Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

🚨 RL for LLMs is finally accessible. Introducing OpenTinker: The first community-driven, open-source framework designed to democratize Reinforcement Learning for LLMs. Inspired by Thinking Machines's amazing Tinker, we realize the biggest bottleneck in agentic LLM research isn’t the math—it’s the setup. Current RL pipelines are messy. Configuring VeRL for...

58,326 views • 9 months ago •via X (Twitter)

15 Comments

Kevin Patrick Murphy's profile picture
Kevin Patrick Murphy9 months ago

@thinkymachines How does this compare to berkeley sky RL tinker library?

Rituraj's profile picture
Rituraj9 months ago

The '10x Efficiency' claim holds up because the bottleneck in RL isn't training time; it's Setup Time. If I have to spend 4 hours configuring a distributed environment just to test a new reward function, I only run one experiment a day. OpenTinker effectively commoditizes the infrastructure layer, allowing researchers to treat the training loop like a simple function call. This tightens the feedback loop from 'Idea' to 'Loss Curve' drastically.

Panizzutti's profile picture
Panizzutti9 months ago

@thinkymachines Whats the difference between this and tinker

Maziyar PANAHI's profile picture
Maziyar PANAHI9 months ago

@thinkymachines looks promising! thanks for sharing, would love to check it out

Karim C's profile picture
Karim C9 months ago

@thinkymachines Accessible frameworks are great until you need to explain to your team why the RL training failed overnight. What's the debugging experience look like for non-engineers who just want the model to improve?

caoye's profile picture
caoye9 months ago

@thinkymachines important work

David Ball 🌻's profile picture
David Ball 🌻9 months ago

@thinkymachines Great work Jiaxuan

Yuhao Yang's profile picture
Yuhao Yang9 months ago

@thinkymachines Looks great!

Mackenzie CLARK's profile picture
Mackenzie CLARK9 months ago

@thinkymachines

Hayden Chen's profile picture
Hayden Chen9 months ago

@thinkymachines This hits the real bottleneck RL for LLMs isn’t “hard math,” it’s plumbing + reproducibility. Turning idle GPUs into an internal RL/SFT/inference service is 🔥 too. Curious: does OpenTinker bake in eval/trace + reward/RM versioning + multi-tenant isolation out of the box?

Ashley Feng's profile picture
Ashley Feng9 months ago

@thinkymachines sounds cool cant wait to check it out

Jason傑森 🇭🇰 | 🛠️'s profile picture
Jason傑森 🇭🇰 | 🛠️9 months ago

@thinkymachines open sourcing this is a really nice move honestly

Blaze(j) Manczak's profile picture
Blaze(j) Manczak9 months ago

@thinkymachines Whats wrong with verifiers from PI? What’s your differentiator?

Himanshu Kumar's profile picture
Himanshu Kumar9 months ago

@thinkymachines I've observed the bottleneck; OpenTinker offers a practical, accessible solution.

Tianyu Fu's profile picture
Tianyu Fu9 months ago

@thinkymachines Sounds very useful! Plan to try it out.

