Discussion

Computer Science > Computation and Language

jofzar: > simple self-distillation (SSD):Sorry apple, SSD is already taken, you can't use that acronym.

politelemon: It's cringe worthy to see that the original paper itself is editorialised.Title should be: Simple Self-Distillation Improves Code Generation

khalic: Incredible, will translate to better coding models in the near future.We really need to develop better tools to understand what's happening inside these NNs. Working with high-D spaces is not something we're good at, and we're basically throwing stuff at it and seeing if it sticks.

love2read: You're right, I offer these alternatives:Consistency Preservation Update (CPU)Guided Probability Update (GPU)History-aware Distillation Driving (HDD)Probability Smoothing Update (PSU)

dist-epoch: A heuristics I have lately: if more then half of the authors name on an AI paper are Chinese, it's worth reading. Works as a filter too: you don't lose much skipping papers with mostly non Chinese sounding author names.100 years ago most scientific papers were written in German. I wonder when the switch to Chinese will happen.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_science

0x3f: That's... almost every AI paper.

0x3f: Haven't read the paper yet, but it is interesting how seemingly simple many breakthroughs in ML are. Even transformers are like that. Maybe it's hindsight bias.I suppose we just don't have a deeper underlying theory to lean on and help us 'design' anything.

ape4: ATT=All TLAs are Taken

StevenWaterman: "Embarrassingly" has a history as a technically meaningful word roughly equivalent to "maximally", see "Embarrassingly parallel"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embarrassingly_parallel

bensyverson: Really fascinating how this works; it's basically context-aware decoding. From the paper:> Code interleaves fork positions, where several continuations are genuinely plausible and may correspond to different solution approaches, with lock positions, where syntax and semantics leave little ambiguity but a low-probability distractor tail still remains… The best global decoding setting is therefore necessarily a compromise; we call this tension the precision-exploration conflict.In other words, just like us, the model needs to shift from "exploration" in "fork" mode (divergent thinking to produce a creative solution) to "precision" in "lock" mode (producing syntactically correct code).What this paper shows is that their simple technique (SSD) can improve the ranking of optimal tokens in both lock and fork positions, meaning the model is more likely to explore when it should be exploring, and more likely to be precise when it needs to be.I love that we're still learning the emergent properties of LLMs!

ptidhomme: I used to have the opposite rule in my signal processing field : the more Chinese names, the less innovation was there.They seemed like they had to be churning out papers and any little adaptation to existing research triggered a new publication.But it may have changed now.

roger_: Skimmed this but don't have an intuitive understanding of why this works and how temperature and truncation factor in.

amelius: So"Made in China, designed by Apple in California"should be:"Made in China, designed by Chinese people in California"?

ape4: Shouldn't a scientific paper be using metric units (like 30T) rather than 30B

stingraycharles: Seems like this is true for not just code but for all content being generated? Albeit for code it’s more well-defined, but the fork / lock mechanism works for a lot more problem domains.

smallerize: I don't suppose they published the improved models?

wg0: After TurboQuant and Gemma 4, came across the following video[0] running Gemma on local machine at 50 token/second.That already looks like Sonnet 3x and 4 level capabilities to me where the model in question (Gemma 4) set ups whole python project with a UI and installs python libraries using uv etc.Add this Simple Self Distillation to the picture and by 2028 I see cheaper coding model providers with much more generous usage limits in the future and power users would be mostly running their own models anyway.Anyone using these models as "non-deterministic transpilers" from natural language to code (experienced engineers who can write code themselves) would probably not be paying to any AI providers.[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_hC-C_Drcw

Aurornis: The phrase embarrassingly parallel has a history in computer science.Many computer science paper titles allude to past titles in other CS papers.Calling it “cringe worthy” is unnecessarily mean. There is context and history you don’t understand.

gottheUIblues: "Embarrassingly" considered harmful?

drooby: Fascinating...This feels eerily similar to sleep consolidation or synaptic pruning

bryanrasmussen: thinking - well if we think of lock as happening in a narrative, then I think we can see there can be points where "everything you know is wrong" which essentially allows you to go back into a sort of fork mode and work towards another lock.Completely artistic creation, creating something that does not exist and that cannot produce things out of itself, means that locking can be more diffuse, not as settled.

stingraycharles: I think this seems similar to what Anthropic had been doing since the latest few Opus releases, which is interleaved thinking; CoT reasoning in the middle of a message. But they operate at different layers.

christophilus: A lot of discoveries are like that. In fact, simplicity is often the hallmark of correctness, and complexity is often a sign that our understanding is incomplete and we’re still stumbling towards the right model. Not always, but often. It’s been a good rule of thumb in my programming career.

bensyverson: That would seem intuitively true; it certainly applies to written language, where a clause could go off in another direction, but at other positions the correct grammar/syntax is unambiguous.

l5870uoo9y: > Our method, simple self-distillation (SSD), is embarrassingly simple: sample solutions from the base model with specified temperature and truncation, then fine-tune on those raw, unverified samples via standard cross-entropy loss.So you prompt the base model for answer and then rerun the prompt with the answer from the first run?

spiderfarmer: I always wonder how much smaller and faster models could be if they were only trained on the latest versions of the languages I use, so for me that is PHP, SQL, HTML, JS, CSS, Dutch, English, plus tool use for my OS of choice (MacOS).Right now it feels like hammering a house onto a nail instead of the other way around.

BarryMilo: I seem to remember that's one of the first things they tried, but the general models tended to win out. Turns out there's more to learn from all code/discussions than from just JS.

user_7832: > I love that we're still learning the emergent properties of LLMs!TBH, this is (very much my opinion btw) the least surprising thing. LLMs (and especially their emergent properties) are still black boxes. Humans have been studying the human brain for millenia, and we are barely better at predicting how humans work (or for eg to what extent free will is a thing). Hell, emergent properties of traffic was not understood or properly given attention to, even when a researcher, as a driver, knows what a driver does. Right now, on the front page, is this post:> 14. Claude Code Found a Linux Vulnerability Hidden for 23 Years (mtlynch.io)So it's pretty cool we're learning new things about LLMs, sure, but it's barely surprising that we're still learning it.(Sorry, mini grumpy man rant over. I just wish we knew more of the world but I know that's not realistic.)

michaelbuckbee: I don't really understand the internal mechanics of of this, but my first thought was why not combine this with a linter/tests. So that it produces all the forks and only keeps the syntactically correct ones.

mikkupikku: Objective one should be to communicate effectively, not confuse everybody.

khalic: Another example of the mindf@#$ these systems are: I was doing some fine tuning to a small model, take data fields and make a sentence out of it. I was running into mode collapse (basically when the AI simplifies too much and always output the same thing).I got unstuck by randomizing the field order for each row?!? At training, and now I'm thinking I should do the same at inference time...