5 ms·
I think the next major innovation is going to be intelligent model routing. I've been exploring OpenClaw and OpenRouter, and there is a real lack of options to
by Gareth321 8mo ago
I think the next major innovation is going to be intelligent model routing. I've been exploring OpenClaw and OpenRouter, and there is a real lack of options to select the best model for the job and execute. The providers are trying to do that with their own models, but none of them offer everything to everyone at all times. I see a future with increasingly niche models being offered for all kinds of novel use cases. We need a way to fluidly apply the right model for the job.
- eshaham78 8mo ago[dead]
- nylonstrung 8mo agoAgree that routing is becoming the critical layer here. Vllm iris is really promising for this https://blog.vllm.ai/2026/01/05/vllm-sr-iris.html https://blog.vllm.ai/2026/01/05/vllm-sr-iris.html There's already some good work on router benchmarking which is pretty interesting
- monooso 8mo agoI came across this yesterday. Haven't tried it, but it looks interesting: https://agent-relay.com/ https://agent-relay.com/
- condiment 8mo agoAt 16k tokens/s why bother routing? We're talking about multiple orders of magnitude faster and cheaper execution. Abundance supports different strategies. One approach: Set a deadline for a response, send the turn to every AI that could possibly answer, and when the deadline arrives, cancel any request that hasn't yet completed. You know a priori which models have the highest quality in aggregate. Pick that one.
- IanCal 8mo agoThe best coding model won’t be the best roleplay one which won’t be the best at tool use. It depends what you want to do in order to pick the best model.
- PhunkyPhil 8mo agoI'm not saying you're wrong, but why is this the case? I'm out of the loop on training LLMs, but to me it's just pure data input. Are they choosing to include more code rather than, say fiction books?
- refulgentis 8mo agoI’ll go ahead and say they’re wrong (source: building and maintaining llm client with llama.cpp integrated & 40+ 3p models via http) I desperately want there to be differentiation. Reality has shown over and over again it doesn’t matter. Even if you do same query across X models and then some form of consensus, the improvements on benchmarks are marginal and UX is worse (more time, more expensive, final answer is muddied and bound by the quality of the best model)
- SignalStackDev 8mo ago[dead]
- IanCal 8mo agoAre you saying I’m wrong that some models are better for some tasks than others, but there isn’t a universally best model for all tasks?
- stephenbez 8mo agoThanks. Are there any links where I can learn more about this? I did some Googling and it appears that there are some examples where people say combining multiple models or multiple runs of the same models leads to improvements: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010482525010820 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00104... https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.11171 https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.11171 But presumably people are less likely to publish a paper when an approach doesn’t work.
- jmalicki 8mo agoThere is the pre-training, where you passively read stuff from the web. From there you go to RL training, where humans are grading model responses, or the AI is writing code to try to pass tests and learning how to get the tests to pass, etc. The RL phase is pretty important because it's not passive, and it can focus on the weaker areas of the model too, so you can actually train on a larger dataset than the sum of recorded human knowledge.