Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

timkellogg.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 430 posts

Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

#11

Post by spacebanana7 »

yapyap wrote: post #8

> If you believe that AI development is a prime national security advantage, then you absolutely should want even more money poured into AI development, to make it go even faster. This, this is the problem for me with people deep in AI. They think it’s the end all be all for everything. They have the vision of the ‘AI’ they’ve seen in movies in mind, see the current ‘AI’ being used and to them it’s basically almost t…

> I think using any of this in a national security setting is stupid

What about AI enabled drones and guided missiles/rockets? The case for their effectiveness is relatively simple in terms of jamming resistance.

Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

#12

Post by pjc50 »

yapyap wrote: post #8

> If you believe that AI development is a prime national security advantage, then you absolutely should want even more money poured into AI development, to make it go even faster. This, this is the problem for me with people deep in AI. They think it’s the end all be all for everything. They have the vision of the ‘AI’ they’ve seen in movies in mind, see the current ‘AI’ being used and to them it’s basically almost t…

> then you absolutely should want even more money poured into AI development, to make it go even faster.

Indeed. People are welcome to go "all in" on whatever nonsense gambling they want to do with their personal investments, but national security demands actually thinking about things - adversarially. Because the enemy will as well.

It's perfectly possible to lose a war by investing in expensive superweapons that under deliver. The Nazis were particularly bad at this.

Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

#13

Post by GTP »

Sorry for being lazy, but I just don't have the time right now to read the paper. Is there in the paper or somewhere else a comparison based on benchmarks of S1 vs R1 (the full R1, not quantized or distilled)?

Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

#14

Post by pjc50 »

spacebanana7 wrote: post #11
yapyap wrote: post #8

> If you believe that AI development is a prime national security advantage, then you absolutely should want even more money poured into AI development, to make it go even faster. This, this is the problem for me with people deep in AI. They think it’s the end all be all for everything. They have the vision of the ‘AI’ they’ve seen in movies in mind, see the current ‘AI’ being used and to them it’s basically almost t…

> I think using any of this in a national security setting is stupid What about AI enabled drones and guided missiles/rockets? The case for their effectiveness is relatively simple in terms of jamming resistance.

Like a lot of AI boosters, would you like to explain how that works other than magic AI dust? Some forms of optical guidance are already in use, but there's other limitations (lighting! weather!)

Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

#15

Post by GTP »

spacebanana7 wrote: post #11
yapyap wrote: post #8

> If you believe that AI development is a prime national security advantage, then you absolutely should want even more money poured into AI development, to make it go even faster. This, this is the problem for me with people deep in AI. They think it’s the end all be all for everything. They have the vision of the ‘AI’ they’ve seen in movies in mind, see the current ‘AI’ being used and to them it’s basically almost t…

> I think using any of this in a national security setting is stupid What about AI enabled drones and guided missiles/rockets? The case for their effectiveness is relatively simple in terms of jamming resistance.

This somehow reminds me of a certain killer robot from a Black Mirror episode ;)

Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

#16

Post by amarcheschi »

yapyap wrote: post #8

> If you believe that AI development is a prime national security advantage, then you absolutely should want even more money poured into AI development, to make it go even faster. This, this is the problem for me with people deep in AI. They think it’s the end all be all for everything. They have the vision of the ‘AI’ they’ve seen in movies in mind, see the current ‘AI’ being used and to them it’s basically almost t…

I couldn't agree more.

If we're not talking about cyber war exclusively, such as finding and exploiting vulnerabilities, for the time being national security will still be based on traditional army.

Just a few weeks ago, italy announced a 16bln€ plan to buy >1000 rheinmetall ifv vehicles. That alone would make italy's army one of the most equipped in Europe. I can't imagine what would happen with a 500$bln investment in defense,lol. I don't agree with what Meloni's government is doing, but one of the ministers I agree more with is the defense minister Crosetto

Furthermore, what is being shown, at least for the time being, is that open source can be and is crucial in aiding developing better models. This collides with the idea of big, single "one winner takes it all" VC mentality (because let's be honest, these defense pitches are still made by startup/VC bros)

Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

#17

Post by smcl »

yapyap wrote: post #8

> If you believe that AI development is a prime national security advantage, then you absolutely should want even more money poured into AI development, to make it go even faster. This, this is the problem for me with people deep in AI. They think it’s the end all be all for everything. They have the vision of the ‘AI’ they’ve seen in movies in mind, see the current ‘AI’ being used and to them it’s basically almost t…

Been saying this for years, it's been fucking baffling. Generating images, video and text that sort-of resembles what a human would come up with is genuinely quite impressive. It is not "let's claim it'll fix our country" (looking at you, Keir) impressive though, and I cannot believe so much money has been pumped into it.

Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

#18

Post by pama »

GTP wrote: post #13

Sorry for being lazy, but I just don't have the time right now to read the paper. Is there in the paper or somewhere else a comparison based on benchmarks of S1 vs R1 (the full R1, not quantized or distilled)?

The S1 paper is not meant to compete with R1. It simply shows that with 1k well curated examples for finetuning (26 minutes training on 16 GPU) and with a simple hack for controlling the length of the thinking process, one can dramatically increase the performance of a non-reasoning model and show a clear increase in benefit with increased test-time compute. It is worth a quick skim.

Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

#19

Post by amarcheschi »

spacebanana7 wrote: post #11
yapyap wrote: post #8

> If you believe that AI development is a prime national security advantage, then you absolutely should want even more money poured into AI development, to make it go even faster. This, this is the problem for me with people deep in AI. They think it’s the end all be all for everything. They have the vision of the ‘AI’ they’ve seen in movies in mind, see the current ‘AI’ being used and to them it’s basically almost t…

> I think using any of this in a national security setting is stupid What about AI enabled drones and guided missiles/rockets? The case for their effectiveness is relatively simple in terms of jamming resistance.

I would say that they don't require an 500bln$ investment. AFAIK, drone that help lock on target have started being used in Ukraine

Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

#20

Post by amarcheschi »

smcl wrote: post #17
yapyap wrote: post #8

> If you believe that AI development is a prime national security advantage, then you absolutely should want even more money poured into AI development, to make it go even faster. This, this is the problem for me with people deep in AI. They think it’s the end all be all for everything. They have the vision of the ‘AI’ they’ve seen in movies in mind, see the current ‘AI’ being used and to them it’s basically almost t…

Been saying this for years, it's been fucking baffling. Generating images, video and text that sort-of resembles what a human would come up with is genuinely quite impressive. It is not "let's claim it'll fix our country" (looking at you, Keir) impressive though, and I cannot believe so much money has been pumped into it.

But you have to over promise and under deliver, otherwise you won't receive those sweet sweet money
Post reply on HN