Top
Best
New

Posted by syllogism 6 hours ago

The 'Astra can read and write weights to improve Qwen' post is misleading(honnibal.dev)
710 points | 163 commentspage 3
827a 4 hours ago|
I was blown away even by #1, and I don't feel after reading this that I was misled.
giancarlostoro 4 hours ago|
Agree, it makes sense, a lot of people are catching on to LLMs for reverse engineering finally, but its been possible. LLMs can and will eventually flawlessly dissect models. I experiment with Claude, I ask it tasks I know are possible, but have no idea the solution, it can reverse engineer obfuscated projects faster than most talented people I know in that field (talking about games now not AI). I heard a developer say their latest release would take at least a month to figure out the obfuscation and encryption, Opus 5 did it in like... 15 minutes of talking to me (I did throw it the right questions / suggestions). I do that all in the name of seeing just exactly what is possible.

Claude has been able to do reverse engineering for nearly a year if not longer, as well as full source code rewrites, if you know how to do a proper rewrite, luckily for me, most of my career has been rewrites.

antoineMoPa 4 hours ago||
I don't get it. Because python was used, it's supposed to not be cool? IMHO, working with raw weights with Python is still working with raw weights.
syllogism 4 hours ago||
If I told you, "I can write a Python program to repeatedly run a machine learning model and calculate statistics over the weights and activations to find and fix a specific problem", would you be surprised by that? Because this is very much a part of what ML engineers do.

And then the experiment where it writes out the weights, in that one it's also writing a Python program to solve the problem --- which, again, is a program a person could write.

It's not nothing that Astra was able to perform these coding tasks, but they're still just coding tasks. They have nothing much to do with the experiment where it reads in the raw weights. In that experiment, the relationship between the input weights and the input is mostly linear, so it's a lot like doing image recognition. It's a cool result but it couldn't work the same way when you have complex transformations happening.

antoineMoPa 4 hours ago||
> Because this is very much a part of what ML engineers do.

Do you realize most people aren't ML engineers?

I even built tiny neural nets myself and never played with the weights directly post-training. The original post was eye-opening for that reason. I knew it was possible to visualize weights, but as far as I understood, it was not really something I could edit with any success. Now, it seems possible without a phd just by asking another LLM. This is fun!

akkad33 3 hours ago||
I think you misunderstand. Yet the model is doing something impressive still by writing code to fix model weights on problems. But that's a whole different ballgame than just reading weights and knowing what to change. That would mean that they have an internal representation of how the model weights map to information or a specific task, which if true, throws all the interpretability research out of the window
antoineMoPa 3 hours ago||
To me, the original article is more about what LLMs can *do* in weight space, I don't really see the part where it would tie to an internal representation.
tiborsaas 4 hours ago||
It's exactly what the post says. I was waiting for my excitement to drop for the original research, but I concluded that I was mislead more than this "coverage" than the weight editing research, which was in opinion quite easy to grasp.
eugenekolo 3 hours ago||
Just like Graduate Students are good at Gradient Descent, they can see patterns and fine tune parameters 100000 times until the result looks good. So too can LLMs with their ability to examine patterns and brute force things.
rfgplk 3 hours ago|
Except LLMs already exhibit superhuman intelligence.
Brian_K_White 3 hours ago||
They exhibit superhuman toil.
eugenekolo 3 hours ago|||
That's a good way to look at it
mrkstu 2 hours ago||||
Grit for the win, yet again.
youareundersell 3 hours ago|||
There is a difference?
Brian_K_White 2 hours ago||
I've done my part. Do what you will from there.
wg0 4 hours ago||
Misleading how exactly when the original post states _exactly_ the same things as outlined in this objection?
Gseries00 2 hours ago||
I completely agree with you Matthew, but I see the thing go in right direction in research as well, I am working in the same field where I am building an agent where it will improve the base model too !
josh-wrale 5 hours ago||
Either way, a lot of devs will be brute forcing explorations in this direction today.
Aboutplants 4 hours ago||
Agreed. Not sure it leads to anything truly groundbreaking, but more than likely will lead to very fascinating implementations that lead to even more interesting results 6-8 months from now. Think openclaw -> how people utilize now versus when it was first announced
moffers 4 hours ago||
That’s what I’m excited for: the raft of posts over the next few days as the inspired set to work
godockly 3 hours ago||
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMi1jb3B5_e9515277-145d-4447-9...
himata4113 4 hours ago||
It doesn't really matter how accurate the post is, what it shows is what one could assume how you'd end up with a system such as RSI, how you could prune harmful capabilities from models and build a more efficient training system with biases including and not limited to emergent behavior in astra that might have come from something they've never even trained the model on regarless if ML engineers can already do similar things.

