It seems like the docs[0] are a better explanation? The comparison to llm tokens is kinda confusing.
It looks like the model takes as input a state (structured text? not sure if multi-modal) and a question (as a "Choice", "Score", or "Noul") with some additional augmentations possible. Then outputs the question's answers as appropriate (e.g. a choice, accompanying probabilities, confidence).
Edit: On the AI primer page, it looks like they do the RLCD on a pre-trained base model?
I do agree that the comparison to LLM tokens is hard to understand (also because output tokens are not comparable).
But yes, text or structured state (like a JSON with multiple pieces of text in) -> decisions out (e.g. choice maps to "match" statement, "score" maps to sorting, "noul" short for bernoulli maps to if-statements)
You really, really, really, really, REALLY REALLY REALLY should explain neologisms in your documentation! Really really! Having "here's a weird unexplained difficult-to-guess-impossible-to-Google-for term" in your documentation is aggressively user-hostile. Please don't.
The actual term is fine. Lack of an inline explanation is a blow-it move. Don't do that.
big_toast · · focus · HN ↗
It looks like the model takes as input a state (structured text? not sure if multi-modal) and a question (as a "Choice", "Score", or "Noul") with some additional augmentations possible. Then outputs the question's answers as appropriate (e.g. a choice, accompanying probabilities, confidence).
Edit: On the AI primer page, it looks like they do the RLCD on a pre-trained base model?
[0]:<a href="https://docs.typesafe.ai/concepts/system-one" rel="nofollow">https://docs.typesafe.ai/concepts/system-one
CompleteSkeptic · · focus · HN ↗
I do agree that the comparison to LLM tokens is hard to understand (also because output tokens are not comparable).
But yes, text or structured state (like a JSON with multiple pieces of text in) -> decisions out (e.g. choice maps to "match" statement, "score" maps to sorting, "noul" short for bernoulli maps to if-statements)
sedev · · focus · HN ↗
The actual term is fine. Lack of an inline explanation is a blow-it move. Don't do that.