Hi HN. Jeff is a set of small, open-weight Qwen3.5 and Gemma fine-tunes for zero-shot classification, with respectable out-of-the-box performance, meant to be slotted right into code (or fine-tuned further as needed). You give them a situation and a list of options; they return a calibrated probability for each, in one forward pass, with no text generation. The 2B scores 83.1% on a five-benchmark panel (Jev's published figure: 83.0%); the 0.8B decides in about 28 ms on an M4 Max. Apache 2.0, with a Jev-compatible API (I'm not affiliated with TypeSafe).
When TypeSafe released Jev a couple of weeks ago and then AutoJev appeared, I wanted to see if I could replicate the experiment using only small language models on local hardware. So everything ran at home: one RTX PRO 6000 for training, two DGX Sparks running Qwen3.8-Flash-Next to write the synthetic data, a MacBook for testing, all monitored from my phone over Tailscale.
The caveat: the published Jev and AutoJev numbers are on a different sample of the same benchmarks, and Jeff's overall score comes from classification-style tasks (96% on Financial PhraseBank, 86-89% on RAGTruth, both above Jev). On multi-step reasoning it's behind: BBH 64-68% against Jev's 94%, and about 50% on JevBench's hard tier against 73%. That isn't surprising, and I don't think it matters: no 0.8B or 2B model reasons like a large one, and nobody should expect it to. These are extremely fast judgement-callers. In one of my apps I use the 0.8B for voice navigation; a quick fine-tune (about half an hour on one GPU) took it from 32% to 96% on held-out commands, at about 40 ms per decision.
The fun part: games, as a zero-shot test. Games aren't the ideal zero-shot test, but they're fun, and TypeSafe did it with Jev too. There was no game data in training. Each turn the code describes the situation and the moves in words, and the model picks one; the options say what each move leads to, never which one is right. Over 20 episodes each:
- Doom (ViZDoom): Jeff 0.8B 6.55 kills per episode, the same as a hand-coded bot and as Jev's published run. Jev's prompt spells out the aiming rule and takes about 212 ms per call over its API; Jeff gets "the nearest monster is a little to your left" and decides in about 29 ms on my Mac.
- Frogger: 10.3 crossings, level with the hand-coded bot (10.25), and 10x the untrained base model (1.0).
- Pac-Man: 57 of 98 pellets, about 60% of the bot's score and 2x the untrained model.
Videos of every run are linked in the README.
Lessons learned:
- System 1 models are here to stay. Being able to process unstructured data at software speed inside an app is extremely powerful, and being able to do it locally is fantastic.
- A small model is a classifier, not a planner. Models of 0.8B-2B don't reason like Qwen3.8-27B or Jev, and they don't need to: present the options the right way and you get 40+ decisions per second, depending on your hardware.
- Fine-tune it if needed. If zero-shot isn't good enough for your task, a short fine-tune on your own examples is.
- Wording matters enormously. Giving Frogger's final step the same words as every other forward option ("safe, and one row closer to the goal") took one episode from 15 crossings to 23. Before that, the frog just stayed on the last log.
- Bigger isn't better. The untrained 2B is already more risk-averse than the untrained 0.8B (in Doom it prefers turning away from the nearest monster), and training made it hesitate in Pac-Man. That's probably why the 0.8B beat the 2B.
- Benchmarks don't predict play. Untrained Gemma 4 E2B beats both untrained Qwens on the benchmarks (62.5%) and plays every game worst: right most of the time, but not reliably, and in a real-time loop the mistakes compound.
Positively identifiable as slop before even clicking, click and find 6 commits. Why was this even posted? Do you really expect to still be working on this even by next week?
I'm curious: in the age of AI, where you can literally tell your clankers to work on something, why do you even care about the longevity of open source projects? There are several projects that are abandoned, and I have resurrected them for my own use cases without any issues.
By the same reasoning, why should I care about the output of someone else’s clanker if I can just get it from my own clanker?
But to answer your question, I do still care about software being maintained by someone who can make design decisions instead of just yielding control to bots who tend to produce mediocre designs.
