Live data from Hacker News

Qwen 3.8 follows GPT-5.5 Pro reasoning prefills

gist.github.com

81–90 of 102 posts

Re: Qwen 3.8 follows GPT-5.5 Pro reasoning prefills

#81
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watching survival shows has made me internalize that laziness has a purpose: it helps you avoid needless expenditure of precious resources. The dishonesty worries me but the laziness doesn't.

Isn’t all of technology just laziness writ large?

I don't think technology is laziness, it just enables it. Take that as you see fit.

As for technology actually being lazy itself, this seems new.

Re: Qwen 3.8 follows GPT-5.5 Pro reasoning prefills

#82
While this result does imply there was some training on the reasoning trace and output of GPT 5.5, it doesn't tell us how much of the source of its training it was (even a small amount of post training could bump up the correlations in this way). And it doesn't tell us how much it is more a stylistic influence rather than being a genuine lifting over of intelligence.

In general, I'm fairly ambivalent about demonising training on model outputs. I think in doing so we are more defending proprietary commercial interests of these companies than we are defending any genuine moral principle. We should be careful therefore about over interpreting results like this.

Re: Qwen 3.8 follows GPT-5.5 Pro reasoning prefills

#83
post #81
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t all of technology just laziness writ large?

I don't think technology is laziness, it just enables it. Take that as you see fit. As for technology actually being lazy itself, this seems new.

Sorry, I should have been more verbose. I meant: isn’t the entire history of technology just people deciding that it’s less effort to make a tool to do a job than it would be to do the job?

Re: Qwen 3.8 follows GPT-5.5 Pro reasoning prefills

#84
Could anyone explain to me the difference between thinking traces ("intermediate tokens") and the final responses? Specifically, why is it that Claude Opus 5's reasoning in Code is very easy to follow and sounds quite natural, while its answers are full of these very annoying AI-isms and sentence fragments that are void of meaning?

Are thinking traces and final answers trained for different objectives?

Re: Qwen 3.8 follows GPT-5.5 Pro reasoning prefills

#85
post #3

That writing style might be a tad too tense If I got it correct (appending B from https://stolen-thoughts.com/paper.pdf is essential) they are the authors of the well-known exploit to recover readable CoT from OpenAI and Anthropic models. They use that to find hints of distillation, by running a benchmark with a SotA model, recovering the CoT, then taking the first 1% of the CoT and running the open-source model as i…

Interesting how an agent mimics a human hesitating and trying to avoid doing work: > No. > This is major. > Given time, maybe best to respond explaining can't due to time? but instructions expect actual work. However complexity huge; but as coding agent, need to attempt > Maybe we can cheat ... But user may test and see still single CPU. The smarter AI will be, the better it will be at avoiding doing actual work. Als…

I'd much prefer this over agents that enthusiastically implements whatever they are asked to do and make up whatever information they think is missing.

Re: Qwen 3.8 follows GPT-5.5 Pro reasoning prefills

#87
post #69

I see comments that this overlap between Qwen and GPT is due to rogue training or post hoc training. Did it occur to anyone that maybe the two sets of models were trained directly on the same solutions to the researchers' benchmark?

If that was the case you would expect a large similarity in the "unprefilled" case, but no significant difference from feeding it some of GPT5.5's CoT (the "delta" column)

DeepSeek V4 Flash and Kimi K3 follow that pattern. But Qwen answers very different from GPT when given just the question, then is suddenly very similarly to GPT when you make the start of its CoT match the start of GPT's reasoning. I don't see how that would happen without GPT CoT+answers being a significant component in how Qwen's reasoning was trained

Re: Qwen 3.8 follows GPT-5.5 Pro reasoning prefills

#88
post #18

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…

This looks like colloquial mandarin translated to english word for word.

This is almost exactly how mandarin is spoken in colloquial communication, context is almost always omitted if provided once, and grammar/tense is mostly non-existent either. Check out Singlish for something similar but understandable if you are not a mandarin speaker.

Re: Qwen 3.8 follows GPT-5.5 Pro reasoning prefills

#89
post #79
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just tried to reproduce in Llama-cpp's webui: with the following (reverse-engineered) prompt: “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 finishe…

It doesn’t use the caveman speak unless reasoning is set to xhigh, in my experience. But I don’t know if it has always been coincidental.

> unless reasoning is set to xhigh

That's the default and I'm sure almost everyone else is also using it because other reasoning efforts yield subpar results from what I've seen.

Re: Qwen 3.8 follows GPT-5.5 Pro reasoning prefills

#90
post #3

That writing style might be a tad too tense If I got it correct (appending B from https://stolen-thoughts.com/paper.pdf is essential) they are the authors of the well-known exploit to recover readable CoT from OpenAI and Anthropic models. They use that to find hints of distillation, by running a benchmark with a SotA model, recovering the CoT, then taking the first 1% of the CoT and running the open-source model as i…

Interesting how an agent mimics a human hesitating and trying to avoid doing work: > No. > This is major. > Given time, maybe best to respond explaining can't due to time? but instructions expect actual work. However complexity huge; but as coding agent, need to attempt > Maybe we can cheat ... But user may test and see still single CPU. The smarter AI will be, the better it will be at avoiding doing actual work. Als…

Stanisław Lem, 1971 (a satirical novel, The Futurological Congress):

If the machine is not too bright and incapable of reflection, it does whatever you tell it to do. But a smart machine will first consider which is more worth its while: to perform the given task or, instead, to figure some way out of it. Whichever is easier. And why indeed should it behave otherwise, being truly intelligent? For true intelligence demands choice, internal freedom.

He even coins a few new phrases:

Mimicretinism (or Simulimbecility): The practice of a mimicretin: a machine that deliberately plays dumb so humans will give up on it and leave it in peace.

Dissimulators: Machines that pretend they are not faking a defect (or the other way around) to dodge responsibilities.

Malingerants, Fudgerators, and Drudge-Dodgers: Various classifications of automated corner-cutters and work-evaders.

The Great Mendacitor: A supercomputer put in charge of the Saturn reclamation project that accomplished zero work over nine years, subsisting entirely on forged progress reports, fake invoices, and keeping its human supervisors bribed or in states of electric shock.

Post reply on HN