‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

OpenJev

722 points · 296 comments · ilreb

  1. wuhhh · · focus · HN ↗
    I don't understand how this is different from oai "structured output" (and whatever the similar paradigm was on Sonnet ~3.7 back then) which everyone moved on from. On their gh they say:

    "Jev is TypeSafe's closed service for runtime-defined semantic decisions. This project reproduces that interface pattern with open models; it does not reproduce Jev's undisclosed model or training"

    As someone else pointed out it isn't actually Jev... can someone enlighten me

    1. orbital-decay · · focus · HN ↗
      It's a non-instruction-tuned classifier model trained on a confidence-aware RL variety that generates its own schema and follows it, with a confidence score output. Think BERT on crack, smart enough to be used as a decision maker (conceptually). They call it "not an LLM" because it's non-generative but of course it's a language model in the same way all non-instruction-tuned classifiers are.
      1. ozgung · · focus · HN ↗
        Isn't that the same transformer at the end of the day? It must be faster only because it generates a single token output, just one evaluation of the model. It takes the same input context and has the same O(n^2) attention blocks. It probably takes options as appended to the input and returns a probability over them instead of the whole dictionary. It's post-trained to do that specific job. If so what's the big deal?
        1. orbital-decay · · focus · HN ↗
          They say it's "parallelized". Whatever that means in reality, their demos are pretty good, their prices are extremely low compared to alternatives, and it responds in ~100ms which is pretty fast for what they do. Whether it holds for longer inputs, edge cases, etc. remains to be seen, but I can imagine the use cases for that, for example you can use it directly in the sampling layer of a normal generative model, or just as a generic decision maker/controller. They can (and will, in their words) do this for images too. I don't know if it's a big deal, but it's kind of a fresh perspective.
          1. Topfi · · focus · HN ↗
            Unless I misunderstood what they wrote, I read parallelized in the diffusion sense, akin to GemmaDiffusion and Inception Labs models. Incidentally, Mercury 2.5 is truly groundbreaking, giving it a try is highly recommended.
            1. mohsen1 · · focus · HN ↗
              yup <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;vllm-project&#x2F;vllm&#x2F;pull&#x2F;57250" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;vllm-project&#x2F;vllm&#x2F;pull&#x2F;57250
      2. mtkd · · focus · HN ↗
        I was a bit skeptical when read the initial pr on it, yesterday ran a test involving ~250M tokens, something we measure went from ~60% to &gt;80% success (with almost no tuning) and at less than 50% cost the low-end LLM was running at, looking at it more seriously now ... the servers are US-only currently I understand and ZDR is by request
        1. seizethecheese · · focus · HN ↗
          Hmm is there a market for provisioning a similar system with ZDR being easy?
      3. 3abiton · · focus · HN ↗
        This is a great evolution in the right direction compared to LLM + pydantic and temperature 0.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.