Hi HN. Jeff is a set of small, open-weight Qwen3.5 and Gemma fine-tunes for zero-shot classification, with respectable out-of-the-box performance, meant to be slotted right into code (or fine-tuned further as needed). You give them a situation and a list of options; they return a calibrated probability for each, in one forward pass, with no text generation. The 2B scores 83.1% on a five-benchmark panel (Jev's published figure: 83.0%); the 0.8B decides in about 28 ms on an M4 Max. Apache 2.0, with a Jev-compatible API (I'm not affiliated with TypeSafe).
When TypeSafe released Jev a couple of weeks ago and then AutoJev appeared, I wanted to see if I could replicate the experiment using only small language models on local hardware. So everything ran at home: one RTX PRO 6000 for training, two DGX Sparks running Qwen3.8-Flash-Next to write the synthetic data, a MacBook for testing, all monitored from my phone over Tailscale.
The caveat: the published Jev and AutoJev numbers are on a different sample of the same benchmarks, and Jeff's overall score comes from classification-style tasks (96% on Financial PhraseBank, 86-89% on RAGTruth, both above Jev). On multi-step reasoning it's behind: BBH 64-68% against Jev's 94%, and about 50% on JevBench's hard tier against 73%. That isn't surprising, and I don't think it matters: no 0.8B or 2B model reasons like a large one, and nobody should expect it to. These are extremely fast judgement-callers. In one of my apps I use the 0.8B for voice navigation; a quick fine-tune (about half an hour on one GPU) took it from 32% to 96% on held-out commands, at about 40 ms per decision.
The fun part: games, as a zero-shot test. Games aren't the ideal zero-shot test, but they're fun, and TypeSafe did it with Jev too. There was no game data in training. Each turn the code describes the situation and the moves in words, and the model picks one; the options say what each move leads to, never which one is right. Over 20 episodes each:
- Doom (ViZDoom): Jeff 0.8B 6.55 kills per episode, the same as a hand-coded bot and as Jev's published run. Jev's prompt spells out the aiming rule and takes about 212 ms per call over its API; Jeff gets "the nearest monster is a little to your left" and decides in about 29 ms on my Mac.
- Frogger: 10.3 crossings, level with the hand-coded bot (10.25), and 10x the untrained base model (1.0).
- Pac-Man: 57 of 98 pellets, about 60% of the bot's score and 2x the untrained model.
Videos of every run are linked in the README.
Lessons learned:
- System 1 models are here to stay. Being able to process unstructured data at software speed inside an app is extremely powerful, and being able to do it locally is fantastic.
- A small model is a classifier, not a planner. Models of 0.8B-2B don't reason like Qwen3.8-27B or Jev, and they don't need to: present the options the right way and you get 40+ decisions per second, depending on your hardware.
- Fine-tune it if needed. If zero-shot isn't good enough for your task, a short fine-tune on your own examples is.
- Wording matters enormously. Giving Frogger's final step the same words as every other forward option ("safe, and one row closer to the goal") took one episode from 15 crossings to 23. Before that, the frog just stayed on the last log.
- Bigger isn't better. The untrained 2B is already more risk-averse than the untrained 0.8B (in Doom it prefers turning away from the nearest monster), and training made it hesitate in Pac-Man. That's probably why the 0.8B beat the 2B.
- Benchmarks don't predict play. Untrained Gemma 4 E2B beats both untrained Qwens on the benchmarks (62.5%) and plays every game worst: right most of the time, but not reliably, and in a real-time loop the mistakes compound.
Positively identifiable as slop before even clicking, click and find 6 commits. Why was this even posted? Do you really expect to still be working on this even by next week?
I'm curious: in the age of AI, where you can literally tell your clankers to work on something, why do you even care about the longevity of open source projects? There are several projects that are abandoned, and I have resurrected them for my own use cases without any issues.
By the same reasoning, why should I care about the output of someone else’s clanker if I can just get it from my own clanker?
But to answer your question, I do still care about software being maintained by someone who can make design decisions instead of just yielding control to bots who tend to produce mediocre designs.