HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

pu_pu

no profile record

comments

pu_pu
·9 tháng trước·discuss
[flagged]
pu_pu
·9 tháng trước·discuss
Is it open source?
pu_pu
·9 tháng trước·discuss
The biggest problem with retrieval is actually semantic relevance. I think most embedding models don't really capture sentence-level semantic content and instead act more like bag-of-words models averaging local word-level information.

Consider this simple test I’ve been running:

Anchor: “A background service listens to a task queue and processes incoming data payloads using a custom rules engine before persisting output to a local SQLite database.”

Option A (Lexical Match): “A background service listens to a message queue and processes outgoing authentication tokens using a custom hash function before transmitting output to a local SQLite database.”

Option B (Semantic Match): “An asynchronous worker fetches jobs from a scheduling channel, transforms each record according to a user-defined logic system, and saves the results to an embedded relational data store on disk.”

Any decent LLM (e.g., Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-4/5) immediately knows that the Anchor and Option B describe the same concept just with different words. But when I test embedding models like gemini-embedding-001 (currently top of MTEB), they consistently rate Option A as more similar measured by cosine similarity. They’re getting tricked by surface-level word overlap.

I put together a small GitHub repo that uses ChatGPT to generate and test these “semantic triplets:

https://github.com/semvec/embedstresstest

gemini-embedding-001 (current #1 on MTEB leaderboard ) scored close to 0% on these adversarial examples.

The repo is unpolished at the moment but it gets the idea across and everything is reproducible.

Anyway, did anyone else notice this problem?
pu_pu
·9 tháng trước·discuss
Not at all in my opinion. Its a zero sum game against anti bot technologies also employing AI to block scrapers.
pu_pu
·9 tháng trước·discuss
This really feels like a missed opportunity to build something genuinely new, something that actually plays to the strengths of LLMs, instead of just embedding a fixed set of app screens inside chat.

Ideally, users should be able to describe a task, and the AI would figure out which tools to use, wire them together, and show the result as an editable workflow or inline canvas the user can tweak. Frameworks like LlamaIndex’s Workflow or LangGraph already let you define these directed graphs manually in Python where each node can do something specific, branch, or loop. But the AI should be able to generate those DAGs on the fly, since it’s just code underneath.

And given that LLMs are already quite good at generating UI code and following a design system (see v0.app), there’s not much reason to hardcode screens at all. The model can just create and adapt them as needed.

Really hope Google doesn’t follow OpenAI down this path.