Od kod v resnici izvira matematični napredek GPT-6 Astra pri Qwenu
Izvirni naslov vira: GPT-6 Astra je brez učenja dosegel, da je Qwen pri matematiki 6x boljši
Rezultat na MATH-500 naj bi zrasel s 7,9 % na 48,1 %, večinoma zato, ker se je model nehal vrteti v zankah, ne zato, ker bi znal več matematike.
Video1 vir
- Potrjeno pri drugem viru: 5
- Le tu: 14
Kaj pravi
- Pri programiranju v prostoru uteži napreden jezikovni model na podlagi cilja v naravnem jeziku in spremljevalnega konteksta neposredno bere ali zapisuje uteži nevronske mreže. GPT-6 Astra je iz serializiranih uteži majhnih mrež prepoznal igre in iz mrež z ničelnimi utežmi sestavil mreže za igranje iger. Njegova strategija za Breakout je v utežeh vsebovala program za napovedovanje mesta pristanka žogice in premikanje loparja ter presegla izhodiščni model, naučen s spodbujevalnim učenjem, čeprav dostop do izvorne kode igre otežuje primerjavo. Pri modelu Qwen3.5-0.8B je Astra primerjal uspešno sklepanje s ponavljajočimi se poteki sklepanja, prepoznal notranjo smer, povezano z zankami, in jo odstranil iz dveh plasti. Točnost na MATH-500 se je povečala s 7.9% na 48.1%, predvsem zato, ker je bilo dokončanih več odgovorov. Vendar je vrednotenje potekalo v načinu razmišljanja kljub opozorilu Qwen o zankah in pri nižji temperaturi od priporočene. Čeprav pri spreminjanju niso uporabljali gradientov, so večkrat uporabili povratne informacije iz ocenjevanja, zanesljivost delovanja v različnih pogojih pa ostaja negotova. Omejene izboljšave pri majhnem modelu Gemma dodatno poudarjajo razliko med sprostitvijo obstoječih sposobnosti in dodajanjem spretnosti. Pri praktičnem vrednotenju je treba najprej prešteti nedokončane odgovore in pregledati nastavitve generiranja.
- Astra je pravilno prepoznal vse štiri igre, predstavljene z majhnimi naučenimi mrežami enake oblike, potem ko je njihove uteži prejel kot besedilo, brez orodij ali seznama možnih iger. u13–15 · Pozivi so pojasnili tudi, kaj predstavlja vsak vhod mreže.
1 vir
- Za tri majhne igre v slogu Atari je Astra dobil pravila, izvorno kodo igre in mrežo, v kateri so bile vse uteži na začetku nastavljene na nič, nato pa je moral brez učenja ali orodij v enem odgovoru podati vse uteži. u16–18 ·
- Mreža za Breakout, ki jo je sestavil Astra, je dosegla povprečni rezultat 517.4 v primerjavi s 25.3 pri izhodiščnem modelu PPO po 500 milijonih korakov učenja, kar je približno dvajsetkratna razlika. u22 · Številke so prikazane na zaslonu; Astra je imel izvorno kodo igre, izhodiščni model s spodbujevalnim učenjem pa se je učil iz povratnih informacij o rezultatu.
- Pri več kot 1,000 vadbenih nalogah je skoraj vsak odgovor modela Qwen, ki ga je poseg rešil, pred tem dosegel omejitev dolžine izhoda; prvotni model je bil že prej pravilen skoraj vsakič, ko je odgovor dokončal. u33–34 · Trditev ločuje dokončanje odgovora od izboljšanja pravilnosti odgovorov, ki se že sicer dokončajo.
- V prikazanih rezultatih za Qwen3.5-0.8B je poseg s 50 prehodi naprej zvišal točnost na MATH-500 s 7.9% na 48.1% in zmanjšal delež primerov, ki so dosegli omejitev števila žetonov, s 93.0% na 33.1%. u34 · Ista tabela kaže manjše izboljšave pri posegih z 10 ali 25 prehodi naprej.
1 vir
- Kartica modela Qwen za Qwen3.5-0.8B kot privzeti način določa način brez razmišljanja in opozarja, da je način razmišljanja bolj nagnjen k zankam kot pri drugih modelih Qwen3.5. u36–38 · V prepisu je ime Qwen zapisano nedosledno; prikazana kartica modela navaja Qwen3.5-0.8B.
- Spremembe uteži so komaj kaj spremenile matematični rezultat majhnega modela Gemma, pri katerem so se prav tako pojavljale številne zanke. u45 · Ker je bil Gemma drug model, pripovedovalec opozarja, da primerjava ni povsem ustrezna.
- Preden spreminjate majhen model za sklepanje s slabimi rezultati, preštejte, koliko odgovorov ne pride do končnega odgovora, in razmislite o prilagoditvi načina razmišljanja, temperature ali omejitve dolžine generiranega izhoda. u49–50 · Priporočilo je namenjeno ugotavljanju vzrokov za slabe rezultate pri majhnih modelih za sklepanje.
