Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- "87.3%
Share of the maximum achievable score our GRPO-trained 9B open-source model reached on catalog review, vs 76.9% for the best frontier configuration: a 13.5% relative improvement over the frontier, and 36% over its own untrained base (64.2%). The five frontier models, even with optimized prompts, plateaued within a tenth of a point of each other; the trained specialist cleared that ceiling."
_______
This is hard for me to believe. I have a lot of skepticism that frontier models like GPT 5.5 that are likely 2T+ parameters in size only got about 12% more accurate than an untrained 9b parameter LLM.
by _345 - Why? This is a very narrow task, it’d be surprising if the results were different actually; more interesting question would be how an even smaller model performs in the same finetune.by baq
- A fine-tune will generally outperform just about any other method on a closed domain, non generative problem.
LLMs are great because they can handle open domain problems in part because they are generative.
by nl - Amazing! I've been in a similar autoresearch-y rabbit-hole lately with getting Apple's 3B Foundation Model to match Sonnet 4.6 on a very specific task.
The result was: 90% parity achieved with a weird combination of a fine-tuned adapter + 1 deterministic step.
I wrote the whole thing down here: https://alexisrondeau.me/tada/research/FMDiscovery/dashboard... which includes the question, the answer, the 96 experiments and their lineage etc. etc.
by interleave - > I wrote the whole thing down here
I like the idea, but it looks really hard to read. Try reading it top to bottom without skipping.
- This continuous cycle of fine-tuned open models beating frontier on (often vaguely labeled/defined) benchmarks doesn't provide an accurate comparison to the expanding generalized capabilities of the SoTA, which makes them effectively meaningless.
If we were to take these at face value, why is it that the frontier labs' models are making legitimate new discoveries (e.g. Erdős and Jacobian conjectures) and these models are not?
To me, a better signal of capability would be similarly performing novel work at the same or better level, which they presently are not. I say this as someone who very much looks forward to open models being more capable, but to deny the gap is misguided hopeful hype.
- Depends on use case. That email classifier for legal emails: cheaper at scale as a small tuned model. Let alone better for the planet. Frontier model may have done that tuning!by hahahaa
- Huge SOTA models are like a floodlight. They elucidate a huge area at once.
A fine-tuned small model is like a laser pointer. It only illuminates a tiny specific spot. But it can illuminate it as brightly as the huge floodlight, for a tiny fraction of cost.
by nine_k - This is about saving money by using the right tool for the job. If you have a system that does a lot of mundane, repetitive work, you don't need a frontier model to do it.
It doesn't mean frontier models aren't good at harder tasks.
by skybrian - Why? Why is the premise that Fine-tuned models should be geared towards new discoveries?
The point of Fine-tuning small models is for specific downstream tasks, which SOTA models can do, but at higher costs. It is purely an economic play, not an attempt at pushing boundaries of SOTA.
by ChanderG - fine tuning a small LLMs or even real small language models (like bert) is what the recommended way since the introduction of LLM. the benefit is pretty much obvious: faster to run, fully controlling the stack, better fit for the custom domain...
but in practice not many people do the fine tuning, for pretty much a single reason: large language models API cost are still very cheap, fast enough, and get improvement all the times. what the point of spend time (and money) to fine tune a specified model, then just when you release it a newer gen generic model is released and beat it?
but if someday the progress for LLM is slowed, or the price increased to the point calling api is not a viable approach any more, then surely the day of fine tuning and small models will come again.
by npn - It's also really hard. And you need a lot of data for the fine tuning to produce good results.by dimgl
- I think we're going to get to that point on the 'S' curve. I also think the moat for a lot of companies is going to be their process and data, self hosting tuned models could be increasingly viewed as a trade secret.by johsole
- I want small models to win and I am constantly experimenting with them. I have never tried fine-tuning and do not have that kind of budget. My approach is to remove some of the burden from models and bring into the agent.
Tool calling is an example - in some tasks RAG works really well, including coding agents where code, git log, Epics/Tasks, dependencies sources, etc. are all available in very structured manner. You can save many extra tool calls if you can run separate prompts and retrieve the source data needed for the actual work - rather its prompt.
And I really want to focus on search - this is the key technology if we want to use RAG instead of fine-tuning. If we can present really contextual sources in the prompts using a hybrid search approach - you can see how easily we get better results - either decisions or summaries from even small models.
by brainless - I like the 2x2 grid that describes when to fine-tune a model, when to use a frontier model, etc.
From the article it’s not clear how the scorer grades every episode - was it a frontier model that assigned the grade? How does that continue to work as the model that is being fine-tuned becomes better at the task than the frontier model?
by JSR_FDED - I have great interest in fine-tuning open models, and I'm looking for resources that HN folks can personally recommend. This article looks good and I've bookmarked it to read more thoroughly over time.
I've gotten as far as running Nemotron-3-Nano 30b locally, and plan to target models around 30b - 120b parameters. Based on brief examination of the results I can get, I think these vanilla models are capable enough to add real value, but training could push them over the finish line for specialized tasks.