Related Videos

New Course: Post-training of LLMs Learn to post-train and customize an LLM in this short course, taught by Banghua Zhu, Assistant Professor at the University of Washington University of Washington, and co-founder of @NexusflowX. Training an LLM to follow instructions or answer questions has two key stages: pre-training and post-training. In pre-training, it learns to predict the next word or token from large amounts of unlabeled text. In post-training, it learns useful behaviors such as following instructions, tool use, and reasoning. Post-training transforms a general-purpose token predictor—trained on trillions of unlabeled text tokens—into an assistant that follows instructions and performs specific tasks. Because it is much cheaper than pre-training, it is practical for many more teams to incorporate post-training methods into their workflows than pre-training. In this course, you’ll learn three common post-training methods—Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), and Online Reinforcement Learning (RL)—and how to use each one effectively. With SFT, you train the model on pairs of input and ideal output responses. With DPO, you provide both a preferred (chosen) and a less preferred (rejected) response and train the model to favor the preferred output. With RL, the model generates an output, receives a reward score based on human or automated feedback, and updates the model to improve performance. You’ll learn the basic concepts, common use cases, and principles for curating high-quality data for effective training. Through hands-on labs, you’ll download a pre-trained model from Hugging Face and post-train it using SFT, DPO, and RL to see how each technique shapes model behavior. In detail, you’ll: - Understand what post-training is, when to use it, and how it differs from pre-training. - Build an SFT pipeline to turn a base model into an instruct model. - Explore how DPO reshapes behavior by minimizing contrastive loss—penalizing poor responses and reinforcing preferred ones. - Implement a DPO pipeline to change the identity of a chat assistant. - Learn online RL methods such as Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), and how to design reward functions. - Train a model with GRPO to improve its math capabilities using a verifiable reward. Post-training is one of the most rapidly developing areas of LLM training. Whether you’re building a high-accuracy context-specific assistant, fine-tuning a model's tone, or improving task-specific accuracy, this course will give you experience with the most important techniques shaping how LLMs are post-trained today. Please sign up here:

Andrew Ng

125,146 views • 1 year ago

Today's Training Data episode takes us BTS on the infrastructure challenges required to do large RL runs at scale, featuring Federico Cassano (Composer Lead at Cursor) and Dmytro Dzhulgakov (Co-Founder at Fireworks). The Cursor team trained Composer 2 on Fireworks by starting with a strong base model (Kimi 2.5) and performing large-scale mid-training on code tokens and web data to learn common patterns and libraries, followed by a large-scale Reinforcement Learning run to learn how to navigate the Cursor harness, call tools, and write correct code. Today's episode dives into the systems and infrastructure challenges of making that large RL run happening, and there were many (!!), from numerical mismatch to global distribution to synchronizing rollouts across asynchronous pipelines to keeping track of expert activation across runs and more. Extremely nerdy in-the-weeds challenges that Federico and Dima were delighted to nerd out on together :) Beyond RL infra, we also discussed Online vs Simulated rollouts, self-summarization for long-horizon agents, environment design ("the most powerful RL environment is the product itself"), and other technical nuggets. PS: We filmed this episode before the SpaceX news, while the Cursor team was still compute-constrained. While Cursor now has *all* the flops, the takeaways and hurdles crossed ring true for any serious application-level company that is racing to post-train their own models. I believe that more serious application companies will go the way of Cursor and post-train their own models. 00:00 Introduction 00:53 Why Cursor Trained Composer 2 04:55 Specialization vs Bitter Lesson 06:16 Composer 2 Training Recipe 16:32 Scaling RL Infrastructure Globally 23:32 Floating Point Drift 25:11 MoE Sensitivity Explained 26:25 Router Replay Fix 27:19 Real Time RL Loop 31:49 Long Horizon Agents 34:29 Why RL Everywhere 37:34 LLM as Judge Rewards 39:14 RL in Hard Domains 40:13 Build Your Own Environments 44:34 Closing Thoughts

Sonya Huang 🐥

81,332 views • 4 months ago

New blackboard lecture w Eric Jang He walks through how to build AlphaGo from scratch, but with modern AI tools. Sometimes you understand the future better by stepping backward. AlphaGo is still the cleanest worked example of the primitives of intelligence: search, learning from experience, and self-play. You have to go back to 2017 to get insight into how the more general AIs of the future might learn. Once he explained how AlphaGo works, it gave us the context to have a discussion about how RL works in LLMs and how it could work better – naive policy gradient RL has to figure out which of the 100k+ tokens in your trajectory actually got you the right answer, while AlphaGo’s MCTS suggests a strictly better action every single move, giving you a training target that sidesteps the credit assignment problem. The way humans learn is surely closer to the second. Eric also kickstarted an Autoresearch loop on his project. And it was very interesting to discuss which parts of AI research LLMs can already automate pretty well (implementing and running experiments, optimizing hyperparameters) and which they still struggle with (choosing the right question to investigate next, escaping research dead ends). Informative to all the recent discussion about when we should expect an intelligence explosion, and what it would look like from the inside. Timestamps: 0:00:00 – Basics of Go 0:08:06 – Monte Carlo Tree Search 0:31:53 – What the neural network does 1:00:22 – Self-play 1:25:27 – Alternative RL approaches 1:45:36 – Why doesn’t MCTS work for LLMs 2:00:58 – Off-policy training 2:11:51 – RL is even more information inefficient than you thought 2:22:05 – Automated AI researchers

