3 ms·

The website says the model is for "tool calling, device use, and structured extraction". Your example just doesn't seem to be very relevant. FWIW, it did a pret

by yoavm 2mo ago

The website says the model is for "tool calling, device use, and structured extraction". Your example just doesn't seem to be very relevant. FWIW, it did a pretty good job for tool calling when I tried it, and I think it could be pretty nice to have this running on locally and integrate with Home Assistant.

evmaki 2mo ago
False positives are definitely relevant and worth measuring - natural language interfaces always have a discoverability problem, i.e., users not knowing what actions the system does and does not support. If the frontend of that system lacks the ability to reject unsupported commands, weird stuff happens. Nonetheless, this is very cool work! If I can offer a small suggestion to the team at Cactus, it would be to evaluate your releases on some usability criteria (including false positives). Any serious integrator or adopter of these models would want to have that information available.
- jdknezek 2mo ago
  > "confidence": 0 OP and the linked page talk about the confidence score and using it as an action threshold, so it looks like an appropriate total response to me.
  - evmaki 2mo ago
    Right, but that's not the same thing as reporting a benchmark across a test set. It doesn't help me determine how well the model does across a decently-large sample size of commands. It doesn't tell me with what reliability the confidence will be below a given threshold when it should be, above that threshold when it should be, etc.
- HenryNdubuaku 2mo ago
  Thanks, noted!
curious_cat_163 2mo ago
I think the test above is about tool calling... That's how I read it. The issue here is known as "out of distribution detection" in the old-timey classification world. I am not sure how a micro model will fundamentally solve it. Would love to understand what dannyw and team did there?
- derangedHorse 2mo ago
  How did you draw an association between dannyw and Cactus? There are no 'Danny's on the list of GH contributors nor is there one named in the paper. Just curious.
  - curious_cat_163 2mo ago
    Ah, my bad. I may have misread it.
planb 2mo ago
This is extremely impressive if it works. But on the other hand, if the number of cases where it works as expected is lower than what we could catch with a (old-Siri-style) heuristics based approach, and the rest fails in unpredictable ways, I'd prefer the dumb old "I did not understand that" response.

by yoavm 2mo ago

evmaki 2mo ago

False positives are definitely relevant and worth measuring - natural language interfaces always have a discoverability problem, i.e., users not knowing what actions the system does and does not support. If the frontend of that system lacks the ability to reject unsupported commands, weird stuff happens. Nonetheless, this is very cool work! If I can offer a small suggestion to the team at Cactus, it would be to evaluate your releases on some usability criteria (including false positives). Any serious integrator or adopter of these models would want to have that information available.

jdknezek 2mo ago
> "confidence": 0 OP and the linked page talk about the confidence score and using it as an action threshold, so it looks like an appropriate total response to me.
- evmaki 2mo ago
  Right, but that's not the same thing as reporting a benchmark across a test set. It doesn't help me determine how well the model does across a decently-large sample size of commands. It doesn't tell me with what reliability the confidence will be below a given threshold when it should be, above that threshold when it should be, etc.
HenryNdubuaku 2mo ago
Thanks, noted!

curious_cat_163 2mo ago

I think the test above is about tool calling... That's how I read it. The issue here is known as "out of distribution detection" in the old-timey classification world. I am not sure how a micro model will fundamentally solve it. Would love to understand what dannyw and team did there?

derangedHorse 2mo ago
How did you draw an association between dannyw and Cactus? There are no 'Danny's on the list of GH contributors nor is there one named in the paper. Just curious.
- curious_cat_163 2mo ago
  Ah, my bad. I may have misread it.

planb 2mo ago

This is extremely impressive if it works. But on the other hand, if the number of cases where it works as expected is lower than what we could catch with a (old-Siri-style) heuristics based approach, and the rest fails in unpredictable ways, I'd prefer the dumb old "I did not understand that" response.