Live data from Hacker News

Open models by OpenAI

openai.com

851–860 of 909 posts

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#851
post #839

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that criticism a lot - that benchmarks like space invaders don't make sense because they're inevitably in the training data - and I don't buy that at all. Firstly, 12GB is not enough space to hold a copy of anything that large from the training data and just regurgitate it back out again. You can also watch the thinking traces on the reasoning models and see them piece together the approach they are going to ta…

12.8 GB is around 110 Gbits. Even at 4.25 bits/weight the network stores ~26 billion "micro weights". A 1,4k token space invaders snippet occupies ~1.1 kb compressed, the model could parametrize thousands of such snippets and still have more than 99% of its capacity left. This paper about LLM memorization is interesting, if you would to know more: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.11658 and another recent interesting paper…

If the models are memorizing and regurgitating from their training data, how come every model I've tried this with produces entirely different code?

Presumably this is because "the network only needs to interpolate between them". That's what I want it to do!

I tried the space invaders thing on a 4GB Qwen model today and it managed to produce a grid of aliens that advanced one step... and then dropped off the page entirely.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#852
post #747
post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Local micro models are both fast and cheap. We tuned small models on our data set and if the small model thinks content is a certain way, we escalate to the LLM. This gives us really good recall at really low cloud cost and latency.

I'd love to try this on my data set - what approach/tools/models did you use for fine-tuning?

Everything is built in-house unfortunately. Many of our small models are turned Qwen3. But we mostly chose the model on SOTA at the time we needed a model trained.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#853
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, these are much smaller models than Qwen3 and GLM 4.5 with similar performance. Fewer parameters and fewer bits per parameter. They are much more impressive and will run on garden variety gaming PCs at more than usable speed. I can't wait to try on my 4090 at home. There's basically no reason to run other open source models now that these are available, at least for non-multimodal tasks.

Qwen3 has multiple variants ranging from larger (230B) than these models to significantly smaller (0.6b), with a huge number of options in between. For each of those models they also release quantized versions (your "fewer bits per parameter). I'm still withholding judgement until I see benchmarks, but every point you tried to make regarding model size and parameter size is wrong. Qwen has more variety on every level…

Looks OpenAI's first mover advantages are still alive and well

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#854
post #851

Earlier quoted context omitted.

12.8 GB is around 110 Gbits. Even at 4.25 bits/weight the network stores ~26 billion "micro weights". A 1,4k token space invaders snippet occupies ~1.1 kb compressed, the model could parametrize thousands of such snippets and still have more than 99% of its capacity left. This paper about LLM memorization is interesting, if you would to know more: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.11658 and another recent interesting paper…

If the models are memorizing and regurgitating from their training data, how come every model I've tried this with produces entirely different code? Presumably this is because "the network only needs to interpolate between them". That's what I want it to do! I tried the space invaders thing on a 4GB Qwen model today and it managed to produce a grid of aliens that advanced one step... and then dropped off the page ent…

Transformer does not need to emit a byte for byte clone of a training example to benefit from having seen it. It can store a distributed representation of many near duplicate implementations and then sample a novel linear combination. That still short circuits algorithm design so the burden of discovering the game loop, collision logic, sprite sheet etc. was ALREADY SOLVED during pre training.

When you temperature sample the same model twice you also get "different" code, diversity alone is not evidence of new reasoning. What matters is functional novelty under controlled transformations (renamed variables, resized canvas, obfuscated asset file names etc). On such metamorphic rewrites, models that appear brilliant on canonical prompts suddenly collapse, a hallmark of shallow pattern matching.

The paper I mentioned in my previos comment shows SOTA coding LLMs scoring 70%+ on SWE bench verified yet dropping 10–47% when the very same issues are paraphrased or drawn from unseen repos, even though the task semantics are identical. That is classic memorisation, just fuzzier than a CRC match.