- Ne pričakujte, da bo spreminjanje uteži šibkejši model naredilo pametnejši zgolj zato, ker lahko poseg odstrani vedenjsko oviro; prikazani poseg v Qwen ni dodal nove spretnosti. u52 ·
1 vir
- Mrežo za Breakout, ki jo je sestavil Astra, je najbolje razumeti kot prevod znanega programa v uteži: ena plast napove mesto pristanka žogice, druga pa premakne lopar proti njemu. u19–21 · Razlaga s prevajanjem programa v uteži pojasnjuje, kako lahko Astra sestavi namensko vedenje brez spodbujevalnega učenja.
- Postopek, s katerim je Astra spreminjal Qwen, je uporabljal iskanje na podlagi povratnih informacij, čeprav ni uporabljal gradientov: Astra je predlagal spremembe, jih ocenil na vadbenih nalogah in obdržal uspešne. u39–42 · Odsotnost učenja na podlagi gradientov ne pomeni odsotnosti povratnih informacij iz vrednotenja.
- Pri programiranju v prostoru uteži napreden jezikovni model dobi cilj v naravnem jeziku in spremljevalni kontekst, da lahko brez učenja neposredno bere in spreminja uteži nevronske mreže. u10 ·
1 vir
- Poseben prispevek posega modela Astra v Qwen je bil v tem, da je samostojno ugotovil, kje uporabiti znano tehniko interpretabilnosti, ne pa v izumu te tehnike. u29 ·
- Večina šestkratnega izboljšanja matematičnega rezultata modela Qwen je izhajala iz preprečevanja ponavljajočega se sklepanja, tako da je Qwen lahko dokončal odgovore na naloge, ki jih je že znal rešiti. u35 ·
1 vir
- Sposobnost naprednih modelov, da berejo in zapisujejo uteži majhnih mrež ter prepoznavajo funkcije njihovih sestavnih delov, kaže, da je programiranje v prostoru uteži obetavna smer raziskovanja interpretabilnosti. u52–53 ·
- Odmevno izboljšanje modela Qwen je bilo izmerjeno tako, da so vsi preizkusi potekali v načinu razmišljanja in pri nižji temperaturi, kot jo priporoča Qwen, čeprav sta obe izbiri pomembni za pojavljanje zank. u38 · Nastavitve vrednotenja odpirajo vprašanje, ali je bilo prvotno izhodišče za Qwen pošteno.
- Zanesljivost najuspešnejšega posega modela Astra ostaja negotova, saj so drugi poskusi prinesli manjše izboljšave ali nobene spremembe, pripovedovalec pa meni, da je bil vsak poskus izveden le enkrat. u42–43 · Pripovedovalec priporoča ponovitev poskusov; trditev o eni sami izvedbi je izrecno podana kot domneva.
- Neposredno spreminjanje uteži lahko sprosti sposobnosti, ki jih zavira patološko vedenje, vendar šestkratno izboljšanje matematičnega rezultata modela Qwen predvsem kaže na zatiranje zank, ne na ustvarjanje novih matematičnih spretnosti. Kaj je GPT-6 Astra dejansko spremenil v modelu Qwen, da je dosegel šestkratno izboljšanje matematičnega rezultata, in kaj ta rezultat sploh dokazuje o programiranju v prostoru uteži?
Kako utemeljuje
- thesis Weight editing unlocked existing math ability by suppressing loops What did GPT-6 Astra actually change inside Qwen to produce a sixfold math-score improvement, and how much does that result establish about weight-space programming?
- theme Weights can be read and programmed Small-network experiments demonstrate direct weight manipulation and suggest a promising direction for interpretability research.
- theme Qwen improved by finishing existing solutions The sixfold score increase primarily reflects suppression of repetitive reasoning rather than acquisition of mathematical skills.
- theme Editing claims require calibration and replication Feedback-driven search, loop-sensitive evaluation settings and uneven results limit what the intervention establishes.
Vir, odlomek za odlomkom
Prepis, preveden z umetno inteligenco iz angleščine.
- u1 GPT-6 Astra je uredil Qwenove utežiGPT-6 Astra edited Qwen's weights
- u2 To je res noro. GPT-6 Astra je torej pravkar posegel v uteži drugega modela umetne inteligence, neposredno spremenil njihov droben del in majhen model Quen brez kakršnegakoli učenja naredil šestkrat boljši pri matematiki. To trdi nov članek z MIT, zamisel pa imenujejo programiranje v prostoru uteži.This is actually crazy. So, GPT-6 Astra just went into the weights of another AI model, changed a tiny fraction of them directly, and made a small Quen model six times better at math without any training. This is what a new paper from MIT's claiming, and they call the idea weight space programming.
0:00 · Weight-Space Programming: neural network and weights matrix · A dark video slide titled "Weight-Space Programming" shows a fully connected neural network with four layers (5, 7, 7 and 4 nodes). Beside it is a 4×4 table of small decimal "weights" and a yellow circle with a question mark, suggesting the question of what the weights represent or compute. - u3 Če pa članek preberete, je precej zanimivejši, kot nakazuje naslov. Isti model je namreč iz nič napisal tudi mrežo za igranje iger. In v Quenovi lastni kartici modela je vrstica, ki pove, od kod izvira večina tega izboljšanja. Zdaj imamo torej najnaprednejše modele, ki lahko neposredno spreminjajo predhodno naučene modele.But, if you read the paper, it's a lot more interesting than the headline says. Because the same model also wrote a game-playing network from scratch. And there's one line in Quen's own model card that tells you where most of that gain is coming from. So, now we have frontier models able to modify pre-trained models directly.
