Top
Best
New

Posted by albelfio 20 hours ago

Introducing System One Models and Jev(typesafe.ai)
1612 points | 446 commentspage 10
moffers 19 hours ago|
So is it a structured data-based language model? Or is there a model and a harness? Hopefully they’ll open up and explain more.
CompleteSkeptic 19 hours ago|
it is just a model, no harness yet ;)

it is a structured data model, but technically not a language model (it doesn't generate language)

cooljoseph 16 hours ago||
A few questions:

1. Do you provide any kind of largest common subtree caching for cheaper input?

2. Have you tried auto-generating Lisp programs structurally?

3. Have you tried augmenting a Lisp language with a `choice` function that makes choices given a prompt, the environment, and the continuation stack?

zenlikethat 15 hours ago|
(1) Nope, it's always the same input token cost

(2-3) No, but that's kind of a sick cook ... Want to get access and try it? nathan@typesafe.ai

cooljoseph 13 hours ago||
Thanks for the early access! I was testing the Lisp idea out in the playground, but I don't think the model is smart enough right now to generate actual code. I tried having Jev finish generating the code for a Fibonacci number function, but it kept wanting to create a literal number instead of refer to a variable which is a number. This happened both when I gave Jev the current program as a string and when I gave Jev the program as structured data.

Maybe I'm just not doing a very good job at prompting Jev, but I think right now it's not quite capable enough to generate Lisp code.

Link: https://console.typesafe.ai/playground?share=shr_148e1248984...

nelaggy 11 hours ago||
insane doom demo i wonder what the limits of its intelligence are? i'm guessing it's not great at reasoning tasks, it seems breaking down the problem helps significantly, but how much does a problem need to be broken down for reliable performance? also this would be huge if it could run locally but it seems like there's no intention to do that at the moment
jrickert 20 hours ago||
Signed up for the beta! :) would love to put this through some real-world shootouts against traditional LLMs to see where this type of model really excels.

I’m guessing it might be able to replace maybe 40-70% of LLM calls for a given pipeline depending on the business task, cutting the API costs on those calls by an order of magnitude.

theredsix 18 hours ago||
Congrats on the launch! What's different between Jev and Microsoft's Guidance package? https://github.com/guidance-ai/guidance Is it a diffusion generator under the hood?
2001zhaozhao 17 hours ago||
Funny how the authors are asserting that "doing the right task > data > compute > algorithms" while simultaneously releasing AI model for calibrated decision making, which if they work, would mean that "compute > doing the right task"
sim04ful 19 hours ago||
This sort of stuff almost sends shivers down my spine, it's like i'm looking 5 years into the future.
zenlikethat 17 hours ago||
join the discord! we love forward thinkers
darpa_hr 19 hours ago||
There was no "AI Winter"
adroitboss 19 hours ago||
I am positive I know exactly how this works, I made something similar a few months back. But the problem is without generation you are extremely limited in the use cases. And while the model can't hallucinate, it can still be wrong. It just can't make up data.
cooljoseph 13 hours ago||
Last year I also had a rather similar idea, but dropped it before I went very far in working on it. I wonder if you and I had similar ideas?

1. Start with an LLM, so that your model understands natural language.

2. Replace RoPE with a tree embedding scheme, and causal attention with a sparse attention on the graph structure. (You could use full attention... but it's cheaper to use graph attention.)

3. Chop off the final unembedding layer, replacing it with a projection down to two scalars, one for logits and one for confidence.

4. Each option of a choice is represented by a number of tokens in leaf position; average these tokens' logit outputs to get the option's logit. Average all of the confidences from all of the options to get the choice's confidence.

5. Train the logits by KL divergence from a true distribution (or NLL on samples from a true distribution).

6. Train the confidences on a subset of the data in which you know the entire true distribution.

The hardest part is getting real world data for workflows, but I wildly speculate that you can get by with only ~50,000 documents if you first adapt domains using synthetic data.

StevenWaterman 8 hours ago|||
Yeah saying it can't hallucinate is crazy. It can still forward a billing query to the dev department incorrectly. It can still get an obvious yes/no question completely wrong
dennisy 19 hours ago|||
Are you able to share how it works in that case?
adroitboss 18 hours ago||
I'll tell you this. Output isn't too cheap to meter, there is no decoder.
krackers 18 hours ago||
So an encoder-only model with a classifier trained on the heads or something? DeepSeek recently switched to an encoder-decoder architecture in an attempt to get the best of both worlds (fast prefill while preserving generation capability), I wonder if that might be the future?
adroitboss 4 hours ago||
This is basically what they have. https://github.com/fastino-ai/GLiNER2
mokre 19 hours ago||
That was the first thing that come into my head. OK I can train very simple model, that can generate json's for specific tasks, so what? How we can be sure that this "limited use cases" not just overfitting for particular outputs (or even distillation?)

Except this, this thing looks like revolution.

scottyah 20 hours ago||
Wild that it doesn't generate text. I wonder how its technology compares to Tesla's FSD stack.
jceg 19 hours ago|
> We deliberately chose not to publish performance against public benchmarks. In fact, we plan to only have one-off evals when we make product updates.

lol, I bet they would publish them if their score on those benchmarks were good.

More comments...