4 ms·

Update on Reflection-70B

82 points by mellosouls 2y ago

kristianp 2y ago
If this is for real, in some ways it shows how small OpenAIs moat is. Once someone knows something is possible and the rough idea, the community can replicate it in 4 weeks.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jsheard 2y ago
  Isn't Reflection supposed to be based on CoT like o1? It was originally released a week before o1 was, so if it was the real deal all along then OpenAI were outright beaten to the punch rather than replicated after the fact.
  - ipsum2 2y ago
    No. CoT has been around for several years (Jan 2022) https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903 https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903. And so has Reflection (March 2023) https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11366 https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11366. This approach that was taken by Reflection is nothing new.
  - nisten 2y ago
    yes and the massive increase to GPQA scores from o1 was attributed to this technique, so there is something there, despite the hard feelings of unproductive reddit users
  - thorum 2y ago
    CoT moderately improves model performance, but all non-o1 models suck at actually thinking step by step effectively. If the task is not straightforward, they make obvious mistakes or default to guessing. OpenAI trained o1 to pick better steps in its chain of thought. (The moat is the dataset they used to do that.)
  - bastawhiz 2y ago
    Maybe, if it wasn't an outright fraud. Arguably they didn't beat anyone to anything.
    - refulgentis 2y ago
      > Maybe, if it wasn't an outright fraud. I mean, it obviously wasn't, did you read the thing we're commenting on? n.b. At this point, you have all you need to replicate it. Far shy of "outright fraud", though, I'm sure there's a bailey for that motte.
      - bastawhiz 2y ago
        It's indisputably fraud. Multiple people after the original launch showed strong evidence that the hosted model they produced was simply proxying Claude and prompted it to censor its own name. It genuinely doesn't matter what they say, they committed blatant fraud, went out of their way to hide it, and now they're pretending like that didn't happen. The results might be perfectly reproducible, but their reputation is completely burned. This is not how you launch your company. Even if you don't care they didn't release anything at all of substance before the o1 launch. They didn't release usable weights, they didn't ship a working hosted model of their own. So no, they didn't beat OpenAI to anything.
        refulgentis 2y ago
        > showed strong evidence that the hosted model they produced was simply proxying Claude and prompted it to censor its own name. s/strong/extremely weak from my perspective, also, see article > They didn't release usable weights, Yes they did. They just weren't benchmarking the same as the initial claim. > they didn't ship a working hosted model of their own. Yes they did. They just weren't benchmarking the same as the initial claim. > So no, they didn't beat OpenAI to anything. Not sure where the idea they "beat OpenAI" is coming from, certainly not from me. I agree they did not. > It's indisputably fraud. This is indisputably incorrect, as I am disputing it. Happy to talk it out, don't take my shortness as being disagreeable. In general, people handwave about tokenizer[1] or "Claude" missing in a response[2]. I honestly expected the HN thread here to be far more insightful, instead, I'm seeing that its indisputable it was fraud, based on repeating a couple observations gooner teens made last week, then made vast conclusions on. Which were obviously wrong if you looked at it as an engineer. [1] no one can get the actual tokens out of an API. gooner local LLM stans were setting max tokens to some number <= 10, asking the same question of both, and seeing answers of similar length. This is mundane and expected, especially in english, at such a short length. I expected technical observers to, at least even if they don't grok tokenization, to note they weren't able to get the same responses with temperature = 0.0. [2] covered in article
coolspot 2y ago
On one hand, I want to believe Sahil, on the other hand most of his explanations don’t make much sense: Can’t upload exact weights he had on his computer. The guy runs AI hosting/inference/training company - can’t upload weights he has! Original benchmark harness wasn’t shared, but had a bug that conveniently boosted model results. API somehow mysteriously censors model name and tokenizer is exact match to Claude.
- all2 2y ago
  I've seen stuff like this hacked together. If he isn't very organized or was hasty, there's a good bet he deleted the working weights or doesn't know which of 5 or 10 the weights it is. Nothing would stop him from uploading all the weights, I suppose...
  - ipsum2 2y ago
    No. He served the "weights" (actually Claude) for over 24 hours. It's practically impossible to have served the "correct weights" and just have lost them.
    - Havoc 2y ago
      >It's practically impossible to have served the "correct weights" and just have lost them. Deleting files is very much a thing
      - minimaxir 2y ago
        The AI dog ate his homework?
- ameliaquining 2y ago
  He seems to be claiming that anyone can now reproduce the weird Claude censorship locally with the uploaded weights. Has anyone checked whether that's true or not, or is he mischaracterizing the allegations?
ipsum2 2y ago