0:33 · Weight-Space Programming: Qwen3.5-0.8B MATH-500 jump · A dark video slide titled "Weight-Space Programming" shows a Qwen3.5-0.8B model card with a blank highlighted section marked by a yellow question mark. On the right, the model's MATH-500 score rises from 7.9% to 48.1%, and an arrow links the 48.1% result to the unknown section. It poses the question of what in the model changed to produce the gain. - u4 V tem videu želim govoriti o tem pristopu in njegovem pomenu, pa tudi o resničnosti onkraj naslovov. Do konca videa boste natančno vedeli, kaj je Astra spremenil znotraj Quena, od kod prihaja izboljšanje in katera tri vprašanja bi postavil, preden bi zaupal takšnim trditvam.In this video, I want to talk about this approach and what it means, and also the reality beyond the headlines. By the end of the video, you will know exactly what Astra changed inside Quen, where the gain is coming from, and the three questions I would ask before trusting any claims like this.
- u5 Začnimo torej s tem, kajSo, let's start with what
- u6 Kaj so uteži nevronske mrežeWhat neural network weights are
- u7 so uteži. Vsaka nevronska mreža je dolg seznam števil, ki jim pravimo uteži, in vsak njen odgovor nastane tako, da vaš vhod obdela prek teh števil. Na začetku učenja so ta števila naključno inicializirana. Ko pa modelu med učenjem kažemo vse več podatkov, vsaka iteracija oziroma paket podatkov te uteži pravzaprav malenkost premakne v pravo smer in tako dobimo zmogljive modele.weights are. Now, every neural network is a long list of numbers called weights, and every answer it gives comes from passing your input through those numbers. Now, the thing is that at the start of training, these numbers are randomly initialized. But, as we show more and more data to the model during the training process, every iteration or batch of data essentially nudge these weights tiny bit in the right direction, and this gives you powerful models.
0:58 · Weight-Space Programming video agenda: what Astra changed in Qwen · A dark-themed video slide tagged "Weight-Space Programming" lists three takeaways under a flag icon and "by the end". On the right, a partly drawn diagram of purple circles (nodes) with one connecting line appears above a yellow box whose text is still being typed: "What are w". 1:06 · What neural network weights are, shown with a game · A dark video slide explains neural network weights. Game screens (Gameplay and Score 12, a Breakout-style game) feed into a layered network with four input nodes, two hidden layers of five, and three output nodes, ending in boxes with question marks labeled "answer". At left a table of numeric weights is shown, and at the bottom a row of "real weights" from W1 row 3. - u8 Te zmogljive velike jezikovne modele že uporabljamo, da za nas pišejo pozive,Now, we already use these powerful LLMs to write prompts,
- u9 Razlaga programiranja v prostoru utežiWeight-Space Programming explained
- u10 kodo. Ta članek se torej sprašuje, ali lahko najnaprednejši model, kot je GPT-6 Astra, tudi neposredno bere in zapisuje ta števila uteži. To mislijo s programiranjem v prostoru uteži. Velikemu jezikovnemu modelu podate cilj v običajni angleščini in kontekst, ki ga potrebuje, nato pa sam spremeni uteži brez kakršnegakoli učenja.code for us. So, this paper asks whether a frontier model like GPT-6 Astra can read and write those weight numbers directly as well. This is what they mean by weight space programming. Where you give the LLM a goal in plain English along with the context it needs, and it changes the weights itself without any training.
1:34 · LLM receiving a prompt, with a user and code file · A dark video frame titled "What weights are" shows a cartoon robot labeled LLM with a dashed arrow pointing to a "prompt" card. The prompt reads "You are an expert editor. Fix the tone. Keep it short." A person icon labeled "US" sits below, and a dimmed "code.py" window is at the right, suggesting the scene is building toward contrasting prompts with code or weights. 1:39 · Frontier model GPT-6 Astra and reading neural network weights · A dark video still in a hand-drawn style begins the sentence "What weights are" and shows a cartoon robot labeled "GPT-6 Astra" with an OpenAI-style logo. A cyan "frontier model" pill sits in the centre under a highlighted claim, "LLMs can natively read & write neural network weights", marked with a yellow question mark. Two document-like cards with squiggly lines sit at the right. - u11 To zveni nekako noro, a izkaže se, da so najnaprednejši modeli pri tem dejansko precej dobri. Dobro, začnimo z branjem, kajti če lahko model ugotovi, kaj mrežaAnd this kind of sounds insane, but turns out Frontier models are actually pretty good at this. Okay, so let's start with reading because if a model can tell what a network
- u12 Branje uteži: za katero igro je bila ta mreža naučena?Reading weights: which game was this network trained on?
- u13 počne, zgolj iz njenih števil, bi lahko preverili, ali ima skrite težave, ne da bi jo sploh zagnali. V prvem preizkusu so majhno mrežo naučili za štiri različne igre, vse s popolnoma enako obliko, nato pa vsako utež mreže prilepili v poziv kot navadno besedilo.does from its numbers alone, you could check it for hidden problems without ever running it. In the first test, they trained a small network on four different games, all with the exact same shape, and then pasted every weight of the network into the prompt as plain text.
