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

Qwen3.5 Fine-Tuning Guide

unsloth.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 118 posts

Re: Qwen3.5 Fine-Tuning Guide

#101

Post by jareklupinski »

therockhead wrote: post #97
Jowsey wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reply is entirely AI generated. You guys are trying to find reason in a hallucination. It's unfortunately impossible to put into words what the "LLM smell" is at this point, but I trust someone else who spends a lot of time reading LLM output can back me up on this. I've seen these agent-written fake anecdotes on Twitter, Reddit, and now here, all with the exact same formatting. They pretend to be real people wi…

The two day old account is an obvious hint but I got to be honest, the content didn't look suspicious on first read. I know you touched on it above, but what do you think triggered your AI generated thought ?

it's this part:

> latency matters more than raw accuracy – think industrial inspection

it (rightfully) raises red flags in anyone when you hear someone confidently claim raw accuracy is _not_ important in things like _inspection_

Re: Qwen3.5 Fine-Tuning Guide

#102

Post by ctparker »

jareklupinski wrote: post #101
therockhead wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The two day old account is an obvious hint but I got to be honest, the content didn't look suspicious on first read. I know you touched on it above, but what do you think triggered your AI generated thought ?

it's this part: > latency matters more than raw accuracy – think industrial inspection it (rightfully) raises red flags in anyone when you hear someone confidently claim raw accuracy is _not_ important in things like _inspection_

That is definitely the right part. The dash isn't a symbol on a normal keyboard, and "think blah blah blah" occurs frequently in LLM chat sessions (for me, at least). I suspect those easy-to-spot indicators won't be around forever, which will make AI posts much more difficult to spot. But I think the thinly veiled advertisement that follows in that clause will be the bigger tell in future models. If we feel like we're being marketed at, we can almost guarantee there isn't a human on the other end. This isn't the internet I signed up for.

Re: Qwen3.5 Fine-Tuning Guide

#103

Post by kraig911 »

embedding-shape wrote: post #94
thejazzman wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their account only existing 2d lends you a lot of credibility.. That’s wild. And scary.

What's scary is that it's still the highest upvoted comment on this submission, although it obviously doesn't make sense. Hope HN has tooling ready to handle this ongoing onslaught of manipulation...

this right here I think we all need to think on what is happening right now. Dead internet theory might be plausible. What goal would an AI writing crap responses on reddit/hacker news/what not have to even need to comment?

Re: Qwen3.5 Fine-Tuning Guide

#104

Post by WithinReason »

jareklupinski wrote: post #101
therockhead wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The two day old account is an obvious hint but I got to be honest, the content didn't look suspicious on first read. I know you touched on it above, but what do you think triggered your AI generated thought ?

it's this part: > latency matters more than raw accuracy – think industrial inspection it (rightfully) raises red flags in anyone when you hear someone confidently claim raw accuracy is _not_ important in things like _inspection_

they might be referring to using a quantised version which gives them high performance and the accuracy drop is less important

Re: Qwen3.5 Fine-Tuning Guide

#105

Post by IanCal »

jareklupinski wrote: post #101
therockhead wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The two day old account is an obvious hint but I got to be honest, the content didn't look suspicious on first read. I know you touched on it above, but what do you think triggered your AI generated thought ?

it's this part: > latency matters more than raw accuracy – think industrial inspection it (rightfully) raises red flags in anyone when you hear someone confidently claim raw accuracy is _not_ important in things like _inspection_

They didn't say it wasn't important they said latency was more important, and they're right for many use cases. Once you can't run at realtime where you're operating, you need to move to batching or offloading the work to a pool of workers and handling more async issues. You can no longer have something that shunts the component off to another track where your camera is, you need to have the camera somewhere else then 40s later pull it out of another location. You need good networking so you can fire off images to get processed elsewhere. That's also a bunch more systems to maintain.

These things aren't impossible of course but it's additional management over "place the device here".

Here's how you know that accuracy isn't the be all and end all of the discussion - we already deploy systems with less than human accuracy to monitor things, and when we use humans we very rarely inspect every single item. So there must be a tradeoff we're happy making in lots of industries.