Sahil Chaudhary of GlaiveAI perpetuated fraud, where he replaced the model that he "trained" with other backend ML providers. He still has not given a reason why "Claude" the string would be missing, just magically happened, despite the base model, Llama3.1-70B having no issues producing the text "Claude" nor the dataset missing the string "Claude"! Note that there was additional proof, besides missing the string "Claude", by matching the max number of tokens the model was able to produce. This is more technical, but chatGPT, Claude, Llama all have different tokenizers, so words are be broken up into different sections. The API consistently did NOT match the base model tokenizer (Llama), instead, producing the same number of tokens as Claude. Companies and individuals should probably avoid GlaiveAI and Matt Shumer less they get scammed too.
- nisten 2y ago
  they're 140Gb folders, for each checkpoint, yes file corruption happens and as for the fraud part...it was an opensource model release that did not meet the claimed benchmarks when people tried to replicate it
  - alsodumb 2y ago
    Are you telling me someone trained a huge model, and served it for hours to tons of users, and had only one instance of the checkpoint? I call BS. The model being open-source doesn't mean what they could have gotten away with, or tried to, isn't fraud.
    - bhouston 2y ago
      He served tons of people from his personal laptop? How is that possible? A 70B LLM is pretty taxing even to serve a single user let along the crush of users that tried out this new hyped model no? What am I missing?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - 2y ago
thorum 2y ago
> This along with a few tokenizer related tests people ran, made people suspect that we are just serving Claude with post-processing where we filter out words like Claude. Didn't these "few tokenizer related tests" prove the API was using Claude's tokenizer instead of Llama's, based on how words were being divided into tokens? That's a hard one to explain (it doesn't appear they're even trying to).
- refulgentis 2y ago
  People keep asserting that but, really, it was just people pointing to setting max tokens to a certain value and getting a certain # of words out. They didn't actually have tokens. Perfectly possible to have collisions, I'd wager even likely in the scenarios they tested, simple question, < 10 tokens, in English.
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Past discussions about this model and its controversies: Reflection 70B, the top open-source model https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41459781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41459781 Confirmed: Reflection 70B's official API is a wrapper for Sonnet 3.5 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41484981 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41484981
- nisten 2y ago
  There is no official API, you're confirming a temporary one that was taken down weeks ago. That was done via OpenRouter, a routing api service/site, which routes to different model's under load. Yes they could've switched it themselves too.
ilaksh 2y ago
The models are very powerful. This can help anyone, including scammers. The number of scams will be enormous. I just hope people are also able to see how useful it is for non-scumbags and don't let the scammers ruin it for everyone else. I am not going to mention another similar category of technology in this regard, just to stay "politically correct" for this site.
- talldayo 2y ago
  > I just hope people are also able to see how useful it is for non-scumbags and don't let the scammers ruin it for everyone else. I hope so too - it's been four years since GPT-3 came out and I haven't found a single serious time-saving application for the technology. If someone doesn't start making money with LLMs soon, then it will only be the scammers who benefit!
m3kw9 2y ago
Is either fraud or incompetency, I say is just incompetency like what he said. Got too excited on some false test maybe they tested with some validation data mixed in
- bastawhiz 2y ago
  So when they put the hosted model online (which was actually just proxying Claude), they explicitly prompted Claude to censor its own name. That's not explainable with incompetence. It's very intentional deception.
  - jazzyjackson 2y ago
    I just can't facepalm enough seeing so called AI companies relying on pythons .replace() when they need to hide what service they're building on
Havoc 2y ago
An expensive lesson in how fragile reputations can be
alsodumb 2y ago
I don't trust Sahil and Matt. They tried to commit fraud, hype things up, but it got way too much attention than what they expected, so they tried to get away with just serving Claude/ChatGPT in the background but got caught. They are nothing but grifters who got caught and now trying to fix that image.
bhouston 2y ago
I am confused. He was hosting the 70B LLM everyone was demoing from his laptop? How can that serve the load? When I’ve run LLMs locally it is really taxing for just one concurrent session.
daguava 2y ago
[dead]
nisten 2y ago
Has anyone here actually ran the code on their own hardware yet? I did a standard non-middleware lm_eval_harness and got 0.3214 on gpqa_main_zeroshot WITH the systemprompt and 0.3616 without the systemprompt. Have not ran it with the middleware yet that's supposed to do the substraction. Now, if that adds 20% to the score, that would be a huge deal, but it would also roughly match the jump from gpt4o to o1-preview that they got in gpqa_diamond.