2:09 · Reading weights: an observer inspecting a neural network's weight matrix · A dark-background video frame titled "Reading weights" shows an eye looking down through a triangle at a 6x5 grid of numeric weights. At right, a thought cloud with a small neural network and an arrow (output blank) comes from a robot labeled "GPT-6 Astra" with an OpenAI-style logo. A text bar below shows the policy's 17,253 weights serialized as text, starting with row 3 of W1. - u14 Nato so Astro brez orodij in brez seznama iger, med katerimi bi lahko izbiral, vprašali, za katero igro je bila naučena. Zanimivo je bilo, da je Astra pri prav vsaki mreži navedel pravo igro. Pri Breakoutu je opazil, da so bile uteži igralca, hm, najmočnejše vzdolž spodnje vrstice, hm, kjer bi bil loparček, utež za točkovanje pa je bila zgoščena pri vrhu, kjer bi bile opeke.Then they asked Astra which game it was trained on with no tools and no list of games to pick from. Now, the interesting thing was that Astra named the right game for every single network. For Breakout, it noticed that the player weights uh were strongest along the bottom row uh where a paddle would be, and a scoring weight was bunched near the top where the bricks would be.
2:45 · Reading weights: GPT-6 Astra playing Breakout, with weight grid · A dark-background video frame labeled "Reading weights" shows a Breakout game screen (green bricks, red ball, yellow paddle) tagged "Breakout 99%". At the bottom left is a smiling robot icon with an OpenAI-style logo, labeled "GPT-6 Astra". At right is a 10x10 grid of purple squares of varying brightness with a cyan bottom row, labeled "player" with the value 4.066. - u15 Pozivi so sicer Astri povedali, kaj predstavlja vsak vhod. Tako je vedel, kam pogledati. Vsaj pri teh majhnih mrežah torej branje deluje presenetljivo dobro. Večje vprašanje pa je, ali jih lahko tudi piše. Dobro, poglejmo zdaj pisanje, in tu postane precej divje.Now, the prompts did tell Astra what each input was. So, it knew where to look. So, at least on these small networks, reading works surprisingly well. But the bigger question is whether it can write them. Okay, now let's look at writing, and this is where it gets kind of wild.
- u16 Za tri majhne igre v slogu AtariSo, for three small Atari style
- u17 Pisanje mreže za Breakout iz ničelnih utežiWriting a Breakout network from zero weights
- u18 so Astri dali pravila, izvorno kodo igre in mrežo, v kateri je bila prav vsaka utež nič. Brez učenja in brez orodij je moral v enem odgovoru zapisati vsako število. Pri Breakoutu je mreža, ki jo je napisal, dosegla večkrat višji rezultat kot najboljša mreža, ki so jo naučili s spodbujevanim učenjem, pri katerem, hm, mreža igra igro oziroma in se uči iz lastnega rezultata.games, they gave Astra the rules, the game's source code, and a network where every single weight was zero. And with no training and no tools, it had to write every number in one reply. So, in Breakout, the network it wrote scored many times higher than the best network they trained with reinforcement learning, which is uh where a network plays the game or and learns from its own score.
3:16 · Writing policy network weights for small Atari-style games · A dark video slide labeled "Writing weights" shows three sketched game screens: Breakout, Seaquest and a third, cut off as "Asteri" (Asteroids). A caption names them "small Atari-style games", and a banner states the task: write, from scratch, the weights of a policy network. - u19 Način, kako so to naredili, je najpomembnejša zamisel v članku. Astra je napisal majhen program, v katerem prva plast napove, kje bo žogicaNow, the way they did it is the most important idea in the paper. Astra wrote a small program where the first layer predicts where the ball
- u20 Programi, prevedeni v utežiPrograms compiled into weights
- u21 pristala, druga plast pa tja premakne loparček. Nato je ta program pretvoril v števila. Programiranje v prostoru uteži si je torej dobro predstavljati tako, da Astra ali katerikoli najnaprednejši model napiše program, hm, ki ga že pozna, in ga nato prevede v uteži.will land, and the second layer moves the paddle there. And then it turned that program into numbers. So, a good mental model for weight and space programming is that Astra or any frontier model writes a program uh it already knows and then compiles it into weights.
3:52 · Neural network layer predicting ball landing in Breakout · A dark-themed video frame labeled "Writing weights" explains a key idea: a two-line program predicts where the ball lands and moves the paddle there. A small neural network with the hidden layer (layer 1) highlighted sits beside a Breakout-style game showing bricks, a paddle, and a ball with a dashed bounce trajectory. A caption says the first layer computes four landing-position errors and two direction indicators, with predictions including wall reflections. - u22 Mislim, da je branje izvorne kode velik del razloga za tako prepričljivo zmago. Mreža s spodbujevanim učenjem se je morala namreč pravil naučiti, hm, zgolj iz rezultata. Toda pri SeaQuestu je naučena mreža še vedno zmagala. Poznavanje pravil torej zelo pomaga, ne zagotavlja pa boljšega igralca.I think reading the source code is a big part of why it won by so much. Since the reinforcement learning network had to learn the rules uh from the score alone. But, in SeaQuest, the trained network still won. So, knowing the rules helps a lot but doesn't guarantee a better player.
