正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

it's crazy what a 1.5B model can do these days! "VibeThinker-1.5B is a 1.5-billion parameter dense language model. With a total training cost of only $7,800 USD, it achieves reasoning performance comparable to larger models like GPT OSS-20B Medium." runs perfectly on device!

Maziyar PANAHI

18,979 subscribers

202,387 次观看 • 9 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

You don't need a more expensive model. You need better reasoning. Every frontier LLM got smarter with SERV: - smaller ones match frontier performance - frontier ones go past what they were built for The question isn't which model to choose - it's what engine it runs on.

You don't need a more expensive model. You need better reasoning. Every frontier LLM got smarter with SERV: - smaller ones match frontier performance - frontier ones go past what they were built for The question isn't which model to choose - it's what engine it runs on.

OpenServ

29,960 次观看 • 3 个月前

GPT-5.5 by Reasoning Effort: I've asked it in Codex to create a physics-based visualisation of RL cycles for different sized models (70b, 1t, 10t), to demonstrate how the amount of RL you can do differs by model size. My assessment of each: - Low: weird slop - Medium: kinda cooked - High: sort of tried but ultimately incoherent - Extra High: elite - really nice idea and well executed Obviously this is just one shot, but worth trying different reasoning levels for the new models, medium seems to be pretty good for GPT-5.5 and it was really bad for many previous GPT models.

GPT-5.5 by Reasoning Effort: I've asked it in Codex to create a physics-based visualisation of RL cycles for different sized models (70b, 1t, 10t), to demonstrate how the amount of RL you can do differs by model size. My assessment of each: - Low: weird slop - Medium: kinda cooked - High: sort of tried but ultimately incoherent - Extra High: elite - really nice idea and well executed Obviously this is just one shot, but worth trying different reasoning levels for the new models, medium seems to be pretty good for GPT-5.5 and it was really bad for many previous GPT models.

Peter Gostev (SF: 22-26 June)

209,258 次观看 • 4 个月前

We released physics-intern: a simple harness for science problems! It gets models like Gemini 3.1 Pro to go from 17.7 -> 31.4, thus beating GPT 5.5 Pro. The physics-intern harness can wrap any model and via dedicated subagent boost the performance of the vanilla reasoning models. While I think more and more of these harness capability gains will be absorbed into the models (like prompting tricks disappeared over time) there is a lot to be gained right now by building good scaffolds for those models and integrating tools well. Interestingly, the exception we found that GPT 5.5 Pro actually didn't benefit from the physics-intern harness! Read more about it here: PS: I think the Harness[Model] notation is kind of nice.

We released physics-intern: a simple harness for science problems! It gets models like Gemini 3.1 Pro to go from 17.7 -> 31.4, thus beating GPT 5.5 Pro. The physics-intern harness can wrap any model and via dedicated subagent boost the performance of the vanilla reasoning models. While I think more and more of these harness capability gains will be absorbed into the models (like prompting tricks disappeared over time) there is a lot to be gained right now by building good scaffolds for those models and integrating tools well. Interestingly, the exception we found that GPT 5.5 Pro actually didn't benefit from the physics-intern harness! Read more about it here: PS: I think the Harness[Model] notation is kind of nice.

Leandro von Werra

97,424 次观看 • 3 个月前

THAT $70 "RUN YOUR OWN LLMS" PI KIT CAN'T RUN A SINGLE LLM. IT'S A VISION CHIP WITH NO RAM. that clip sells a raspberry pi 5 in a slick case with an ai accelerator and the caption "your own llms." clean build, fun kit. the claim is where it breaks. the fine print: the popular $70 pi ai kit uses a hailo-8l, 13 tops. it's built for vision, object detection and image processing, and it has no memory of its own. so it cannot run large language models. full stop the board that actually can is a different one: the newer ai hat+ 2, hailo-10h, 40 tops, with 8gb of dedicated ram. that's $130, not $70 and even that runs only tiny models. llama 3.2 at 1b, qwen 2.5 at 1.5b, deepseek r1 at 1.5b. edge llms live in the 1-7b range, against cloud models at 500b to 2 trillion so the honest pitch: for $130 you can run a very small language model on a pi, slowly, as a fun learning project. that's real and it's cool. "your own llms" on a $70 vision kit is not. why this keeps happening: "ai kit" and a big "tops" number sell. tops sounds like intelligence. but tops measures vision-style math, not whether the chip has the memory to hold a language model. the spec that matters for llms is ram, and the cheap kit has none. the honest caveats, both ways: the $70 kit is genuinely great, just at vision. cameras, object detection, that's its job the $130 hat really does run small llms locally, which a pi couldn't do at all two years ago. that's progress "small" is the load-bearing word. don't expect gpt at home on a pi the takeaway: before you buy a kit because the caption says llm, check two numbers. not the tops. the ram, and the size of the model it can actually load. no 70-dollar miracle, no gpt in a pi case, no tops number that means what you think. save this before you buy the wrong kit for the word on the box.

