4 ms·
Please challenge me and explain why this is a break through worth the headline they use for their own work. How I understand it, without really reading into it
by underlines 1mo ago
Please challenge me and explain why this is a break through worth the headline they use for their own work.
How I understand it, without really reading into it:
- Thomson Reuters did not "create" a frontier model, they gave some money, maybe a bit of their data to Imperial College London, and took Alibaba's Qwen 3.6 35B A3B Model for a basic fine tune.
- "They" (some undergrads at Imperial College London) used an existing ablation framework to undo some of the topic alignment of the original model.
- "They" fine tuned on some domain knowledge trying to preserve general knowledge - here maybe, just maybe some data came from Thomson Reuters.
As a result: one of 100's of Qwen 3.6 35B A3B sparse model fine tunes, just for publicity, to write overstating headlines like "X created their own frontier model"
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- walrus01 1mo agoThat's pretty wild that a Ctrl-F of "qwen" or "china" or "alibaba" on the thomson reuters announcement URL turns up no results. They want to portray it like they developed this thing from scratch, when that is by no means what actually happened.
- dgellow 1mo ago[dead]
- dgellow 1mo agoThey didn’t say they created it no? I don’t think any of those points matter. It’s a business announcing a new product. Why does it matter if they built it internally or used external teams? I find strange to focus on those details