4:24 · Astra writing game code versus PPO reinforcement learning on Breakout · A split slide compares Astra, which writes a program (game.py) and scores 517.4 on Breakout, with PPO reinforcement learning, which adjusts neural network weights from only a score signal. PPO reaches just 15.8 after 100M steps and 25.3 after 500M, so Astra is about 20x higher. The right side shows a neural network trained on 500M steps with "score only" feedback and no access to the rules. - u23 Vse te mreže so drobcene. Rezultat, ki se pojavlja v naslovih, pa zadeva dejanski pravi jezikovni model. Pogovorimo se torej o poskusu iz naslovov. Vzeli so majhen model za sklepanje coin z manj kot milijardo parametrov in Astri dali zvezek Python z njegovimi utežmi ter vadbenimiNow, every one of these networks is tiny. And the headline result is about the actual real language model. So, let's talk about the headline experiment. They took a small coin reasoning model with less than billion parameters and gave Astra a Python notebook with its weights plus practice
- u24 Matematični poskus z modelom Qwen3.5-0.8BThe Qwen3.5-0.8B math experiment
- u25 matematičnimi nalogami, na katerih je lahko pognal model in dobil rezultat. Ni pa ga smel učiti. Prva stvar, ki jo je Astra opazil, je bila, da coin večinoma nikoli ni dokončal svojih odgovorov. Začel je sklepati, nato pa vedno znova ponavljal istih nekaj vrstic, dokler ni dosegel omejitve količine besedila, ki ga je smel ustvariti.math problems it could run the model on to get a score. But, it was not allowed to train it. Now, the first thing Astra noticed is that most of the time coin never finished its answers. It would start reasoning then repeat the same few lines over and over until it hit the limit on how much text it was allowed to produce.
4:54 · The Qwen edit: Astra raises accuracy from 7.9% to 48.1% · A dark video slide shows a bar chart in which a base Qwen3.5-0.8B model scores 7.9% and the version edited by GPT-6 Astra scores 48.1%. The caption says Astra edits the weights in a Python kernel with no training. A notebook snippet and a stack of layers illustrate the 0.8B-parameter model's weights being modified directly. - u26 Model je bil torej v bistvu ujet v zanko sklepanja. Ta vzorec smo že videli pri majhnih jezikovnih modelih, hm, še posebej pri tistih z zmožnostjo sklepanja: lahko zaidejo v te dolge zanke sklepanja in v bistvu vse svoje žetone porabijo za razmišljanje.So, basically, the model was stuck in the reasoning loop. And we have seen this pattern with small language model uh especially with reasoning capabilities that they can go into these long reasoning loops and basically use all of their tokens in thinking.
- u27 Astra je zato primerjal notranje delovanje modela pri odgovorih, ki so še napredovali, in pri odgovorih, ki so se vrteli v zanki. Smer znotraj modela je ena določena kombinacija notranjih števil, ki se skupaj pojavljajo pri nekem vedenju. Astra pa je našel takšno, kiSo, Astra compared the model's internals on answers that kept making progress with answers that looped. Now, a direction inside the model is one specific mix of internal numbers that shows up together for one behavior. And Astra found that
- u28 Iskanje smeri zanke znotraj QwenaFinding the loop direction inside Qwen
- u29 se je pojavila tik pred tem, ko se je model začel ponavljati. Nato je uporabil zelo znan trik s področja razložljivosti, pri katerem to kombinacijo v bistvu odstranite iz dveh plasti, ki sta imeli največjo težo. Novost v članku je torej pravzaprav to, da je Astra sam ugotovil, kje uporabiti ta trik razložljivosti, hm.showed up right before the model repeated itself. Then, it used a very well-known interpretability trick where you basically remove that mix from the two layers that weighted the most. So, the thing that is new actually in the paper is that the Astra found where to apply this interpretability trick uh on its own.
5:49 · The Qwen edit: steering Qwen3.5-0.8B layers toward progress versus loops · A dark-background hand-drawn diagram shows a stack of model layers for Qwen3.5-0.8B in the center. A green "progress" text block ending in a checked "answer" points into the stack from the left. An orange "loops" block with a repeat arrow points in from the right. Below, a bar chart of "internal numbers" has yellow bars trending upward along an arrow labeled "one direction". - u30 Po tem popravku je, hm, model na matematičnem primerjalnem preizkusu dosegel šestkrat višji rezultat, precej pa so se izboljšali tudi njegovi drugi rezultati. To je torej novica, o kateri vsi poročajo, a pogovorimo se o resničnosti v ozadju, saj se, hm, če pregledate dnevnike, slika precej spremeni.So, after this edit, uh the model scored six times higher on the math benchmark, and its other scores went up a lot as well. So, that is the headline everybody's covering, but let's talk about the reality behind it because uh if you go through the logs, the picture changes quite a bit.
