Or are companies/people already building this based on say an arXiv docs? n
---
The pricing is ... hm more expensive but not at the point I won't give it a try due to the embeded vision encoding
Latency won't be that good, but could still work similarly. Simply force the structured output of a LLM to the given schema.
Probably also easy to train because we can use stronget LLMs to generate input/output data, or even synthetic data is easy to generate.
It's not really a new technology, it's more like a new use-case.
Perhaps that may be too costly atm
And it's only been a few weeks.
The weights have permissive licensing, but the data and training pipeline are not published to reproduce them from their proprietary Qwen starting points. Weights are not "source."
<sad trombone sound>
I've been playing with this for the last year or so. Started with a personal email classifier, also did benchmarks with some public datasets, then created a couple classifiers that could play Doom, and now I've been trying out some other experiments, like a request proxy/router to automatically choose a classifier and fallback to LLM to handle unseen requests
Jev did a great job at creating hype, but also at shaping the concept and space of "decision engine" or "decision model". People were already doing this with LLMs, which is very inefficient for most tasks like that, and the Jev guys figured there was a market there. It seems like they were right, and now there's a rush to flood the space, taking advantage of the hype window
warkdarrior•56m ago
kerenskiy•52m ago
didibus•50m ago
petercooper•48m ago
There are a few technical details that can reduce the latency significantly (covered in the post) but the real insight has been from watching the reaction to Jev and seeing that there's enough of a market interest to offer it as a distinct thing. The underlying concept/approach was already there.
theapadayo•13m ago
The fascinating part to me is that Jev seems like this technique plus post-training to get multiple independent confidence values for each possible answer.
segmondy•42m ago
woah•38m ago
ford•34m ago
zitterbewegung•36m ago
ramoz•26m ago
Anyone can copy that and apply to an array of models - stripped down LLMs or already slim/highly performant traditional classification architectures (just wrap inference with an api that inputs/outputs the same structured data).
Jev, I think, would say their advantage is the intelligence of their models and training data including calibration: https://medium.com/code-applied/calibrated-classifiers-makin... (which i still struggle with in the general application... there's no free lunch with these things).
233mhz•26m ago
If you have a very narrow use case you can train a BERT based decision model on a laptop an hour if you have good data to train it on. It'll answer faster than the roundtrip to clef/jev and use <1gb memory
porridgeraisin•24m ago
Getting training data that works well for calibrated classification objectives is difficult.
I hear conflicting opinions (including my own) about how well calibrated each of these are. Jev seems to be the best.
But the jev release made obvious the PMF for these models, and the underlying reality is that calibration really doesn't matter much when you're replacing usecases where people were using damn LM head softmax probabilities before, which are nowhere near calibrated.
So now everyone simply finetunes qwen and makes a compared-to-regular-LLM vastly cheaper decision model. And it works for majority of usecases. People mostly only care about accuracy, not confidence.
pizzafeelsright•22m ago
Many people seem to have run into the same question and started working out the answer.
giancarlostoro•22m ago
It seems insanely obvious at least to me, that JEV is the new hot thing for the AI field since they give you stronger output that isn't... flat out wrong, that alone is impressive.