82 points by mellosouls 2y ago

If this is for real, in some ways it shows how small OpenAIs moat is. Once someone knows something is possible and the rough idea, the community can replicate it in 4 weeks.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jsheard 2y ago
Isn't Reflection supposed to be based on CoT like o1? It was originally released a week before o1 was, so if it was the real deal all along then OpenAI were outright beaten to the punch rather than replicated after the fact.
- ipsum2 2y ago
  No. CoT has been around for several years (Jan 2022) https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903 https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903. And so has Reflection (March 2023) https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11366 https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11366. This approach that was taken by Reflection is nothing new.
- nisten 2y ago
  yes and the massive increase to GPQA scores from o1 was attributed to this technique, so there is something there, despite the hard feelings of unproductive reddit users
- thorum 2y ago
  CoT moderately improves model performance, but all non-o1 models suck at actually thinking step by step effectively. If the task is not straightforward, they make obvious mistakes or default to guessing. OpenAI trained o1 to pick better steps in its chain of thought. (The moat is the dataset they used to do that.)
- bastawhiz 2y ago
  Maybe, if it wasn't an outright fraud. Arguably they didn't beat anyone to anything.
  - refulgentis 2y ago
    > Maybe, if it wasn't an outright fraud. I mean, it obviously wasn't, did you read the thing we're commenting on? n.b. At this point, you have all you need to replicate it. Far shy of "outright fraud", though, I'm sure there's a bailey for that motte.
    - bastawhiz 2y ago
      It's indisputably fraud. Multiple people after the original launch showed strong evidence that the hosted model they produced was simply proxying Claude and prompted it to censor its own name. It genuinely doesn't matter what they say, they committed blatant fraud, went out of their way to hide it, and now they're pretending like that didn't happen. The results might be perfectly reproducible, but their reputation is completely burned. This is not how you launch your company. Even if you don't care they didn't release anything at all of substance before the o1 launch. They didn't release usable weights, they didn't ship a working hosted model of their own. So no, they didn't beat OpenAI to anything.
      - refulgentis 2y ago
        > showed strong evidence that the hosted model they produced was simply proxying Claude and prompted it to censor its own name. s/strong/extremely weak from my perspective, also, see article > They didn't release usable weights, Yes they did. They just weren't benchmarking the same as the initial claim. > they didn't ship a working hosted model of their own. Yes they did. They just weren't benchmarking the same as the initial claim. > So no, they didn't beat OpenAI to anything. Not sure where the idea they "beat OpenAI" is coming from, certainly not from me. I agree they did not. > It's indisputably fraud. This is indisputably incorrect, as I am disputing it. Happy to talk it out, don't take my shortness as being disagreeable. In general, people handwave about tokenizer[1] or "Claude" missing in a response[2]. I honestly expected the HN thread here to be far more insightful, instead, I'm seeing that its indisputable it was fraud, based on repeating a couple observations gooner teens made last week, then made vast conclusions on. Which were obviously wrong if you looked at it as an engineer. [1] no one can get the actual tokens out of an API. gooner local LLM stans were setting max tokens to some number <= 10, asking the same question of both, and seeing answers of similar length. This is mundane and expected, especially in english, at such a short length. I expected technical observers to, at least even if they don't grok tokenization, to note they weren't able to get the same responses with temperature = 0.0. [2] covered in article

coolspot 2y ago

On one hand, I want to believe Sahil, on the other hand most of his explanations don’t make much sense: Can’t upload exact weights he had on his computer. The guy runs AI hosting/inference/training company - can’t upload weights he has! Original benchmark harness wasn’t shared, but had a bug that conveniently boosted model results. API somehow mysteriously censors model name and tokenizer is exact match to Claude.

all2 2y ago
I've seen stuff like this hacked together. If he isn't very organized or was hasty, there's a good bet he deleted the working weights or doesn't know which of 5 or 10 the weights it is. Nothing would stop him from uploading all the weights, I suppose...
- ipsum2 2y ago
  No. He served the "weights" (actually Claude) for over 24 hours. It's practically impossible to have served the "correct weights" and just have lost them.
  - Havoc 2y ago
    >It's practically impossible to have served the "correct weights" and just have lost them. Deleting files is very much a thing
    - minimaxir 2y ago
      The AI dog ate his homework?
ameliaquining 2y ago
He seems to be claiming that anyone can now reproduce the weird Claude censorship locally with the uploaded weights. Has anyone checked whether that's true or not, or is he mischaracterizing the allegations?