- u31 In tu morate biti zelo pozorni ne le na naslove, temveč na dejansko vsebino. Najprej sem pogledal,And this is where you need to pay a lot of attention to not only the headlines, but the actual substance. The first thing I looked at is
6:36 · Reality check: verifying an AI news headline against GitHub logs · A dark video slide labelled "Reality check". On the left, an "AI news" card shows a MATH-500 score rising from 7.9% to 48.1% (~6x) for Qwen3.5-0.8B. In the center is a GitHub folder list of experiment logs, with exp8_math circled and exp4_fix_car under a magnifying glass. On the right are three questions to ask of the claim. - u32 Preverjanje resničnosti: od kod šestkratno izboljšanjeReality check: where the 6x comes from
- u33 hm, katere odgovore je popravek popravil. Pri več kot 1.000 vadbenih nalogah je skoraj vsak odgovor, ki ga je rešil, prej dosegel tisto omejitev. Hm, govorimo o, hm, tem, da se model ujame v zanko in ne more dokončati dejanskega odgovora.uh which answers the edit fixed. So, for more than 1,000 practice problems, almost every answer it had rescue had hit that limit before. Uh we're talking about the um the model getting into the loop and not able to finish the actual answer.
- u34 Pri vprašanjih, pri katerih je prvotni model lahko dokončal odgovor, pa je imel že prej prav skoraj vsakič. Dejanski primerjalni preizkus torej kaže, hm, isto, saj je prvotni model omejitev dosegel pri skoraj vsaki nalogi, po popravku pa je ta delež padel na skoraj tretjino.And actually, for the questions where the original model was able to finish, it was already right almost every single time. So, the real benchmark shows uh the same thing because the original model hit the limit on almost every problem, and after the edit, that hitting the limit dropped to almost a third.
7:09 · Reality check: Qwen3.5-0.8B results after edited forward passes · A dark video slide shows a table comparing the base Qwen3.5-0.8B model with versions edited using 10, 25 and 50 forward passes on MATH-500, GSM8K, IFEval and the share of outputs hitting the token limit. Only the 50-pass edit gives a big gain: MATH-500 rises from 7.9% to 48.1%, and token-limit hits fall from 93.0% to 33.1%. The "Hit token limit" column is highlighted, with three side prompts ("what got fixed?", "fair baseline?", "does it hold up?") and an empty box and a practice grid below. - u35 Popravek je torej dejansko preprečil, da bi se model vrtel v zanki, hm, tako da je lahko končno dokončal odgovore na naloge, ki jih je že znal rešiti. Od tod izvira večina, hm, šestkratnega izboljšanja. In zato je ta določena vrstica iz, hm, Quinnove kartice modela ključna.So, what the edit did is to actually stop the model from looping, uh so it could finally finish answers it already knew how to solve. And that is where most of the uh six times improvement comes from. And this is where this one specific line from uh Quinn's model card is critical.
- u36 Quinn ta model privzeto poganja v načinu brez razmišljanja in opozarja, da se v načinu razmišljanja, hm, v katerem model najprej izpiše svoje sklepanje, pogosteje ujame v zanke kot drugi modeli Quinn 3.5. Razlog je v tem, daQuinn runs this model in non-thinking mode by default, and it warns that in thinking mode, uh where the model writes out its reasoning first, it is more prone to getting stuck in loops than the other Quinn 3.5 models. The reason is that
- u37 Na kaj opozarja Qwenova kartica modelaWhat Qwen's model card warns about
- u38 je to zelo majhen model. In, hm, v članku so vse preizkuse izvedli v načinu razmišljanja, torej prav v tistem, na katerega Quinn opozarja. Uporabili so tudi nižjo temperaturo, kot jo priporoča Quinn, to pa je, hm, nastavitev, ki določa, kako naključna je izbira besed. Ločena raziskava pa je ugotovila, da se modeli za sklepanje pri nižjih temperaturah pogosteje vrtijo v zankah.it's a very small model. And uh the paper ran every test in thinking mode, which is exactly what Quinn warns about this. It also used a lower temperature than Quinn recommends, which is uh a setting that controls how random the word choices are. And a separate research found that reasoning models loop more at lower temperatures.
7:54 · Reality check: Qwen3.5-0.8B thinking loops and baseline · A dark video slide quotes the Hugging Face model card for Qwen3.5-0.8B, which says the model is more prone to thinking loops in thinking mode than other Qwen3.5 models, and that looping is common at low temperature. A checklist at right shows step 1 done and step 2, "fair baseline?", highlighted, with a MATH-500 baseline of 7.9% marked with a question mark. - u39 Torej morate dejansko, hm, prebrati celoten članek, da razumete, kakšne natančno, hm, so izboljšave in od kod prihajajo ti rezultati iz naslovov. Še ena zanimivost pa je, da Astra modela pravzaprav ne uči, kajne? Ni gradientov, ki bi jih lahko uporabil kot povratne informacije, vendar to ne pomeni, da Astra sploh ne upošteva nobenih povratnih informacij.So, you actually need to uh, read through the entire paper to understand what exactly uh, the improvements are and where these headline results are coming from. Now, another interesting point is that Astra doesn't really train the model, right? There are no gradients that can be used as feedbacks, but that does not mean that Astra is not looking at any feedback whatsoever.
