I flagged it for these reasons as well. It's just a bad article. Shows very poor understanding of the basics of LLM workings, and the field in general. Lingers

I flagged it for these reasons as well. It's just a bad article. Shows very poor understanding of the basics of LLM workings, and the field in general. Lingers on the "cheated" benchmark (lmsys) but never mentions all the other 3rd party benchmarks performed after the inference fixes, which are in line with what Meta originally published. To be clear, submitting a different fine-tuned model to one arena and releasing the untuned model without clearly mentioning this, is bad. But conflating the "human prefference" bench with the others and not mentioning the models capabilities on other benchmarks is also bad writing. The MoE paragraphs are bad, and the writer never explains why the copy 17B vs VRAM size is bad, they just leave it there unexplained. Poor form, I was expecting better from someone working in this field.