In a reward model I found you could turn off 90% the activations in the second half of the NN with no loss in performance.
Just need to keep the final N position activations and pass through the residual for all positions greater than N.
AI is not better than humans at mathematics (yet). It’s better at a subset of it. In the same sense AI is better at a subset of programming.
The fact that many of the solutions are similar like “we improved the bound to 0.9998” tell you this.
Speedrunners literally decompiled The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, which took two years, in order to better figure out how to manipulate game memory through bugs, which led to an arbitrary code execution technique and a sub 10 minute world record, two decades after release
GLM 5.2 achieved its gains by being more aggressive with RL. I can see this by looking at word overuse index on my prompts.
It resembles Gemma 4 in this regard which is another model that was aggressively RL’ed and this made it difficult to find tune for other tasks.
AI has improved my code quality not just speed.
Because I can quickly do refactors. And avoid taking shortcuts.
Just requires some care like doing one small commit at a time and keeping high standards.
The performance of an LLM as a judge is a function of compute just like many other AI task.
Thinking longer makes a better judge. Best of N. Larger models. Judging one example at a time rather than a batch.
I viewed my AI work as being a “scientist” which meant an emphasis on understanding. It’s going very poorly this year.
I think a better model is “esports”. Emphasis is on clicks per minute, volume of experiments, experiment strategy, psychology, racing to the goal.