Even if you're focussed on not missing anything, lower accuracy that comes at the cost of more false positives can be massively useful as you can then do a two step process (even with humans as the second step if you need). The goal of the first step is to ignore the 99% of totally fine items so you spend the costly process on just 1% of the items.

Re: Qwen3.5 Fine-Tuning Guide

#106

Post by iamleppert »

antirez wrote: post #6

Fine tuning is a story that is nice to tell but that with modern LLMs makes less and less sense. Modern LLMs are so powerful that they are able to few shot learn complicated things, so a strong prompt and augmenting the generation (given the massive context window of Qwen3.5, too) is usually the best option available. There are models for which fine tuning is great, like image models: there with LoRa you can get good…

The problem with this is context. Whatever examples you provide compete with whatever content you want actually analyzed. If the problem is sufficiently complex, you quickly will run out of context space. You must also describe your response, in what you want. For many applications, it's better to fine-tune.

Re: Qwen3.5 Fine-Tuning Guide

#107

Post by IanCal »

embedding-shape wrote: post #56
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Local, offline system you control is worth a lot. Introducing an external dependency guarantees you will have downtime outside of your control.

Right, but that doesn't answer why you'd need a fast 7b LLM rather than a slightly less fast 14b LLM.

Can you fit the 14B on the device they're using? That feels rather important.

And then it depends on whether there is a useful difference in performance between the two.

Re: Qwen3.5 Fine-Tuning Guide

#108

Post by embedding-shape »

kraig911 wrote: post #103
embedding-shape wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's scary is that it's still the highest upvoted comment on this submission, although it obviously doesn't make sense. Hope HN has tooling ready to handle this ongoing onslaught of manipulation...

this right here I think we all need to think on what is happening right now. Dead internet theory might be plausible. What goal would an AI writing crap responses on reddit/hacker news/what not have to even need to comment?

> What goal would an AI writing crap responses on reddit/hacker news/what not have to even need to comment?

Obviously the AI itself doesn't have any goal (that matters anyways), but the humans/organizations that set it up obviously have a lot to gain. Accounts of age/above karma thresholds are treated less suspiciously, so if you build up N accounts that way, eventually when you launch your product, each manufactured comment looks less fake as the accounts are already "established" at that point.

This is nothing new, been going on for decades already. Guess the scope kind of expanded and the required effort went down a lot these last few years though.

Re: Qwen3.5 Fine-Tuning Guide

#109

Post by IanCal »

nl wrote: post #80
arcanemachiner wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thread you're in broke away from the main discussion topic. Again: Nobody is using LLMs to (for example) sort fruit. But there are some industrial processes that prioritize latency over reliability.

No, we are literally trying to find a use case where using a lower accuracy LLM makes sense for a vision task. But fine - what are these industrial processes where that prioritize latency over reliability and using a LLM - as mentioned by the OP - makes sense ?

> No, we are literally trying to find a use case where using a lower accuracy LLM makes sense for a vision task.

They're reconfigurable on the fly with little technical expertise and without training data, that's really useful. Personally in projects for people I've found models have fewer unusual edge cases than traditional models, are less sensitive to minor changes in input and are easier to debug by asking them what they can see.

Re: Qwen3.5 Fine-Tuning Guide

#110

Post by jareklupinski »

IanCal wrote: post #105
jareklupinski wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's this part: > latency matters more than raw accuracy – think industrial inspection it (rightfully) raises red flags in anyone when you hear someone confidently claim raw accuracy is _not_ important in things like _inspection_

They didn't say it wasn't important they said latency was more important, and they're right for many use cases. Once you can't run at realtime where you're operating, you need to move to batching or offloading the work to a pool of workers and handling more async issues. You can no longer have something that shunts the component off to another track where your camera is, you need to have the camera somewhere else the…

totally

but i wouldnt stand on a soap box and yell that to the world without all that ^ nuance

but by the time i'm done with all that, i'm only preaching to the choir

Post reply on HN