Leo Boytsov

25.7K posts

Leo Boytsov banner
Leo Boytsov

Leo Boytsov

@srchvrs

Machine learning scientist and engineer speaking πtorch & C++. Past @LTIatCMU, @awscloud. Opinions sampled from MY OWN 100T param LM.

Pittsburgh, PA Katılım Kasım 2009
2K Takip Edilen9.5K Takipçiler
Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Leo Boytsov
Leo Boytsov@srchvrs·
🧵📢Attention folks working on LONG-document ranking & retrieval! We found evidence of a PROFOUND issue in existing long-document collections, most importantly MS MARCO Documents. It can potentially affect all papers comparing different architectures for long document ranking.⏩
English
4
13
131
38.4K
Leo Boytsov
Leo Boytsov@srchvrs·
@robmalouf @zehavoc Try to make living on $17 per hour. Unless you live in a group home, more than half of that is rent in CA.
English
0
0
1
13
Rob Malouf
Rob Malouf@robmalouf·
@zehavoc It varies across the state, from $16.90–$20.00/hr. The federal minimum is a lot lower, but a lot of states have their own minimums. Definitely tip your servers! It's a tough job. But depending on where you are they might not be working for starvation wages.
English
1
0
0
16
Leo Boytsov
Leo Boytsov@srchvrs·
What's the motivation of people to not use LLMs to polish their writing and make it more understandable and idiomatic? So many poorly written papers. It's completely unforgivable in the era of ChatGPT when everyone can produce native speaker quality English prose. PS: I don't suggest direct generation of papers using LLM, only careful postediting and draft revision.
English
2
0
7
1.2K
Leo Boytsov
Leo Boytsov@srchvrs·
@SanhEstPasMoi Training or fine-tuning? It's definitely not worth training from scratch but fine-tuning is cheap, esp. if you need a specialized small model. Anyways I don't think you actually need to convince anybody. A vast majority of people seem to only build harnesses.
English
1
0
4
349
Leo Boytsov
Leo Boytsov@srchvrs·
@satnam6502 It definitely is b/c it drives you into a concrete divider on a short notice.
English
0
0
1
73
Satnam Singh
Satnam Singh@satnam6502·
Tell me how you really feel.
Satnam Singh tweet media
English
5
0
10
975
Leo Boytsov
Leo Boytsov@srchvrs·
I think using your own brain as a second model is a good start. Don't forget that these critics tend to have a lot of false positives. Just ask to critique ChatGPT's own writing. It will suggest to fix X into Y and then Y into X or something else. Lastly, we rush to hand off everything, but the goal is also to learn something in the process. The better and more understandable prose you write in the first place, the less post editing it needs (less churn).
English
0
0
1
24
baranorhan
baranorhan@baranorhandev·
@srchvrs also better approach is to use multiple models as separate reviewers like one checks clarity and structure, one acts as a domain critic, one looks for unsupported claims and missing citations then compare the disagreements instead of accepting a single polished rewrite
English
1
0
0
26
Leo Boytsov
Leo Boytsov@srchvrs·
Absolutely, you have to go pretty much paragraph by paragraph and guide it very precisely. But otherwise, you just upset readers and reviewers. The benefit, however, is that you can literally discuss with LLM what's wrong and right with your writing and LEARN both the language and the art of good writing. I was fortunate enough to work with an editor to improve my writing at some point. You would go line by line and you learn a lot as you do it. Now LLM can be your editor and teacher.
English
1
0
1
83
Leshem (Legend) Choshen 🤖🤗 @ACL @ICML
@srchvrs How... The tools are really bad. They can catch typos. But you need quite clear knoedge of what you want, when you just let them loose, they fill your writing with elaborate sentences, extra fluff, not exactly the same arguments... I totally understand why some go each direction
English
1
0
6
224
Leo Boytsov
Leo Boytsov@srchvrs·
@suchenzang Don't drink from that well: When it comes to money and power it can be never enough.
English
0
0
1
64
Susan Zhang
Susan Zhang@suchenzang·
他妈的,有那么傻的人 做牛马还要为人家偷东西 这老子真的活腻了
NIK@ns123abc

>be Chang Liu >senior system electrical engineer at Apple >8 years working on iphone >january 2026: leave Apple to join OpenAI >apple asks for laptop back >ignore them >lmao it’s my laptop now >within HOURS of leaving >message Yu-Ting “Alyssa” Peng, friend at Apple: Liu: “I still have another computer” >uses it to access Apple secret info >within weeks, use HER Apple work laptop >february 9: try Apple’s network storage >cloud repo of confidential engineering files >authentication bug. still works! >message Peng: “LOL, I found out I can access the [network storage], so funny” Peng: “I’m ready” >while developing hardware for OpenAI >download DOZENS of confidential files >including a thousand-plus-page compilation of technical files >including MLB (main logic board) manufacturing + testing presentations >send Peng links to Apple’s proprietary folders >point her to specific project data >coach her how to copy files “to avoid trouble with the security team” >tell her which confidential Apple materials to study before her OpenAI interview >warn her another guy “fumbled” Tang Tan’s questions about a secret Apple project >“download some info” for her to review >tell her: switch to LINE Messenger so nobody sees this >she gets the OpenAI offer, leaves Apple April 16 >meanwhile every message was left on APPLE-ISSUED WORK LAPTOPS >july 10: Apple Inc. v. Chang Liu >named first. before OpenAI. before Tang Tan LOL so funny