THAT $70 "RUN YOUR OWN LLMS" PI KIT CAN'T RUN A SINGLE LLM. IT'S A VISION CHIP WITH NO RAM. that clip sells a raspberry pi 5 in a slick case with an ai accelerator and the caption "your own llms." clean build, fun kit. the claim is where it breaks. the fine print: the popular $70 pi ai kit uses a hailo-8l, 13 tops. it's built for vision, object detection and image processing, and it has no memory of its own. so it cannot run large language models. full stop the board that actually can is a different one: the newer ai hat+ 2, hailo-10h, 40 tops, with 8gb of dedicated ram. that's $130, not $70 and even that runs only tiny models. llama 3.2 at 1b, qwen 2.5 at 1.5b, deepseek r1 at 1.5b. edge llms live in the 1-7b range, against cloud models at 500b to 2 trillion so the honest pitch: for $130 you can run a very small language model on a pi, slowly, as a fun learning project. that's real and it's cool. "your own llms" on a $70 vision kit is not. why this keeps happening: "ai kit" and a big "tops" number sell. tops sounds like intelligence. but tops measures vision-style math, not whether the chip has the memory to hold a language model. the spec that matters for llms is ram, and the cheap kit has none. the honest caveats, both ways: the $70 kit is genuinely great, just at vision. cameras, object detection, that's its job the $130 hat really does run small llms locally, which a pi couldn't do at all two years ago. that's progress "small" is the load-bearing word. don't expect gpt at home on a pi the takeaway: before you buy a kit because the caption says llm, check two numbers. not the tops. the ram, and the size of the model it can actually load. no 70-dollar miracle, no gpt in a pi case, no tops number that means what you think. save this before you buy the wrong kit for the word on the box.

RetroChainer

11,100 次观看 • 1 个月前

1/ Happy to share UniDisc - Unified Multimodal Discrete Diffusion – We train a 1.5 billion parameter transformer model from scratch on 250 million image/caption pairs using a **discrete diffusion objective**. Our model has all the benefits of diffusion models but now in multimodal space! - flexible compute-quality tradeoff, zero-shot inpainting and editing, better control via classifier-free guidance and lower latency! We open source everything - our code, weights and the training dataset.

1/ Happy to share UniDisc - Unified Multimodal Discrete Diffusion – We train a 1.5 billion parameter transformer model from scratch on 250 million image/caption pairs using a discrete diffusion objective. Our model has all the benefits of diffusion models but now in multimodal space! - flexible compute-quality tradeoff, zero-shot inpainting and editing, better control via classifier-free guidance and lower latency! We open source everything - our code, weights and the training dataset.

Mihir Prabhudesai

104,934 次观看 • 1 年前

New Minimax model handles 2D animation very nice! So far very impressive model.... we are so spoiled these days with options it's a great time to be a creator. Worth noting, the sound on this model is significantly better than some of the other options.. Feels close to SD 2.0

New Minimax model handles 2D animation very nice! So far very impressive model.... we are so spoiled these days with options it's a great time to be a creator. Worth noting, the sound on this model is significantly better than some of the other options.. Feels close to SD 2.0

A.I.Warper

28,384 次观看 • 1 个月前

Liquid's LFM2.5-8B-A1B smashed OpenAI's gpt-oss-20b on tool calling We ran both locally on a MacBook Pro M5 Max, 64GB, and gave each the same trip-planning request that only completes if the model fires all 7 tool calls - weather for 3 cities, two currency conversions, an email and a reminder Outputs: LFM2.5-8B-A1B: 4.8 GB RAM usage, 7/7 tool-calls, 266 tok/s, 6.9s OpenAI gpt-oss-20b: 11 GB RAM usage, 3/7 tool-calls, 146 tok/s, 15.0s The 8B used less than half the RAM and still fired all 7 calls, while the 20B silently dropped more than half of its own. It also ran ~2x faster, wrapping the full agentic request in 6.9s against 15s. That's what 38T training tokens buy: a 1B-active MoE that nails the agentic tool calls a model 2.5x its active size keeps dropping

