|
| ▲ | ansk 26 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Kind of a backwards take, both in your interpretation of this announcement and the company in general. The point of this announcement is to draw attention to the fact that the currently hyped topic is what they have been working on since their inception. If anything, it gives off a Schmidhuber-esque 'actually it was me who invented that' vibe. But trying to retroactively claim credit for the hype is nowhere near the same as following the hype. As for your impression that the company is more generally hype-chasing, I'm really not sure how you would come to that conclusion. At the time of their founding, chatbots were the hype on the product side and model scaling was the hype on the research side -- topics they have largely eschewed. They instead were founded with a focus on evolutionary and collective intelligence and have maintained a fairly cohesive research direction ever since. |
|
| ▲ | granitepail 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A great deal of their research has been focused on zigging where others zag. Their paper "Continuous Thought Machines" (https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.05522, presented at NeurIPS) was posed specifically under the framing of there needing to be more fundamental research beyond squeezing as much as we can out of relatively vanilla transformer stacks. It is very biologically inspired and unique. Now that models are getting stronger at agentic work, it is very natural that many labs are chasing some form of auto-research. |
| |
| ▲ | laughingcurve 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It's natural for literally any AI lab to end up doing auto-research, since 'auto-research' is literally just 'autonomous AI' which is the whole darn point of all of this. I'm not going to hand out genius brownie points to folks working on RSI because of course its powerful. How about we hand brownie points to the folks who do things that are not hype and end up being important/powerful? > was posed specifically under the framing of there needing to be more fundamental research beyond squeezing as much as we can out of relatively vanilla transformer stacks. Not to be contentious, but this is so broad of a description that it could include literally thousands of papers in the last year or two. I'm imagining double digits or more if we go back the full decade. I'm saving brownie points for people who deserve them |
|
|
| ▲ | aleph__one an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| On the contrary, I find them to be one of the least hypey companies. For instance, a cursory familiarity with David Ha's work would inform you that the team has been doing this kind of stuff for quite a long time. |
| |
| ▲ | laughingcurve 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | OpenAI is not Sam Altman
Anthropic is not Dario Amodei
and Sakana is not David Ha Organizations, especially businesses, are not individuals. If the implication is that David Ha has always been doing this, and will always be doing this, and that Sakana is David Ha ... then that's a far worse insult to the employees at Sakana than my little tweaking. |
|
|
| ▲ | artninja1988 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think sakanas papers are one of the more creative, not just gunning for incremental benchmark improvements. But yeah I agree that they can be a bit (or very) hypey. But regardless, I want to see more of their kind of research than endless benchmark chasing. All the best to David Ha and the team! |
|
| ▲ | mlmonkey an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Being a Hypebeast leads to a rich acquisition. |
| |
