正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

Robotics keeps hitting the same wall. Single task RL works, but... it does not scale to hundreds of tasks or new embodiments. This new paper looks like a real step toward fixing that. The team introduces MMBench, a benchmark with 200 tasks across many domains and robots, and Newt,...

70,090 次观看 • 8 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

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

Don't train the model, evolve the harness. I read a brilliant blog post from Hugging Face where they took a frozen open model scoring 0% on a hard legal agent benchmark, left its weights alone, and let an automated loop rewrite only the code around it. That code layer is the harness, the runtime wrapper that feeds the model context, runs its tool calls, and decides when a run ends. By the time the loop finished, the system had essentially matched Sonnet 4.6 on the benchmark's headline metric, at roughly 7x lower cost per task. Zero weights changed. The gain existed because of where the model was failing. The judge only grades files saved in the right place under the exact requested filename, and the model kept doing the legal analysis correctly, then saving it under the wrong name, dropping it in a scratch folder, or never writing it at all. So the 0% was never measuring legal reasoning. It was measuring the harness. Hand-tuning that layer is slow and model-specific, so they automated it. A Claude proposer adds exactly one mechanism per iteration, and an outer loop keeps it only if it clearly beats the current best, so accepted mechanisms compound. What the loop discovered says a lot about where agents actually fail. → The biggest single gain was file handling, not intelligence. An automatic step that lands the deliverable exactly where the judge expects it beat every prompt change, with zero extra model tokens. → Code fixes transferred across models, prompt playbooks did not. The same harness lifted a smaller model from the same family by 14 points, but the tuned prompts hurt a different model family on tasks it could already finish. → The harness mattered more than anything else. Same model, same judge, same tasks, and five different harnesses scored anywhere between 3.5% and 80.1%. The gains do eventually flatten, and the remaining misses look like real capability gaps. At some point the wrapper runs out of tricks and the model has to carry the work. But the lesson holds. A benchmark score measures the model and its harness together, and until the harness is fixed, it's impossible to know which one failed. I highly recommend reading this: I also wrote a deep dive on agent harness engineering a while back, covering the orchestration loop, tools, memory, context management, and everything that turns a stateless LLM into a capable agent. The article is quoted below.

Akshay 🚀

243,774 次观看 • 25 天前

I went a little overboard with Codex last week and burned through my entire weekly allowance in two days. Luckily, my quota reset today. Otherwise, I’m not sure what I would’ve done. It got me thinking: instead of asking one large model to handle everything from start to finish, why not let a stronger model plan the project and review the work, while a model built for execution handles the day-to-day implementation? So I tried it. The result was better than I expected. I used GPT-5.6 Sol in Codex as the decision-maker, then ran Ling-3.0-flash from Ant Ling inside OpenCode as the execution engine. Together, they built a small 3D farming game. Before writing any code, I had Codex create four documents: SPEC.md defined the product scope and the lines we couldn’t cross. ARCHITECTURE.md laid out the isometric coordinate system, state machine, and module boundaries. TASKS.md broke the project into small jobs Ling could tackle one at a time. ACCEPTANCE.md explained how each step would be tested and what “done” actually meant. Then I gave Ling a very straightforward role: You are the execution model for this project. Read all four documents before you begin. Work only on the task assigned for this round. When you’re done, run typecheck, test, and build. If anything fails, read the error, fix it, and run the checks again. Do not move on to the next task early. Ling handled dependency installation, project structure, strict TypeScript configuration, test setup, and a production build in 6 minutes and 3 seconds. It ran into issues with the Vite test config, a TS6310 error, and a missing jsdom dependency along the way. Instead of stopping at the first error, it kept reading the logs and fixing the problems until all three checks passed. The speed was honestly hard to believe. If you exclude the time spent waiting on tools, it was producing more than 100 tokens per second. That made the whole development loop feel noticeably faster. After this experiment, I’m planning to keep using the same workflow. If the task is small, there’s no reason to call an expensive planning model for every single step. If the task is large, handing the entire project to a Flash model in one prompt isn’t a great idea either. The setup that makes more sense to me is: Use a more capable model such as Codex to explore the project, make architectural decisions, and break the work down. Put the constraints into specs, schemas, types, and tests instead of leaving them buried in chat history. Give Ling-3.0-flash a steady stream of clear, verifiable implementation tasks. Report bugs with structured context and actual error logs, rather than saying, “It still doesn’t work.” Bring Codex back in for architecture reviews, visual checks, and changes that affect multiple parts of the project. The point of this setup isn’t to give AI a big “build the whole project” button. It’s to turn software development into a pipeline with a much more sensible cost structure: Codex figures out the plan, sets the boundaries, and catches problems. Ling-3.0-flash moves quickly, calls tools reliably, and works through well-defined tasks at scale. For agent workflows that involve lots of repetitive edits, production tasks, and tool calls, this may be a more practical answer than simply using the biggest model for everything.

