← Back to context

Comment by BoorishBears

4 hours ago

No, all they had to do was come up with a quality post-training recipe, production inference stack that wouldn't fall over, GTM, documentation, schemas, etc. etc.

(also most signs point to this being LLaDA 2.0-adjacent so throw in solving some substantial mid-training)

I think it's 100% a hot take to call what they built trivial. Or at least it used to be.

There was a time when that kind of stuff was something between sour grapes and cluelessness about the gap between an idea and an actual commercial product deployed at scale, but now that's just weirdly normalized.

In fact, if anything I'm the weirdo for repeatedly taking issue with the way people are trivializing it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Someone else posted the jevbench site which compares jev to a bunch of other models. If you look only at the accuracy dimension:

https://benchmarkheaven.com/jev-models?w=100-0-0-0#jevc-weig...

Jev actually isn’t anywhere near the top. It even loses to open weight clones. This tells me that whatever their “calibration” dataset is, it doesn’t seem to be anything special.

  • ... why didn't you link to the actual benchmark which does have Jev at the top?

    https://benchmarkheaven.com/jev-models

    You linked to some weird subtable that labeled: " Not the default — not the JevBench Score", that can only be reached after you see what I just linked... lmao are you really this hard up about things?

    Also every single question (even in the hard set) is single dimensional?: https://github.com/fstandhartinger/jevbench/blob/main/datase...

    Jeeze, this is getting sad. I guess after all the mass-psychoses where people thought pointless things are going to change the world, we were due for a mass-psychosis where something interesting just has to be pointless?

    • Because I was specifically responding to your claim that Jev’s training recipe would give it better accuracy than others. It doesn’t have better accuracy than others. You could do as well or better by distilling qwen for example.

      Jev is ranked higher than others on the overall benchmark due to speed and/or cost, not accuracy.

Architecturally, it is trivial. That's something the community would have consensus on, so not a hot take.

I see your point, but Jev doesn't exist in a vacuum. When one (like me) says "trivial", they mean it relative to other attempts and developments in the field, all of which require everything you've mentioned at minimum. Commercialising any product, and doing it well, is hard. But the R&D factor here is substantially more straightforward than almost any other product in its category, because there is no architectural breakthrough here.

  • "all of which require everything you've mentioned at minimum"

    Sorry who else did everything I mentioned? I think the guy behind Laya tried after noticing Jev's traction... but the site's auth went down and has stayed down for a day now.

    "substantially more straightforward than almost any other product in its category"

    More straightforward than the spite projects based on constrained decoding? Or Laya with it's couple of days post-training ModernBERT?

    -

    I have no doubt other teams can build models like this and I've love for a frontier lab to give us an even smarter model with these ergonomics... but in the rush to show Jev what's up, we're mostly getting slop.

    PS: I don't know anyone who's done anything of note who uses trivial like that. The commentariat do, and the "I could have done that" crowd do, but I don't pay much attention to them until they actually do the thing.