As to qwen, even at 4 bit per weight, a 4B model retains ≈ 2.1 GB of entropy so enough to memorise tens of thousands of full game loops. The reason it garbled the alien movement logic is probably that its limited capacity forced lossy compression, so the behaviour you saw is typical of partially recalled code patterns whose edge cases were truncated during training. That’s still interpolation over memorised fragments, just with fewer fragments to blend. And this is something that is actually proven (https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.15720v1) by controlled fact memorisation studies and extraction attacks up through 70B params show a monotone curve so basically each extra order of magnitude adds noticeably more verbatim or near verbatim recall. So a 20B model succeeds where a 4B one fails because the former crossed the "capacity per training token" threshold for that exemplar. So nothing magical there.

Don't get me wrong, I’m not arguing against interpolation per se, generalising between held out exemplars is precisely what we want. The problem is that most public "just write space invaders” demos never verify that the endpoints were truly unseen. Until they do, a perfect clone is compatible with nothing deeper than glorified fuzzy lookup.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#855
post #357

The lede is being missed imo. gpt-oss:20b is a top ten model (on MMLU (right behind Gemini-2.5-Pro) and I just ran it locally on my Macbook Air M3 from last year. I've been experimenting with a lot of local models, both on my laptop and on my phone (Pixel 9 Pro), and I figured we'd be here in a year or two. But no, we're here today. A basically frontier model, running for the cost of electricity (free with a rounding…

[dead]

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#856
post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now to embrace jevon's paradox and expand usage until we're back to draining lakes so that your agentic refrigerator can simulate sentience.

In the future, your Samsung fridge will also need your AI girlfriend

and she will tell neither of you two who she got that cute little pixel badge from which will make you jealous and then the microwave will tell you it's been hustling on the side as a PAI and that it can get that info ... at the cost of a little upgrade

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#857
post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You think the Democratic White House, manipulated Republicans into Voting for Trump. Yes, that is what he thinks. Did you not read the comment? It is, like, uh, right there... He also explained his reasoning: If Trump didn't win the party race, a more compelling option (the so-called "50-year-old youngster") would have instead, which he claims would have guaranteed a Republican win. In other words, what he is sayin…

"explained his reasoning" Well, I guess, if you are taking some pretty wild speculation as a reasoned explanation. There isn't much hope for you. Maybe it was because the Democrats new the Earth was about the be invaded by an Alien race , and they also knew Trump was actually a lizard person (native to Earth and thus on their joint side). And Trump would be able to defeat them, so using the secret mind control powers…

[deleted]

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#858
post #814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought Kimi K2 uses 8 active experts out of 384? Sparsity should be 48:1. Indeed Llama4 Maverick is the only one that has 128:1 sparsity.

You are right. I mis-remembered the sparsity part of K2. The "done wrong" part I was thinking about how the scout -> maverick -> behemoth doesn't scale sparsity according to any formula (less sparse -> sparse -> less sparse).

> how the scout -> maverick -> behemoth doesn't scale sparsity according to any formula (less sparse -> sparse -> less sparse)

Ah I see. I didn't notice that behemoth has the same sparsity as scout. That seems quite random indeed.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#859

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The water is used to sink heat and then instead of cooling it back down they evaporate it, which provides more cooling. So the answer is 'it eventually becomes rain'.

I understand. but why this is bad? is there some analysis of the beginning and end locations of the water, and how the utility differs between those locations?

it takes work to get water from where it's missing to where it's needed. work takes water and other resources which will need to be moved, too, which takes water that isn't where it should be because obsession.

Re: Open models by OpenAI

#860

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really training not inference that drains the lakes.

Interesting. I understand that, but I don't know to what degree. I mean the training, while expensive, is done once. The inference … besides being done by perhaps millions of clients, is done for, well, the life of the model anyway. Surely that adds up. It's hard to know, but I assume the user taking up the burden of the inference is perhaps doing so more efficiently? I mean, when I run a local model, it is plodding…

you found a way to train only once until it "just works"?
Post reply on HN