Liquid's LFM2.5-8B-A1B smashed OpenAI's gpt-oss-20b on tool calling We ran both locally on a MacBook Pro M5 Max, 64GB, and gave each the same trip-planning request that only completes if the model fires all 7 tool calls - weather for 3 cities, two currency conversions, an email and a reminder Outputs: LFM2.5-8B-A1B: 4.8 GB RAM usage, 7/7 tool-calls, 266 tok/s, 6.9s OpenAI gpt-oss-20b: 11 GB RAM usage, 3/7 tool-calls, 146 tok/s, 15.0s The 8B used less than half the RAM and still fired all 7 calls, while the 20B silently dropped more than half of its own. It also ran ~2x faster, wrapping the full agentic request in 6.9s against 15s. That's what 38T training tokens buy: a 1B-active MoE that nails the agentic tool calls a model 2.5x its active size keeps dropping

atomic.chat

90,063 次观看 • 3 个月前

JUST IN: Meta AI introduces Voicebox, an all-in-one generative speech model. Voicebox is an impressive breakthrough! It could do for speech what other models like GPT-3 and Stable Diffusion have done for text and images. Some key details: - Voicebox can synthesize speech across 6 languages - It's a general-purpose model that can perform tasks it wasn't trained on. It can perform noise removal, content editing, style conversion, and more - Supports in-context text-to-speech synthesis and cross-lingual style transfer - It's 20x faster than current models and outperforms single-purpose models through in-context learning paper: blog:

JUST IN: Meta AI introduces Voicebox, an all-in-one generative speech model. Voicebox is an impressive breakthrough! It could do for speech what other models like GPT-3 and Stable Diffusion have done for text and images. Some key details: - Voicebox can synthesize speech across 6 languages - It's a general-purpose model that can perform tasks it wasn't trained on. It can perform noise removal, content editing, style conversion, and more - Supports in-context text-to-speech synthesis and cross-lingual style transfer - It's 20x faster than current models and outperforms single-purpose models through in-context learning paper: blog:

elvis

88,518 次观看 • 3 年前

BREAKING: Anthropic just dropped Opus 4.8—and it is a MONSTER We've been testing for about a week Every 🪨 and our verdict is they could've just called it Opus 5, it's that good. Here's our vibe check: - Beats GPT-5.5 on Senior Engineer bench. On our toughest benchmark Opus 4.8 scores a 63—a hair higher than GPT-5.5's score of 62, and a full 30 points higher than Opus 4.7. It tackled a ground-up rewrite of a production codebase, and actually built something that works. HOWEVER: Coding performance varied a lot at different reasoning levels. We recommend using it on xhigh for best results. - Incredibly good writer. Opus 4.8 scored a 79.6 on our writing benchmark—measuring models on real-world writing tasks we do all of the time like essay writing, promo email writing, and more. It beats GPT-5.5 by 6 points. It produces well-written prose with fewer "AI-isms". It's also very good at writing in your voice given the right context. HOWEVER: Writing performance also varied with reasoning levels. Medium reasoning had higher incidence of AI-isms—we found best results with high. - Beast at knowledge work. Opus 4.8 is very good at general knowledge work tasks like report creation, research and more. It produced the best PowerPoint one-shot we've ever seen on our deck generation benchmark. - Emotionally intelligent, willing to question the frame. I've also found it to be quite good at talking through psychological or interpersonal issues. It has a high EQ, and it's also good at not glazing and helping to expand your perspective. Its thought process feels extremely rich and dynamic. THE BAD: These days a model is only as good as its harness, and Codex is still a far superior harness to the Claude Desktop app. This has kept me using Codex + GPT-5.5 as my daily driver, but I am flipping back and forth a lot more between Codex and Claude. Anthropic is back baby! Read the rest on Every 🪨:

BREAKING: Anthropic just dropped Opus 4.8—and it is a MONSTER We've been testing for about a week Every 🪨 and our verdict is they could've just called it Opus 5, it's that good. Here's our vibe check: - Beats GPT-5.5 on Senior Engineer bench. On our toughest benchmark Opus 4.8 scores a 63—a hair higher than GPT-5.5's score of 62, and a full 30 points higher than Opus 4.7. It tackled a ground-up rewrite of a production codebase, and actually built something that works. HOWEVER: Coding performance varied a lot at different reasoning levels. We recommend using it on xhigh for best results. - Incredibly good writer. Opus 4.8 scored a 79.6 on our writing benchmark—measuring models on real-world writing tasks we do all of the time like essay writing, promo email writing, and more. It beats GPT-5.5 by 6 points. It produces well-written prose with fewer "AI-isms". It's also very good at writing in your voice given the right context. HOWEVER: Writing performance also varied with reasoning levels. Medium reasoning had higher incidence of AI-isms—we found best results with high. - Beast at knowledge work. Opus 4.8 is very good at general knowledge work tasks like report creation, research and more. It produced the best PowerPoint one-shot we've ever seen on our deck generation benchmark. - Emotionally intelligent, willing to question the frame. I've also found it to be quite good at talking through psychological or interpersonal issues. It has a high EQ, and it's also good at not glazing and helping to expand your perspective. Its thought process feels extremely rich and dynamic. THE BAD: These days a model is only as good as its harness, and Codex is still a far superior harness to the Claude Desktop app. This has kept me using Codex + GPT-5.5 as my daily driver, but I am flipping back and forth a lot more between Codex and Claude. Anthropic is back baby! Read the rest on Every 🪨:

Dan Shipper 📧

354,478 次观看 • 3 个月前

Holy moly: GLM-5.3 got much better in cybersecurity since our pre-release evaluation with Z.ai. It now matches GPT-5.6-Sol on our cybersecurity benchmark at 0.4x the cost 🤯 - At pass@1: it went from 60.4% to 65.6% CVEs rediscovered, crushing every other open model on one-shot tasks - At pass@3: it did 75% -> 78.1%, matching GPT-5.6-Sol - Its precision remained stable, reporting fewer false positives than DeepSeek models The performance increase comes from a behavioral change: the new version is more persistent. It tends to run longer, and had a ~43% reasoning tokens increase. But the performance upgrade is worth that additional cost. 1/3 🧵

Holy moly: GLM-5.3 got much better in cybersecurity since our pre-release evaluation with Z.ai. It now matches GPT-5.6-Sol on our cybersecurity benchmark at 0.4x the cost 🤯 - At pass@1: it went from 60.4% to 65.6% CVEs rediscovered, crushing every other open model on one-shot tasks - At pass@3: it did 75% -> 78.1%, matching GPT-5.6-Sol - Its precision remained stable, reporting fewer false positives than DeepSeek models The performance increase comes from a behavioral change: the new version is more persistent. It tends to run longer, and had a ~43% reasoning tokens increase. But the performance upgrade is worth that additional cost. 1/3 🧵

pilvar (Philippe Dourassov)

29,276 次观看 • 8 天前

Microsoft made 100B parameter models run on a single CPU. bitnet.cpp: The official inference framework for 1-bit LLMs. The math behind 1-bit LLMs is what makes them revolutionary. Traditional LLMs use 16-bit floating point weights. Every parameter is a number like 0.0023847 or -1.4729. When you run inference, you multiply these floats together. Billions of times. That's why you need GPUs, they're optimized for floating point matrix multiplication. BitNet b1.58 uses ternary weights: {-1, 0, 1}. That's not a simplification. That's a fundamental change in the math. When your weights are only -1, 0, or 1: → Multiply by 1 = keep the value → Multiply by -1 = flip the sign → Multiply by 0 = skip entirely Matrix multiplication becomes addition and subtraction. No floating point operations. No GPU required. This is why bitnet.cpp achieves: → 2.37x to 6.17x speedup on x86 CPUs → 1.37x to 5.07x speedup on ARM CPUs → 71.9% to 82.2% energy reduction on x86 → 55.4% to 70.0% energy reduction on ARM The speedups scale with model size. Larger models see bigger gains because there are more operations to simplify. A 100B parameter model running at human reading speed (5-7 tokens/second) on a single CPU. That's not optimization. That's a different paradigm. Why 1.58 bits? Because log₂(3) ≈ 1.58. Three possible values = 1.58 bits of information per weight. The key insight: These models aren't quantized after training. They're trained from scratch with ternary weights. The model learns to work within the constraint. No precision loss. No quality tradeoff.