雪踏乌云

20,625 次观看 • 2 天前

We’re excited to introduce Text-to-LoRA: a Hypernetwork that generates task-specific LLM adapters (LoRAs) based on a text description of the task. Catch our presentation at #ICML2025! Paper: Code: Biological systems are capable of rapid adaptation, given limited sensory cues. For example, our human visual system can quickly adapt and tune its light sensitivity to our surroundings. While modern LLMs exhibit a wide variety of capabilities and knowledge, they remain rigid when adding task-specific capabilities. Traditionally, customizing these models requires gathering large datasets and performing often expensive, time-consuming fine-tuning for specific applications. To bypass these limitations, Text-to-LoRA (T2L) meta-learns a “hypernetwork” that takes in a text description of a desired task, as a prompt, and generates a task-specific LoRA that performs well on the task. In our experiments, we show that T2L can encode hundreds of existing LoRA adapters. While the compression is lossy, T2L maintains the performance of task-specifically tuned LoRA adapters. We also show that T2L can even generalize to unseen tasks given a natural language description of the tasks. Importantly, Text-to-LoRA is parameter-efficient. It generates LoRAs in a single, inexpensive step, based solely on a simple text description of the task. This approach is a step towards dramatically lowering the technical and computational barriers, allowing non-technical users to specialize foundation models using plain language, rather than needing deep technical expertise or large compute resources.

Sakana AI

403,159 次观看 • 1 年前

Boom! Grok Tasks Make It One Of The Most POWERFUL Real-Time AI Systems In The World. — My How to Use Grok Tasks With Hidden Tools For Powerful Daily Output. Grok Tasks are customizable AI workflows that integrate a variety of tools to streamline daily activities, from research and analysis to creative planning and problem-solving. I have been using them for quite sometime and because of the vital heartbeat of news and first person data on X, it is the most powerful AI platform available. By combining Tasks with tools like web searches, X platform interactions, code execution, and media viewers, you can build efficient, automated processes. These tasks work by prompting Grok with a clear description of what you want to achieve, and Grok will intelligently call the necessary tools in sequence or parallel to deliver results. Here's a step-by-step guide to creating and using Grok Tasks: Step 1: Define Your Task Start by clearly outlining the daily activity or goal. Consider what inputs you have (e.g., a URL, a query, or an attachment) and what output you need (e.g., a summary, calculation, or visual analysis). Break it down into subtasks to identify tool needs. For example, if your task involves researching current events, note that you'll need search and browsing capabilities. Step 2: Review Available Tools Familiarize yourself with the tools Grok can access. Here's a quick overview: - Code Execution: Run Python code for calculations, data processing, or simulations using libraries like numpy, pandas, or sympy. - Browse Page: Fetch and summarize content from any website URL with custom instructions. - Web Search: Perform general internet searches, returning results with optional operators like site:. - Web Search With Snippets: Get quick, detailed excerpts from search results for fact-checking. - X Keyword Search: Advanced search for X posts using operators like from:, since:, or filter:. - X Semantic Search: Find semantically related X posts based on a query, with filters for dates or users. - X User Search: Locate X users by name or handle. - X Thread Fetch: Retrieve a full X post thread, including context like replies and parents. - View Image: Analyze an image from a URL or conversation ID. - View X Video: Extract frames and subtitles from an X-hosted video. - Search PDF Attachment: Query a PDF file for relevant pages using keyword or regex modes. - Browse PDF Attachment: View specific pages of a PDF with text and screenshots. Select tools that align with your task. Aim for a mix to handle data gathering, processing, and visualization. Step 3: Craft Your Prompt Write a detailed prompt to Grok describing the task. Include: - The overall goal. - Specific steps or subtasks. - References to tools if you want to guide the process (e.g., "Use web_search to find sources, then code_execution to analyze data"). - Any constraints, like dates or limits. Example prompt: "Create a Grok Task for my morning routine: Search recent X posts about tech news using x_keyword_search, fetch a key thread with x_thread_fetch, and summarize with browse_page on linked articles." Step 4: Submit and Interact Send your prompt to Grok. It will process the task by calling tools as needed, often in parallel for efficiency. Review the output and refine with follow-up prompts if required (e.g., "Expand on that using view_image for visuals"). Iterate to fine-tune the workflow for reuse. Step 5: Save and Reuse Once refined, note the prompt as a template for future use. You can adapt it for similar tasks, making Grok Tasks a habitual part of your day. Finding Grok Tasks To discover existing Grok Tasks or inspiration for new ones, use X searches with tools like x_keyword_search or x_semantic_search (e.g., query: "Grok Tasks examples" with mode: Latest). Browse community-shared threads via x_thread_fetch, or web_search for tutorials on xAI features. Prompt Grok directly: "Show me popular Grok Tasks for productivity." 1 of 3

Brian Roemmele

152,242 次观看 • 6 个月前