4 ms·
aider found that with R1, the best performance was to use R1 to think through the solution, and use claude to implement the solution. I suspect that, in the nea
by eightysixfour 2y ago
aider found that with R1, the best performance was to use R1 to think through the solution, and use claude to implement the solution. I suspect that, in the near term, we'll need combinations of reasoning models and instruction-following coding models for excellent code output.
My experience is that most of the models focused on reasoning improvements has been that they tend to be a bit worse at following specific instructions. It is also notable that a lot of 3rd party fine-tunes of Llamas and others gain in knowledge based benchmarks while reducing instruction following scores.
I wonder why that seems to be some sort of continuum?
- arresin 2y agoKind of like an ai “thinking fast and thinking slow”.
- eightysixfour 2y agoSort of? I don't see why thinking slow should inhibit the ability to follow instructions.
- Arcuru 2y agoI think they're referencing "Thinking, Fast and Slow" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow "The book's main thesis is a differentiation between two modes of thought: "System 1" is fast, instinctive and emotional; "System 2" is slower, more deliberative, and more logical. "
- eightysixfour 2y agoYes, I understand the reference. I don't understand their argument that this is a good example of that common mental model for LLMs. In this case "fast, instinctive, and emotional" models are better at instruction following than "slower, more deliberative, and more logical" models.