- u40 Dejansko so imeli nekaj vadbenih nalog, pri katerih je Astra lahko vedno znova delal popravke, in to je pravzaprav oblika povratnih informacij, ki jih prejema najnaprednejši model. Zato bi to opisal kot iskalni mehanizem,They actually had some practice problems where Astra was able to make edits again and again, and that is actually a form of feedback that goes into a frontier model. So, I would describe this as a search mechanism
- u41 Brez gradientov, a še vedno s povratnimi informacijamiNo gradients, but still feedback
- u42 pri katerem zelo pameten najnaprednejši model predlaga popravke, jih nato oceni in obdrži tisto, kar deluje. V tem članku je treba pogledati še nekaj stvari. Dejanske izboljšave torej izvirajo iz tistih zagonov, pri katerih je lahko končal, pri vseh drugih zagonih pa je dosegel manjše izboljšave ali pa sploh ni naredil popravka.where a very smart frontier model proposes edits, then scores them, and then keeps what works. Now, a few other things to look at in this paper. So, the actual improvements are coming from the runs that were when was able to finish, and for any other runs, it made smaller gains or no edit at all.
8:51 · Reality check: search loop with GPT-6 Astra · A dark-background video still showing a hand-drawn cycle of propose, edit, score and keep, labeled "search", beside a robot icon tagged "GPT-6 Astra" with "no gradients" and "feedback". On the right is a three-item checklist (what got fixed?, fair baseline?, does it hold up?). The first two are ticked and the third is highlighted. A small chart below shows practice accuracy against forward passes used. - u43 In mislim, da so poskuse izvedli tudi samo enkrat, zato bi bilo po mojem odlično to večkrat ponoviti in pogledati. Avtorji so to preizkusili tudiAnd I think they also ran the experiments only once, so I think it would be great to run this multiple times and see. Now, the authors also tried
- u44 En zagon je dosegel 48 %, vsakega pa so izvedli enkratOne run hit 48%, and each ran once
- u45 na majhnem modelu Gemma, ki se res vrti v zankah, popravki pa so njegov matematični rezultat komaj kaj premaknili. Gre za povsem drugačen model, hm, zato primerjava ni popolna, vendar pridejo do istega sklepa: urejanje besed bi lahko odstranilo oviro, ki je skrivala neko sposobnost, hm, ne bi pa moglo dodati manjkajoče.this on a small Gemma model that really loops, and the edits barely moved its math score. It's a completely different model, uh, so it's not a perfect comparison, but they draw the same conclusion that editing words could remove an obstacle that hid an ability, uh, but couldn't add a missing one.
- u46 In to je zelo pomembna razlika, ki si jo je treba zapomniti. Najnaprednejši model ne dodaja nobenih novih zmožnosti, temvečAnd that is very important distinction to keep in mind. The frontier model is not adding any new capabilities, it's
- u47 Gemma: odpravljanje ovir v primerjavi z dodajanjem spretnostiGemma: unblocking vs adding a skill
- u48 samo odklepa nekatere zmožnosti, ki jih model že ima, a jih določeno vedenje blokira. Poglejmo zdaj nekaj omejitev, saj jih je pomembno upoštevati, ko pregledujemo, hm, te raziskovalne članke.just unlocking some of the capabilities that the model already has, but because of some behavior they are blocked. Now, let's look at some limitations because it's important to keep them in mind when we are looking at uh, these research papers.
- u49 Iz tega članka bi izluščil dve praktični pravili. Prvo je, da bi ob slabem rezultatu majhnega modela za sklepanje močno priporočil, hm, da preštejemo, koliko njegovih odgovorov nikoli ne pride do končnega odgovora, preden dejansko karkoli spreminjamo. Če je večina prekinjena, imate težavo z zankami.And there are two practical rules I would take away from this paper. The first one is that when a small reasoning model scores badly, I would highly recommend um counting how many of its answers never reach the final answer before we actually change anything. If most of them are cut off, you have a looping problem.
- u50 Rešitev pa je morda v načinu delovanja, morda v temperaturi ali v višji omejitvi dolžine ustvarjenega izhoda.And the fix might be the mode, maybe the temperature, or a bigger output generation limit.
- u51 Dve pravili, preden zaupate skokuTwo rules before you trust a jump
- u52 Drugo pa je, da ne bi pričakoval, da bo urejanje uteži šibkejši model naredilo pametnejši, saj je v tem članku odstranilo obstoječo oviro, nikoli pa ni dodalo nove spretnosti. Kljub vsemu pa je še vedno precej impresivno, da ti najnaprednejši modeli lahko berejo in zapisujejo, hm, uteži majhnih mrež.Now, the second one is that I would not expect weight editing to make a weaker model smarter because in this paper it removed a blocker that was present, but never added a new skill. Now, all that being said, it's still pretty impressive that these frontier models are able to read and write uh the weights of small networks.
