Recent submissions

Comment · 1 year ago
> Voxtral outperforms Whisper

Can I stop you right here? Whisper is a few years old and it wasn't the best model for a long time. There are like 10 models that are smaller and faster and outperform both of them.

And these models existed before Voxtral.

Comment · 1 year ago
Comment · 1 year ago
Do you know if OpenAI used the same grading criteria as official judges?
Comment · 1 year ago
isn't he an IOI medalist? and even if he was an IMO medalist, isn't there a bit of a conflict of interests?
Comment · 1 year ago
Do I understand it correctly that OpenAI self-proclaimed that they got their gold, without the official IMO judges grading their solutions?
Comment · 1 year ago
There are larger models in there, a 8B and a 6B. By this logic they should be above 2B model, yet we don't see this. That's why we have open standard benchmarks, to measure this directly - not hypothesize by the models' sizes or do some cross-dataset arithmetics.

Also note that, Voxtral's capacity is not necessarily all devoted to speech, since it "Retains the text understanding capabilities of its language model backbone"

Comment · 1 year ago
Comment · 1 year ago
I assure you, before the LLM race, those research shops (DM, FAIR) had many directors that didn't contribute to any product whatsoever.
Comment · 1 year ago
Yet your Google Research colleagues still earned way more than in academia, even without the promo.

Plus, there were quite a few places where a good publication stream did earn a promotion, without any company/business impact. FAIR, Google Brain, DM. Just not Google Research.

DeepMind didn't have any product impact for God knows how many years, but I bet they did have promos happening:)

Comment · 2 years ago
Those are likely for Cloud, used by clients.
Comment · 2 years ago
FAIR is considerably downscaled from what it was before, in eg 2022.
Comment · 3 years ago
I think all FAIR researchers and engineers are aware of the NC-CA license limitations.

They still use it because releasing the code for an already approved paper under NC-CA is super easy (~ self-approving by clicking a few buttons) vs following a slow open-sourcing process needed for the MIT license (includes approvals from a sponsoring director or two, committing to support the code for at least a year, etc). Releasing under MIT can easily take a few weeks with each stage requiring finding someone responsible and chasing them across time-zones.

The best practice seems to release under NC-CA and re-license it later under MIT. Maybe this will happen here, too.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton