> Every weight tensor in Rio is, to thousands of standard deviations, the same 0.6/0.4 blend of Nex and Qwen — across all 60 layers and every component of the network. Other finetunes cannot be explained as interpolations.

I find it amazing how robust the current deep learning models are. A simple linear combination of every weight did not degrade the performance of the model, but enhanced it.

▲

Aurornis 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> A simple linear combination of every weight did not degrade the performance of the model, but enhanced it.

Enhanced it on a couple benchmarks, supposedly.

The game is to turn knobs until you get a benchmark run that shows an improvement, then ship it. There are a lot of fine tunes and chimera models on HuggingFace that are supposedly better at some specific test, but when you use them for anything else they're usually worse.

This happens with a lot of the models that are modified to remove censorship. They succeed in getting the model to emit previously censored outputs, but the overall output quality decreases.

	▲	andai 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		They seem to have deleted most of the README now, but the archived version has benchmarks. https://web.archive.org/web/20260614082641/https://huggingfa... And the Nex benchmarks for comparison https://huggingface.co/nex-agi/Nex-N2-Pro Rio seems to be about halfway between Qwen 3.5 and Nex, as you'd expect?
	▲	monster_truck an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		I don't think your last point is correct. Ablation, when done correctly, seems to increase the quality and typically also the performance too.
	▲	manquer 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> game is to turn knobs until you get a benchmark run that shows an improvement, then ship it i.e reinforcement learning against a weak reward function - benchmark is insufficiently complex and is not representative of the real world sufficiently. The "game", i.e. decision tree can be modeled as a multi-arm bandit problem, to deploy finite resources ( compute) toward exploitation/exploration . The main issue is each training / fine-tune is very expensive so number of chances at the slot so to speak is pretty limited today.

▲

x312 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This works because Nex itself is a finetune of Qwen3.5 (https://huggingface.co/nex-agi/Nex-N2-Pro). It's merging Qwen3.5 with a Qwen3.5 finetune.

I don't believe this would work on two LLMs that have different pretraining. Even if it did you would need two LLMs that have exact same internal activation shapes, dimensions, expert counts, token vocabulary, realistically it would never happen outside of finetunes or academic experiments.

	▲	hashmap 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		not this exact thing, no, because the functional circuits dont appear in the same places across models. but if you find where they are you can do something like branch between some of the middle functional circuits between models and it kinda just works, or even do one after the other. you cant just like swap any two layers cause a bunch of em bend hyperbolic curvature to do hierarchical stuff deep in the poincare ball and the geometries get all bonkers, but before and after they do that things are relatively flat, and the geometries are more or less transferrable up to rigid rotation if they're each trained on large enough data.
	▲	oofbey 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Correct. We used to think that because NN optimization is non-convex there are all these local minima. Now we know that once you get past the very early parts of training from random init, the loss surface is fairly smooth, and not really convex, but close enough in a bunch of ways - linear combinations of trained models are pretty much always valid combinations. You can think of fine tunings as deltas on the original model which can be summed together successfully. I think this paper first showed that to me: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.10026 which was 8 years ago now.

▲

woadwarrior01 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's is a well known idea[1], although it's still surprising that something as simple, even works.

[1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.05482

	▲	kolanos 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This team could have stopped here and still had something interesting (albeit not novel) to show. But the hype cycle was too tempting.

▲

tarruda an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What I find fascinating is the idea that there might be a set of "secret" tweaks that when applied to those weights (or even smaller models) could result in an intelligence simulation that could vastly surpass even something like Fable.

▲

5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

kristjansson 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://thickets.mit.edu

▲

moritzwarhier 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If this is true, it really would be impressive.

▲

themafia 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> A simple linear combination of every weight did not degrade the performance of the model, but enhanced it.

Which could be a signal that your "performance" was so abysmal in the first place that even randomly applied training methods can't make it _worse_.

▲

randall 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

▲

meindnoch 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It shows that LLMs are an extremely wasteful approach to intelligence.

	▲	kristjansson 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		or that intelligence is merely the composition of many redundant, lossy, ~random components
	▲	4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]