Dwarkesh Patel

707,570 views • 4 months ago

Why AI Can Now Make Discoveries - my conversation with Dan Roberts, Lead of the Foundations of Reinforcement Learning team at OpenAI 00:00 Intro: AI's wild week in mathematics 01:21 What OpenAI's Foundations of RL team does 03:08 Dan's journey: from black holes and quantum gravity to frontier AI 07:04 Are AI systems becoming useful for real science 08:21 The AI math moment: Erdős, OpenAI, DeepMind, and Anthropic 08:52 Why the OpenAI result was an act of exploration 10:25 OpenAI vs. DeepMind: informal reasoning vs. formal proof 12:13 RL 101: learning by doing, not just watching 15:10 Why reinforcement learning works 15:58 How RL breaks: sparse feedback and long-horizon tasks 17:03 RLHF: how human feedback shaped early language models 18:48 Move 37, self-play, and the search for novel strategies 22:16 Explore vs. exploit in scientific discovery 24:49 Why RL may now be "the cake," not the cherry on top 25:46 Why RL started working with large language models 27:29 Is RL "sucking supervision through a straw"? 28:47 Why language may be the grounding layer for intelligence 31:46 A contrarian take on the Bitter Lesson 32:41 What test-time compute actually is 34:50 How RL gives models the ability to think 35:40 Verifiable rewards, math, coding, and the messy real world 38:00 What physics can teach us about AI 42:08 Is there a thermodynamics of AI? 43:08 From Erdős problems to Einstein-level AI 45:16 Is AI already doing original science? 45:51 How far are we from AI automating AI research 47:41 Why Dan is excited about the future of science

Matt Turck

69,801 views • 4 months ago

OpenClaw meets RL! OpenClaw Agents adapt through memory files and skills, but the base model weights never actually change. OpenClaw-RL solves this! It wraps a self-hosted model as an OpenAI-compatible API, intercepts live conversations from OpenClaw, and trains the policy in the background using RL. The architecture is fully async. This means serving, reward scoring, and training all run in parallel. Once done, weights get hot-swapped after every batch while the agent keeps responding. Currently, it has two training modes: - Binary RL (GRPO): A process reward model scores each turn as good, bad, or neutral. That scalar reward drives policy updates via a PPO-style clipped objective. - On-Policy Distillation: When concrete corrections come in like "you should have checked that file first," it uses that feedback as a richer, directional training signal at the token level. When to use OpenClaw-RL? To be fair, a lot of agent behavior can already be improved through better memory and skill design. OpenClaw's existing skill ecosystem and community-built self-improvement skills handle a wide range of use cases without touching model weights at all. If the agent keeps forgetting preferences, that's a memory problem. And if it doesn't know how to handle a specific workflow, that's a skill problem. Both are solvable at the prompt and context layer. Where RL becomes interesting is when the failure pattern lives deeper in the model's reasoning itself. Things like consistently poor tool selection order, weak multi-step planning, or failing to interpret ambiguous instructions the way a specific user intends. Research on agentic RL (like ARTIST and Agent-R1) has shown that these behavioral patterns hit a ceiling with prompt-based approaches alone, especially in complex multi-turn tasks where the model needs to recover from tool failures or adapt its strategy mid-execution. That's the layer OpenClaw-RL targets, and it's a meaningful distinction from what OpenClaw offers. I have shared the repo in the replies!

Avi Chawla

138,769 views • 6 months ago