None of the previous studies applies because Astra simply did not exist and this is worthwhile NEW knowledge that has been publicized and it is very interesting to see how it can be compared with other models as both openai and anthropic are keeping any and all RSI development completely private. The work is groundbreaking in a way that there will be a lot more experiments of this nature which will contribute to increasing the public knowledge of SOTA systems that was not normally discussed in model releases.

One could say is that we could now build a new benchmark which tests how many parameters a model can understand without any tooling other than eval or how complex of a system can be improved.

duplessitous 4 hours ago||
If it isn't accurate, it isn't showing anything. The Qwen math claim is entirely false in its presentation, it unblocked an existing capability. It did not instill a new one which is what an RSI loop would actually have to do

"[...] how you could prune harmful capabilities from models [...]"

We already do this, abliteration is the term that describes the pruning of capabilities or safeguards for models

"[...] not limited to emergent behavior in astra that might have come from something they've never even trained the model [...]"

If I was attempting to build RSI, I would have these exact types of problems in my RL datasets. There is no proof this is emergent behavior.

skew-aberration 4 hours ago|||
How do you prune out the 'fails to prune out behaviors' behavior? If my model is failing to prune it out, can another model prune out that behavior?
himata4113 4 hours ago||
With normal training you're simply training for higher loss for things you don't want while keeping the loss low for things you do. Same would apply here except you would target low eval for behavior you do not want the model to have rather than trying to increase eval.
giancarlostoro 4 hours ago|||
> how you could prune harmful capabilities from models and build a more efficient training system

In theory, if OpenAI or Anthropic wanted to release a new open weight model, they could scrutinize it to remove the most horrendous things from the model.

jackb4040 3 hours ago||
What it shows are two unrelated results mixed together for no apparent reason besides marketing. The raw-weight results are impressive, but haven't been demonstrated as ready to scale up to a real language model. The Qwen result is a mildly interesting application of functionality that's been on the market for years.

If you think that the definition of "RSI" includes systems with a coding agent in the critical path, something humans can already do albeit faster, then your definition includes all of human history. If your definition includes AI systems that learn in a similar way to biological intelligence, then only the raw-weight results from this paper are pertinent. Those results are indeed interesting! This article is merely disentangling them from the frontier-lab-fueled hype that overran yesterday's thread.

rvz 54 minutes ago||
This goes to show that AI psychosis on HN is real, especially when many AI researchers have repeatedly dismissed this paper as highly misleading.
xg15 5 hours ago|
I think it's interesting how even inside tech, so many people seem to view neural network weights as "black magic" utterly beyond human comprehension. I guess that contributes to the sense of mystery around LLMs...

(And also the sharp difference in levels of sophistication you see inside neural nets and outside of it: Pipelines that feed text to LLMs so it can detect highly abstract and nuanced semantic differences in the text's contents - but the pipeline still uses regexes for sentence splitting...)

ex-aws-dude 1 hour ago|
My main takeaway is that HN had no idea the field of interpretability existed until now

I don't know why because Anthropic has had a lot of blog posts about internal work on it

More comments...