41–50 of 82 posts
I wasn't aware that we have access to raw reasoning tokens? I thought what you get is a kind of summary. Does the author have some kind of privileged access or was my assumption wrong? But for the question studied here it probably doesn't matter - overlaps in the publicly available output may be indicative of distillation (or not), regardless of what it is. I would just find it surprising that the Chinese labs would…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Qwen3.8 27B's CoT seems ... very similar. What? I've never seen garbled CoT like the one you posted when using Qwen3.8-27B.
I have seen plenty of Qwen 3.8 27B's caveman-like "Need doing this & that" thoughts. And on cerebras now I've seen them come real fast!
Because here's the king of CoT I get:
> Hmm, but there's a subtlety: does babel-jest + preset-typescript transform the file to CJS by default? No — babel-jest doesn't transform ESM imports to CJS unless @babel/preset-env is configured with modules: commonjs. Without preset-env, import statements stay as ESM in the output, and Jest's CJS runtime would fail with "Cannot use import statement outside a module" unless the project is ESM and running with --experimental-vm-modules.
> Hmm wait, actually babel-preset-jest... does it include preset-env? Let me recall: babel-preset-jest = { plugins: [require('babel-plugin-jest-hoist')] } plus istanbul for coverage. No preset-env. So ESM imports stay as-is.
> But wait — if the user's project is ESM (which it probably is, given the .ts extension imports — Node's type stripping requires ESM-style? no, type stripping also works for CJS-style .ts files with require... actually, --experimental-strip-types supports both CJS and ESM .ts files. But explicit .ts extensions in imports only work in ESM mode (CJS require doesn't allow extensions... actually, does Node 22+ allow require of .ts with flag?
Lots of “but wait” and and full sentences, nothing caveman-like or extremely short sentences without verbs like the GPT thinking trace above.
(this is with unsloth's Qwen3.8-27B-UD-Q5_K_XL.gguf with T° = 0.8)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sorry, it's going over my head still - my reading is "all models with any training after August 10 know how GPT 5.5 Pro thinks", but I'm not sure why - my initial guess was that's when GPT 5.5 was released, but that doesn't seem to be the case (it was released April 23rd).
They would know the specific thoughts released by the "stolen thought" paper, which became part of the public internet on August 10. Unfortunately those are the only thought examples you can use to perform this experiment, as no other are availible. But as the model should have seen those specific examples, it's not a good signal that Qwen was exfiltrating thinking traces.
It's interesting that someone else noticed this. A week or two ago, GPT-5.6 Sol starting leaking reasoning into a tool call in Pi. I don't really know what happened, but it was ... interesting: Attach. Use hub debugger. Ensure source binary perhaps same. start. todo init. parallel no. two tool calls in same turn sequential is okay. immediately. exactly. Need not mention apologies yet final. [...] Let's do. [...] Do t…
I've read an embarrassing amount of Qwen 3.8 27b cot and it's nothing like this. I'm not refuting the OP, though, which is about continuation.
News flash: people who scraped the Internet without permission to build their product complain when something vaguely similar is done to them. Water still wet, sky still blue. Film at 11. (slibhb: Don't get me wrong, I agree with you 99%. But the frontier labs have zero moral authority here.)
I understand people just get off posting stuff like this. But creating LLMs from the entire corpus of human text was a huge achievement. Distilling those models is much less of an achievement. It means China is further behind than we thought.
News flash: people who scraped the Internet without permission to build their product complain when something vaguely similar is done to them. Water still wet, sky still blue. Film at 11. (slibhb: Don't get me wrong, I agree with you 99%. But the frontier labs have zero moral authority here.)
I understand people just get off posting stuff like this. But creating LLMs from the entire corpus of human text was a huge achievement. Distilling those models is much less of an achievement. It means China is further behind than we thought.
I wasn't aware that we have access to raw reasoning tokens? I thought what you get is a kind of summary. Does the author have some kind of privileged access or was my assumption wrong? But for the question studied here it probably doesn't matter - overlaps in the publicly available output may be indicative of distillation (or not), regardless of what it is. I would just find it surprising that the Chinese labs would…
They reference this paper which describes a method to decrypt reasoning traces (by sending the encrypted trace back to the model and asking it to transcribe it): https://stolen-thoughts.com/paper.pdf
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've read an embarrassing amount of Qwen 3.8 27b cot and it's nothing like this. I'm not refuting the OP, though, which is about continuation.
This is Unsloth's UD-Q4_K_S quantization (edit -- on llama.cpp, via the Vulkan backend, on an RX 7900 XT, with Unsloth's recommended sampler config), for "as replicable as LLMs can be" disclosure, done through llama.cpp's web UI. In another thread, via Open WebUI (both with no custom prompt, so whatever the "default" system prompt is), a reasoning block opens as such: We need answer user's request: write complete sho…
“Write a complete short story scene of 2000-3000 words. Use a third-person limited perspective focused on a character named Rowan. The scene must include the following plot elements: a raccoon, Milo returns, a storm power failure, an elderly customer knocks, and a thermos somewhere. Make sure the scene ends feeling finished. Output only the story; do not include any outline, preamble, analysis, or meta-commentary.”
And here's Qwen's thinking trace:
> The user is asking for a short story scene of 2000–3000 words. Third-person limited POV, Rowan. Plot elements: a raccoon, Milo returns, a storm causing a power outage, an elderly customer knocks on the door, a thermos. End with a sense of closure. Output only the story.
> Let me plan carefully. I need to count words in my head—roughly 2400–2600 words would be safely in range. Let me draft.
> Setting: a small-town shop or a gas station/diner where Rowan works the night shift. Milo returns—Milo is probably Rowan's partner, brother, or ex. Let me make Milo Rowan's brother who's been away (military? a road trip? rehab?). Better: Milo is the younger brother who disappeared/went away after a fight. He comes back in the middle of a storm.
While at the very beginning it rephrases the prompt in very short sentence, it's nowhere near close to the above GPT thinking trace and it quickly moves to plain sentences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've read an embarrassing amount of Qwen 3.8 27b cot and it's nothing like this. I'm not refuting the OP, though, which is about continuation.
Same! and very surprised by it from day one of release.