Microsoft made 100B parameter models run on a single CPU. bitnet.cpp: The official inference framework for 1-bit LLMs. The math behind 1-bit LLMs is what makes them revolutionary. Traditional LLMs use 16-bit floating point weights. Every parameter is a number like 0.0023847 or -1.4729. When you run inference, you multiply these floats together. Billions of times. That's why you need GPUs, they're optimized for floating point matrix multiplication. BitNet b1.58 uses ternary weights: {-1, 0, 1}. That's not a simplification. That's a fundamental change in the math. When your weights are only -1, 0, or 1: → Multiply by 1 = keep the value → Multiply by -1 = flip the sign → Multiply by 0 = skip entirely Matrix multiplication becomes addition and subtraction. No floating point operations. No GPU required. This is why bitnet.cpp achieves: → 2.37x to 6.17x speedup on x86 CPUs → 1.37x to 5.07x speedup on ARM CPUs → 71.9% to 82.2% energy reduction on x86 → 55.4% to 70.0% energy reduction on ARM The speedups scale with model size. Larger models see bigger gains because there are more operations to simplify. A 100B parameter model running at human reading speed (5-7 tokens/second) on a single CPU. That's not optimization. That's a different paradigm. Why 1.58 bits? Because log₂(3) ≈ 1.58. Three possible values = 1.58 bits of information per weight. The key insight: These models aren't quantized after training. They're trained from scratch with ternary weights. The model learns to work within the constraint. No precision loss. No quality tradeoff.

Tech with Mak

23,036 次观看 • 4 个月前

Q. what kind of venue and atmosphere would you like to choose? (for a fancon) 😼: only if it's possible... i'd love to do a performance at an ice rink with a winter/frozen concept. wouldn't fans love it too? >.< man he's crazy 😭 #XIUMIN

Q. what kind of venue and atmosphere would you like to choose? (for a fancon) 😼: only if it's possible... i'd love to do a performance at an ice rink with a winter/frozen concept. wouldn't fans love it too? >.< man he's crazy 😭 #XIUMIN

𝙨𝙝𝙚𝙧.

10,102 次观看 • 1 年前

MolmoAct2 is landing in LeRobot! Ai2's open Action Reasoning Model combines a Molmo2-ER vision-language backbone with a flow-matching continuous action expert to predict robot action chunks from images, language instructions, and proprioceptive state. An open robot foundation model built for real-world control, with strong out-of-the-box performance and easy fine-tuning in LeRobot. Pick-and-place inference running on NVIDIA DGX Spark! Blog: Paper: Thanks to Ai2 Jiafei Duan Haoquan Fang

MolmoAct2 is landing in LeRobot! Ai2's open Action Reasoning Model combines a Molmo2-ER vision-language backbone with a flow-matching continuous action expert to predict robot action chunks from images, language instructions, and proprioceptive state. An open robot foundation model built for real-world control, with strong out-of-the-box performance and easy fine-tuning in LeRobot. Pick-and-place inference running on NVIDIA DGX Spark! Blog: Paper: Thanks to Ai2 Jiafei Duan Haoquan Fang

LeRobot

25,059 次观看 • 3 个月前

LongWriter Unleashing 10,000+ Word Generation from Long Context LLMs discuss: Current long context large language models (LLMs) can process inputs up to 100,000 tokens, yet struggle to generate outputs exceeding even a modest length of 2,000 words. Through controlled experiments, we find that the model's effective generation length is inherently bounded by the sample it has seen during supervised fine-tuning (SFT). In other words, their output limitation is due to the scarcity of long-output examples in existing SFT datasets. To address this, we introduce AgentWrite, an agent-based pipeline that decomposes ultra-long generation tasks into subtasks, enabling off-the-shelf LLMs to generate coherent outputs exceeding 20,000 words. Leveraging AgentWrite, we construct LongWriter-6k, a dataset containing 6,000 SFT data with output lengths ranging from 2k to 32k words. By incorporating this dataset into model training, we successfully scale the output length of existing models to over 10,000 words while maintaining output quality. We also develop LongBench-Write, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating ultra-long generation capabilities. Our 9B parameter model, further improved through DPO, achieves state-of-the-art performance on this benchmark, surpassing even much larger proprietary models. In general, our work demonstrates that existing long context LLM already possesses the potential for a larger output window--all you need is data with extended output during model alignment to unlock this capability.