10:35 · Small model answers cut off by looping problem · A dark video slide titled "Two rules" highlights rule 1, "count cut-off answers". A grid of 96 answers from a small model shows only 11 finished (green) and 85 cut off (red) because of a looping problem at a 32,768 limit. The fix shown is a mode toggle, temperature 1.0 and a raised output limit of 81,920. - u53 Lahko opravljajo raziskovanje, kakršno izvajajo ekipe za razložljivost, in ugotovijo, kateri del mreže je odgovoren za kaj, kar je bistveno za razumevanje, kako te mreže dejansko delujejo. To je torej zelo zanimivo raziskovalno področje. Pripravljam tudi video, v katerem bom ta popravek preizkusil v svojem lokalnem, hm, okolju.They're able to do interpretability team exploration, figure out which part of the network is responsible for what, which is essential for understanding how these networks actually work. So, this is a very interesting area of research. I am also putting together a video on testing this edit on my own local uh setup.
- u54 Če si torej to želite, hm, se vsekakor naročite na kanal. Če pa želite izvedeti več o tem, kako se lahko sistemi umetne inteligenceSo, if you want that, uh make sure to subscribe to the channel. Now, if you want to learn more about how AI systems
- u55 Zakaj je to še vedno pomembnoWhy it still matters
- u56 izboljšujejo sami brez kakršnegakoli učenja, si oglejte ta video. Kakorkoli, upam, da se vam je ta video zdel koristen. Hvala za ogled in kot vedno, se vidimo v naslednjem.can improve themselves without any training, watch this video. Anyways, I hope you found this video useful. Thanks for watching, and as always, see you in the next one.
V okolici
Zametki programiranja v prostoru uteži: LLM-ji lahko neposredno berejo in zapisujejo uteži nevronskih mrež
Avtorji trdijo, da lahko najzmogljivejši LLM-ji na podlagi ciljev v naravnem jeziku neposredno berejo, popravljajo in zapisujejo uteži nevronskih mrež; ta pristop imenujejo programiranje v prostoru uteži. V osmih poskusih z modelom GPT-6 Astra model prepozna, za katere naloge so bile mreže naučene, popravi neuspešno krmilno strategijo, iz nič napiše mreže za igranje iger in izboljša matematične sposobnosti modela Qwen3.5-0.8B s spremembo 0.016% njegovih uteži. Avtorji to predstavljajo kot zgodnje rezultate z jasnimi omejitvami.
Prispevek1 vir
GPT-6 Astra
Jezikovni model, ki se uporablja za pregledovanje, gradnjo in urejanje drugih nevronskih mrež.
Tema2 viraŠe brez izvirne raziskave
Qwen3.5-0.8B
Majhen jezikovni model iz družine Qwen3.5.
Tema2 viraŠe brez izvirne raziskave
Ponavljajoče se sklepanje
Način odpovedi, pri katerem se model za sklepanje vedno znova vrača k istim mislim, ne da bi napredoval do končnega odgovora.
Tema3 viriNi potrjeno z dvema neodvisnima viroma
Weight-space programming
Programiranje v prostoru uteži neposredno bere ali gradi uteži nevronskih mrež za razlago ali izvedbo vedenja, namesto da bi se opiralo na običajno učenje.
Tema2 viraŠe brez izvirne raziskave
Directional ablation
Tehnika interpretabilnosti, ki iz predstavitev ali uteži nevronske mreže odstrani izbrano smer, da zatre njen prispevek k vedenju modela.
Tema2 viraNi potrjeno z dvema neodvisnima viroma
MATH-500
MATH-500 je primerjalni preizkus s 500 matematičnimi nalogami, ki se uporablja za vrednotenje uspešnosti reševanja matematičnih problemov.
Tema1 virEn sam vir
Zavračanje v jezikovnih modelih posreduje ena sama smer
Zavračanje škodljivih navodil v odprtokodnih klepetalnih modelih uravnava ena sama smer v rezidualnem toku. Odstranitev te smeri odpravi zavračanje, njeno dodajanje pa sproži zavračanje neškodljivih pozivov. Ista ugotovitev omogoča spremembo uteži ranga ena, ki deluje kot obhod varoval ob dostopu do notranjosti modela, in pojasnjuje, kako napadalne pripone zavirajo zavračanje.
Raziskava
Čakaj, čakaj, čakaj ... Zakaj se modeli za sklepanje ujamejo v zanke?
Modeli za sklepanje se v dolgih verigah razmišljanja ujamejo v ponavljanje besedila, najpogosteje pri požrešnem dekodiranju ob nizki temperaturi. Vir to v veliki meri pripisuje napakam pri učenju, ne le velikosti modela ali naključnosti pri dekodiranju. To podpre s preizkusi na odprtih modelih in z dvema mehanizmoma, prikazanima na sintetični nalogi z grafom: z izogibanjem tveganju zaradi težavnosti učenja in s časovno koreliranimi napakami.
Raziskava
- Destilacija znanja
- Gemma 3 270M
- Naraščanje gotovosti med zankami
- Odpor do tveganja zaradi težavnosti učenja
- Požrešno dekodiranje
- Prilizovanje
- Proximal policy optimization
- Temperatura (vzorčenje)
- adversarial suffix
- arxiv-1801.10198
- arxiv-1803.05457
- arxiv-1905.07830
- arxiv-1909.05858
- ortogonalizacija uteži
- smer zavračanja
- web-61d8f4540a88
- zavračanje pri velikih jezikovnih modelih
To besedilo je napisano z umetno inteligenco.
Objavljeno v: Zdaj