中文
23
9
442
84.2K
Leo Boytsov
Leo Boytsov@srchvrs·
A lot of people at this point already heard about Apple's lawsuit against OpenAI. Some people were wondering how one could be so reckless. Some people even blame OpenAI's culture. ... However, the story isn't so unique. Just seven years ago Mr. Levandowski was caught, fined, and jailed for stealing Waymo's secrets (which were downloaded before leaving the company). Anthony Levandowski - Wikipedia lnkd.in/giBws6VZ
English
2
0
7
1.5K
Michael Griffiths
Michael Griffiths@msjgriffiths·
@srchvrs I have to ask … isn’t Levandowski’s story very well known? Everyone I worked with in tech knew about it at the time. Phenomenally stupid, as this person also appears to be. Especially since I really don’t think OAI cares - better seen as a way to drive personal impact at new org
English
1
0
0
40
Leo Boytsov
Leo Boytsov@srchvrs·
I currently make it ask permissions for nearly everything. This is NOT 100% bullet-proof, but the chance of something going wrong is tiny and it will be a substantial pain to run our corporate-installed app inside a sandbox. For fully autonomous runs, I will have to use some sandbox.
English
0
1
2
722
Leo Boytsov
Leo Boytsov@srchvrs·
Interestingly, we went full-circle in reinforcement learning for LLMs and LLM agents: 🔹Initially, OpenAI (and some others) used RLHF with PPO, which requires training a critic (reward) model. 🔹IThen, researchers moved from PPO with a critic to critic-free GRPO because critics were expensive and unstable. 🔹INow long-running asynchronous agents expose a weakness in GRPO, so this paper brings the critic back, but with several engineering fixes.
Ravid Shwartz Ziv@ziv_ravid

Just read the new paper from Tsinghua/Z.AI on async RL for agents (arXiv:2607.07508). It comes several weeks after the release of GLM-5.2, in which they mentioned that they use a critic instead of GRPO. 🧵

English
1
16
120
15.1K
Leo Boytsov
Leo Boytsov@srchvrs·
@deliprao No Gemini? 😀 BTW, there's also KIMI & DeepSeek & Qwen.
English
1
0
0
346
Delip Rao e/σ
Delip Rao e/σ@deliprao·
life is a lot more interesting when multiple vendors (Sol 5.6, Fable 5, Opus 4.8, MS 1.1, grok-4.5, GLM-5.2) are in the frontier competing with each other. as it should be. monopoly is for losers.
English
8
3
50
3.8K
Mariya I. Vasileva
Mariya I. Vasileva@mariyaivasileva·
COLM reviews are out for my solo paper on multimodal safety. I put a lot of care into the rebuttal. The paper is a survey-ish position piece analyzing and taxonomizing failure modes of multimodal safety evaluator systems across 100+ papers and benchmarks, but one reviewer asked for more than observational evidence. So I added a 4-page anonymous supplement with three new experiments on a procedurally generated safety dataset I designed, to turn the question into a more concrete empirical test: how easily can a VLM’s response flip from safe to unsafe when the same adversarial perturbation is presented through a different modality? Two of three reviewers never engaged with the rebuttal or even acknowledged it. Private comments to the AC asking for engagement went nowhere. The third reviewer — originally the most conservative and lowest-scoring — raised their score because of the due diligence. The final decision was essentially a meta-summary of the original reviews, with no mention of the rebuttal. Like others have mentioned, I’m unfortunately inclined not to submit to COLM again. I put in the work because I believe this problem matters and wanted the paper to see the light of day, but the way the review process went was beyond discouraging.
Seoul, Republic of Korea 🇰🇷 English
5
4
60
13.5K
Leo Boytsov
Leo Boytsov@srchvrs·
Thank you for sharing, what is exactly the hook that you use to prevent destructive operations from running without permission? Also, I think what is destructive isn't properly defined. It's not just 'rm -rf', it's any executable in principle. Obviously, if you want to run things full-auto you can't approve all executables. Don't you think one really has to sandbox Codex for full automation? PS: I actually think it's ok, at least in the beginning, to go through approvals for all commands that Codex considers unsafe (or any edits outside the repo if you ask Codex to be more restrictive). However, I suspect that even this regime isn't truly safe, because can run quite a few binaries/tools. it considers them "safe", but likely this isn't 100% true.
English
0
0
0
211