the shared summaries sounds like a great idea to save most people's inference cost! There might be some details need to figure out - e.g. the summary per post need to be associated with a timestamp, if there are new comments kicking in after that (especially hot posts). Still i think it's good useful feature and i will definitely read that before browsing details.
from their Table-3 "the aha moment", can someone explain why the re-evaluation step worth to "aha"? It looks simply repeating the initial step in the exact same way?
My experience for Claude as therapist is - it's consistent better than human therapists i've met (well, maybe i haven't met a good human therapist yet) in terms of usefulness. And i can be completely honest & decide how much i want to share the context.
do you feel the less censorship yourself from their instruction tuned model, or is there some public reference to showcase? (i haven't used mistral model before). It's interesting if a major llm player adopt a different safety / alignment goal.
i just hope people don't claim "X model support Y context window", when the evaluation is done on "Needle in a haystack" only. It creates so much unnecessary hype.
Can someone verify - did he really the architect for A/B test at early Facebook? It’s undoubtedly one of the worst Pandora’s box at internet history, but I do have respect for who created this - it’s probably the largest scale statistic application ever.