road lanes.
New paper. We show that the representations of LLMs, up to 3B params(!), can be engineered to encode biophysical factors that are meaningful to experts. We don't have to hope Adam magically finds models that learn useful features; we can optimize for models that encode for interpretable features!