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"
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"