ipsum2 2y ago

Sahil Chaudhary of GlaiveAI perpetuated fraud, where he replaced the model that he "trained" with other backend ML providers. He still has not given a reason why "Claude" the string would be missing, just magically happened, despite the base model, Llama3.1-70B having no issues producing the text "Claude" nor the dataset missing the string "Claude"! Note that there was additional proof, besides missing the string "Claude", by matching the max number of tokens the model was able to produce. This is more technical, but chatGPT, Claude, Llama all have different tokenizers, so words are be broken up into different sections. The API consistently did NOT match the base model tokenizer (Llama), instead, producing the same number of tokens as Claude. Companies and individuals should probably avoid GlaiveAI and Matt Shumer less they get scammed too.

nisten 2y ago
they're 140Gb folders, for each checkpoint, yes file corruption happens and as for the fraud part...it was an opensource model release that did not meet the claimed benchmarks when people tried to replicate it
- alsodumb 2y ago
  Are you telling me someone trained a huge model, and served it for hours to tons of users, and had only one instance of the checkpoint? I call BS. The model being open-source doesn't mean what they could have gotten away with, or tried to, isn't fraud.
  - bhouston 2y ago
    He served tons of people from his personal laptop? How is that possible? A 70B LLM is pretty taxing even to serve a single user let along the crush of users that tried out this new hyped model no? What am I missing?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- 2y ago

thorum 2y ago

> This along with a few tokenizer related tests people ran, made people suspect that we are just serving Claude with post-processing where we filter out words like Claude. Didn't these "few tokenizer related tests" prove the API was using Claude's tokenizer instead of Llama's, based on how words were being divided into tokens? That's a hard one to explain (it doesn't appear they're even trying to).

refulgentis 2y ago
People keep asserting that but, really, it was just people pointing to setting max tokens to a certain value and getting a certain # of words out. They didn't actually have tokens. Perfectly possible to have collisions, I'd wager even likely in the scenarios they tested, simple question, < 10 tokens, in English.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

Past discussions about this model and its controversies: Reflection 70B, the top open-source model https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41459781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41459781 Confirmed: Reflection 70B's official API is a wrapper for Sonnet 3.5 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41484981 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41484981

nisten 2y ago
There is no official API, you're confirming a temporary one that was taken down weeks ago. That was done via OpenRouter, a routing api service/site, which routes to different model's under load. Yes they could've switched it themselves too.

ilaksh 2y ago

The models are very powerful. This can help anyone, including scammers. The number of scams will be enormous. I just hope people are also able to see how useful it is for non-scumbags and don't let the scammers ruin it for everyone else. I am not going to mention another similar category of technology in this regard, just to stay "politically correct" for this site.

talldayo 2y ago
> I just hope people are also able to see how useful it is for non-scumbags and don't let the scammers ruin it for everyone else. I hope so too - it's been four years since GPT-3 came out and I haven't found a single serious time-saving application for the technology. If someone doesn't start making money with LLMs soon, then it will only be the scammers who benefit!

m3kw9 2y ago

Is either fraud or incompetency, I say is just incompetency like what he said. Got too excited on some false test maybe they tested with some validation data mixed in

bastawhiz 2y ago
So when they put the hosted model online (which was actually just proxying Claude), they explicitly prompted Claude to censor its own name. That's not explainable with incompetence. It's very intentional deception.
- jazzyjackson 2y ago
  I just can't facepalm enough seeing so called AI companies relying on pythons .replace() when they need to hide what service they're building on

Havoc 2y ago

An expensive lesson in how fragile reputations can be

alsodumb 2y ago

I don't trust Sahil and Matt. They tried to commit fraud, hype things up, but it got way too much attention than what they expected, so they tried to get away with just serving Claude/ChatGPT in the background but got caught. They are nothing but grifters who got caught and now trying to fix that image.

bhouston 2y ago

I am confused. He was hosting the 70B LLM everyone was demoing from his laptop? How can that serve the load? When I’ve run LLMs locally it is really taxing for just one concurrent session.

daguava 2y ago

[dead]

nisten 2y ago

Has anyone here actually ran the code on their own hardware yet? I did a standard non-middleware lm_eval_harness and got 0.3214 on gpqa_main_zeroshot WITH the systemprompt and 0.3616 without the systemprompt. Have not ran it with the middleware yet that's supposed to do the substraction. Now, if that adds 20% to the score, that would be a huge deal, but it would also roughly match the jump from gpt4o to o1-preview that they got in gpqa_diamond.