LongWriter Unleashing 10,000+ Word Generation from Long Context LLMs discuss: Current long context large language models (LLMs) can process inputs up to 100,000 tokens, yet struggle to generate outputs exceeding even a modest length of 2,000 words. Through controlled experiments, we find that the model's effective generation length is inherently bounded by the sample it has seen during supervised fine-tuning (SFT). In other words, their output limitation is due to the scarcity of long-output examples in existing SFT datasets. To address this, we introduce AgentWrite, an agent-based pipeline that decomposes ultra-long generation tasks into subtasks, enabling off-the-shelf LLMs to generate coherent outputs exceeding 20,000 words. Leveraging AgentWrite, we construct LongWriter-6k, a dataset containing 6,000 SFT data with output lengths ranging from 2k to 32k words. By incorporating this dataset into model training, we successfully scale the output length of existing models to over 10,000 words while maintaining output quality. We also develop LongBench-Write, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating ultra-long generation capabilities. Our 9B parameter model, further improved through DPO, achieves state-of-the-art performance on this benchmark, surpassing even much larger proprietary models. In general, our work demonstrates that existing long context LLM already possesses the potential for a larger output window--all you need is data with extended output during model alignment to unlock this capability.

AK

50,995 次观看 • 2 年前

$do you understand what just happened to your computer.. Google Chrome secretly downloaded a 4GB AI model onto your device. Without asking.. Without telling you.. It's called weights.bin. It lives deep in your system folders. It powers Gemini Nano - Google's on-device AI. And if you delete it? Chrome re-downloads it automatically. Like nothing happened. Just Google deciding your hard drive is their storage unit. At 1 billion Chrome users - that's 4 BILLION gigabytes of data pushed silently across the internet. The carbon footprint alone equals tens of thousands of cars running for a year. Check your disk right now: 📁 %LOCALAPPDATA%\Google\Chrome\User Data\OptGuideOnDeviceModel To stop it: chrome://flags → disable Optimization Guide On Device Model → restart Chrome → delete the folder. Reshare so people know what's sitting on their computers.$

do you understand what just happened to your computer.. Google Chrome secretly downloaded a 4GB AI model onto your device. Without asking.. Without telling you.. It's called weights.bin. It lives deep in your system folders. It powers Gemini Nano - Google's on-device AI. And if you delete it? Chrome re-downloads it automatically. Like nothing happened. Just Google deciding your hard drive is their storage unit. At 1 billion Chrome users - that's 4 BILLION gigabytes of data pushed silently across the internet. The carbon footprint alone equals tens of thousands of cars running for a year. Check your disk right now: 📁 %LOCALAPPDATA%\Google\Chrome\User Data\OptGuideOnDeviceModel To stop it: chrome://flags → disable Optimization Guide On Device Model → restart Chrome → delete the folder. Reshare so people know what's sitting on their computers.

BuBBliK

4,593,165 次观看 • 3 个月前

Show-o One Single Transformer to Unify Multimodal Understanding and Generation discuss: We present a unified transformer, i.e., Show-o, that unifies multimodal understanding and generation. Unlike fully autoregressive models, Show-o unifies autoregressive and (discrete) diffusion modeling to adaptively handle inputs and outputs of various and mixed modalities. The unified model flexibly supports a wide range of vision-language tasks including visual question-answering, text-to-image generation, text-guided inpainting/extrapolation, and mixed-modality generation. Across various benchmarks, it demonstrates comparable or superior performance to existing individual models with an equivalent or larger number of parameters tailored for understanding or generation. This significantly highlights its potential as a next-generation foundation model.

Show-o One Single Transformer to Unify Multimodal Understanding and Generation discuss: We present a unified transformer, i.e., Show-o, that unifies multimodal understanding and generation. Unlike fully autoregressive models, Show-o unifies autoregressive and (discrete) diffusion modeling to adaptively handle inputs and outputs of various and mixed modalities. The unified model flexibly supports a wide range of vision-language tasks including visual question-answering, text-to-image generation, text-guided inpainting/extrapolation, and mixed-modality generation. Across various benchmarks, it demonstrates comparable or superior performance to existing individual models with an equivalent or larger number of parameters tailored for understanding or generation. This significantly highlights its potential as a next-generation foundation model.

AK

124,048 次观看 • 2 年前