- 21comments
- 712comments
- 933comments
- 127comments
- 385comments
- 14comments
- 416comments
- 3comments
- 181comments
- 45comments
- 355comments
- 137comments
- 122comments
- 97comments
- 89comments
- 7comments
- 317comments
- 105comments
- 1comments
- 193comments
- 11comments
- 29comments
- 106comments
- 25comments
- 31comments
- 208comments
- 13comments
- 1comments
- 69comments
- 518comments
Latency and compute comparison needed.
Is benchmarking Jev still a ToS violation?
Was it? That would make it unusable in any corporate setting.
Whilst I do like reading these things for technical know how, I can sympathise with the creator of jev who now presumably has to apply an order of magnitude effort to explain why the 100 smaller things done better than this add up to a much better product.
Replace 'explain' with 'sell'. Don't forget that it's a gold rush. There's no reason to sympathize with corporations in their rush for the slice of the pie.
Beyond the missing latency and compute comparisons that Heaney commenter mentioned, also nothing about its error rate compared to Jev (nor if it even always outputs in a format the app can parse, not sure how solved that is).
But then at the end it says it’s parody. Maybe HN title should say it’s a joke.
latency and compute comparisons highly depends on your local setup.
you can swith to a better model for lower error rate.
Which massively slows down the output. Doing this with Qwen 9B already takes you into seconds per answer territory, and Jev is supposedly frontier level intelligence.
Going directly for the logprobs is always icky when you use a chat model as base, because they are trained to write prose as output. So your "choice" tokens and thus their probabilities might get diluted in whatever else it wanted to say. If you have to do it in the same way as this post, at least add clear system instructions and a carefully worded beginning to the assistant output section of the prompt to lower the chances of it wandering off immediately.
I've found that using structured outputs solves this problem much better. Instead of letting a model generate only "A", "B" or "C" and looking at the probs, have it directly generate "Legitimate", "Spam" or "Phishing" or any other pre-defined option from a set of multi-token sequences. Behind the scenes it boils down to something quite similar, but you're not running into the risk that the model actually wanted to say "A phishing attempt seems likely, so answer (C) is correct.", which would lead "A" to have the highest probability in the first token. You can even use a reasoning budget this way either via inherent reasoning or a free-form part preceding the remaining output structure. You can also have it assign probabilities (either in words or numbers) using more complex output structures, but I would not rely on them much more than the token logprobs (they can still be quite good though).
Seems like all normal english words could risk the same, so would using short but random strings be even better?
Actually to me it sounds it could be benchmarked if this kind of effect exists in the first place.
Best option would be reasoning + clear system instructions + constrained output. That is, if you have to use a chat model. Which works well enough to be sure, but hey I haven't tried raising millions of dollars when I did that 3 years ago. But perhaps I was the stupid one.
Agreed, it's a real issue, but it can probably be vastly reduced by having the schema in the system prompt and by giving the model an expectation of a fixed value: no decent modern would pick a prose ligament over a provided value.
To completely squash the issue, a few cheap LoRa iterations will do the trick just fine.
Sure, you can fix that in a couple lines. Then a couple more lines for evaluating multiple questions on the same answer in parallel. Then a couple more lines for the confidence score (which is trivial to compute from all we have, but missing regardless). Then a harness to fine-tune an existing model to perform better on this specific task, and a collection of training data to use for that
I think we can all agree that Jev is not rocket science. It's a good idea executed well, with marketing that might have been a tad too bold
In my experience as well using logprobs to try to quantify uncertainty, LLMs are a poor fit. Neural nets in general struggle with 'calibration' --- ie. if a prediction is truly 50/50, neural nets are often prone to predicting overconfidently [0].
I ran some tests using GPT-4 to do some basic classification a couple years ago. On ambiguous options which had to be escalated to a human, the LLM would regularly output something like a 99.8% probability, compared to 99.99% for a correct answer.
0: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.04599
+1, llama.cpp has a --grammar parameter which you can pass a BNF style grammar file to constrain generation. It can be used in Python llama.cpp wrapper
https://til.simonwillison.net/llms/llama-cpp-python-grammars
The principle is this.
Now, can you do it in <200ms for 45 questions at once, have 0% malformed output, and any kind of meaningful benchmark? We’ll wait!
It's fast.
If you're comparing with something, you need to state 'fast' in relative terms. Jev is definitely fast, and if this Python takes the same time to get a decision then it's also fast. If it's 100* slower than Jev though, you shouldn't be calling it 'fast', because relatively speaking it's really, really slow.
By design it can't be significantly slower than Jev: the prompt processing (AKA PP) is exactly the same on both and will take most of the time. Then you can process every single "question" in parallel, just predicting one or two tokens (if an answer is ambiguous with a single token) per each question, again in a single batch.
So, fast in the LLM space and comparable with Jev.
What I don’t understand is, why would you not want “reasoning” in a classifier?
Speed and cost are obvious reasons, but isn’t this a tradeoff?