What I really appreciate is that the author is thinking about the whole process, which is also my goal. Confirmation that others are identifying the same use case, and the same strategy for adding value using this technology.
This is a long term project, so I plan to buy hardware to conduct the fine-tune. ..
by hermitShell - What kind of hardware are you using and what is your token generation speed (tok/s)? Every time I've tried to run local models, even on my beefy mac book (128Gb Ram), I've been very disappointed at tok/s speed.by johsole
- I didn't read the Ramp article but this reads like a post hoc fallacy. Companies with 2x revenue have money to spend on AI. Companies with 1.15x revenue don't.by nzeid
- Alternatively, AI-heavy companies are much more likely to be more agile growth-stage companies rather than large mature companies.by Quinner
- What I really started to notice is that SOTA models are really good at putting themselves out of the job.
We can see this already with GPT how luna can do 90% of what sol is used for. The only reason why china still bothers 'distilling' models is accurate training data generation, something that oai and anthropic had to spend years collecting while trying to dodge legal challenges.
The more intelligent models get, the more people will offramp to cheaper solutions that get the job done. There's no real benefit to using a sota model when the accuracy is already 99% and I think that is the biggest danger to US labs.
by himata4113 - Anything but Sol is not sufficient for complex (or even just large) enough code.
- I can’t see the difference between terra and sol but I always use Sol. You guys can tell the difference. Even medium to xhigh is not that clear the difference.by skeptic_ai
- This is a general theme with technology and the 'S-curve'. Let's not even get into whether the improvement for AI reasoning ability has slowed - for practical purposes of writing a React frontend, it has.
But other tech is like that - I don't even remember when I bought my LCD TV - 2018 I think? I have no inclination of buying a new one.
Technology has a tendency to replace new technology, or intrude into vacant areas, but its very rare for technology to replace non-technology (like human interaction).
Most of the recreation humans do in front of screens is tending to (para)social relationships.
by torginus - The upper end is all about coding. If I have terra on extra high write code, Sol will find a plethora of bugs and rip the code apart.
Anything else? Sure use a cheaper model.
by com2kid - Every time I see this kind of story, two things bother me.
First, I have watched the free improvement of frontier models surpass the gains from retraining, many times now. Squeezing more out of the models that already exist, or simply doing nothing and waiting, is a real strategy and it often pays better. The fair comparison is not against today's frontier but against whatever ships while you are still maintaining your fine-tune.
Second, the $500 training bill is the cheapest line item in this story. The expensive parts are creating the data and maintaining the model afterwards. How many use cases can actually produce 177k scored episodes? Here they had to generate them synthetically from Amazon Berkeley Objects. To me, that dataset is the strongest evidence in the article of how hard fine-tuning is to apply: if the data existed naturally, nobody would need to manufacture it.
by h_mirin - What do you mean with maintaining the model? I am puzzled.by trentor
- On your second part:
Many of the most valuable companies in the world (who, incidentally, are spending the most money on frontier model inference), already have "the expensive part", the labeled dataset.
The cost of maintaining the datasets and the models is getting commoditized by startups like braintrust and huggingface.
by gen220 - And the hidden, trial and error runs tweaking the hyperparams. guaranteed, it cost >$5000 in training runs alone.by subygan
- Regarding your first point, if the cost of not doing it while you wait exceeds the cost of training/maintaining the model, then this approach still makes sense. This really depends on how fast you expect cheap (and open-source) models to improve. So it might only be a temporary strategy, but still worthwhile. Also, I expect that specialized models will always be better (cheaper or better outcomes) than a general model, similar to how specialized HW like GPUs is still used even though CPUs have improved a lot too.
Maintaining in the way of ongoing training is relatively cheap, considering that the initial training run is only 500$ (in this example). Creating new examples to account for drift in the training data is more expensive, but these examples can then be reused when training a new model. And to some degree you need them anyways, to evaluate the models and prompt changes you make.
Overall, as you pointed out, this won't always make sense (either due to the cost of creating examples and training, or simply the lack of available data). But they point this out themselves in the diagram towards the bottom of the page: it only makes sense for frequent and verifiable tasks. This might result in this only being a sensible approach for very large companies (they talk about millions of decisions), but it might make sense for them.
by RaffaelCH - The point that the major labs don’t seem to get is that the vast majority of use cases simply don’t need models that have 50 PhDs and can speak 12 languages. Most use cases are defined within constraints where costs matter a lot.
As open weight models and cheap fine tuning services become the norm the whole economic framework of these mega models the labs are in an arms race building just completely crumbles. As does the economic picture that justified the massive infrastructure building that’s now broadly funded by a complex network of debt.
This is what makes open weight models so threatening to them. The political and “it’s China” angle is mostly just a cover for the real reasons why they’re freaked out.
The fact that models are now a pure commodity is bad enough for the big labs. If small open weight models become the norm the big labs are toast.
by cmiles8