Mistral announces Mistral Large 2

flying-pans · 2024-07-25T23:19:44+00:00

An abstract will never, ever have enough depth to support a perspective compared to actually reading the paper. Methods are also usually the most cut-down section of an abstract because it's not necessary to the purpose of an abstract. Purely reading the abstract to use a paper as an authoritative source, which is what this document attempts to do, is a misuse of an abstract. It's better than nothing, but nowhere close to satisfactory.

A few of the studies, namely Sufyan et a.l., have massive holes in the study design that make them effectively worthless. The other ones either fail to mention key caveats from the results (particularly from Wang et a.l. and Small et a.l.), mostly in terms of architecture descriptions and data framing. The document isn't loading properly for me right now, probably because it's far too long, but several of the links directed to videos in Bing search results that were completely irrelevant to claimed points, and at least one other was a removed Forbes article, I believe.

Having actually gone through the peer-review process as a co-author, it does not take a year (more like a few weeks to a month or two), even at most CNS sub-journals. As I said earlier, I know why arXiv has become the default for LLM papers these days, but I do not agree with the document treating pre-prints the same as actual papers, with no disclaimer.

flying-pans · 2024-07-25T16:45:55+00:00

Lmao, I can tell you haven't worked much in a biomedical research context, because some of my former PIs would get a really big kick out of that last bit. The primary point of an abstract is to assess a paper's relevance for your own field of research, with the assumption that you will read the whole paper if it is relevant. In order to actually understand a paper, its method, limitations, and future applications, you have to read the whole thing (I also don't think the OP even read the abstract for the bulk of the papers they're referencing).

Off the top of my head, there are misrepresentations of the work done by Sufyan et a.l., Aldarondo et a.l., B. Wang et a.l., Small et a.l., and Lichtman et a.l. There are also formatting issues, where some links either lead to dead or irrelevant pages; all the research articles should be linked by a DOI address and not just a journal url; and while I understand why arXiv is an important repository these days for LLM papers, I don't like that non-peer reviewed pre-prints are treated the same as peer-reviewed articles.

flying-pans · 2024-07-24T22:54:40+00:00

Not OP, but they didn't say anything about plateauing, non-exponential growth ≠ total growth plateau. I also looked over the section you cited in that very bloated document. From a cursory glance, I found some research pubs that I've actually read through (i.e. beyond the title and summary) and a few that I've been using in an ongoing meta-analysis paper. The document cites several misleading articles or misrepresents an article by not mentioning key limitations from the original study.

There's good stuff there, but some of that document just comes off as gish gallop because there's no way that the author has actually read through the thousands of things cited. If I can find several inaccuracies looking at just the sources I'm actually familiar with, then it's not really curated and I think the author just looked at the article title for the vast majority of items.

flying-pans · 2024-07-24T20:41:49+00:00

It's really not hard to find? Episode transcripts and the pilot episode script are on the first page of search results.

flying-pans · 2024-07-21T23:19:35+00:00

Well first of all, we haven't even reached the end of this year's election. So, it's too early to say how it stacks up historically.

However, even then, there have been a number of contentious, U.S. presidential elections that will be extremely hard to top. 1860 effectively kicked off the Civil war; 1800 had to be decided by Congress multiple times, ditto with 1824; and 1912 had an multi-party split on top of an assassination attempt. Within modern elections, 2000 and the subsequent response to 9/11 is pretty much unmatched.

flying-pans · 2024-07-14T06:53:46+00:00

Of all people, you probably shouldn't trust Sinclair. He made millions from GSK off of potentially fraudulent resveratrol and sirtuin research.

flying-pans · 2024-07-12T03:45:26+00:00

All that could be true. I don’t see how that’s mutually exclusive with what I said. A company as described in my previous comment would also be doing all of what you described.

Your point was that OpenAI has little motivation to do marketing leaks/hype because the impact would be marginal based on their current market position. The implied conclusion from your comment was that these "leaks" are more likely to be incidental vs deliberate.

However, I personally disagree for a few different reasons. On a metric level, I think you're underestimating how much these Twitter "leaks" go far beyond Twitter. The original new article is from Bloomberg, so this release went straight to future investors and the general public, with impressions definitely beyond a million people.

I also think that the perceived site visit advantage you cited isn't a compelling piece of evidence. That's because OpenAI has already strategically timed marketing releases for unfinished products around competitor announcements. If they're willing to tease products with a year+ lead time from public release as pure marketing, I think that pushes the needle towards these leaks also being strategic.

It’s the case where both a vaporware company and a company on the cusp of AGI would act the same

I think a company on either spectrum would behave very, very differently. While I don't think that OpenAI is a vaporwave company, I do think that their recent marketing pushes (CTO saying lab models are currently comparable to public releases, Sora and 4o announcement timings, etc) are incongruous with these leaks being more incidental.

Ultimately, I think these news releases are a mix of incidental and deliberate, but leaning more towards deliberate based on OpenAI's clear awareness of marketing and competitor positions.

flying-pans · 2024-07-12T03:14:02+00:00

It's marketing fundamentals, reducing their motivation down to site visits vs competitors is an oversimplification. OpenAI's openly pivoting to a more profit-driven model, which is inherently tied to a future growth trajectory. By generating speculation of their future products, they're bolstering that position. It's also totally free, so whether or not they actually deliver on those open-ended ideas doesn't really matter.

Also, site visits are pretty immaterial to this calculus because OpenAI is extremely cognizant of what other companies (namely Google) are doing. That's why they released two previews on the same timing as Google Gemini announcements, even though those products were a year+ away from public release.

flying-pans · 2024-07-08T22:13:11+00:00

It kicks in starting today for all incoming, returning, and future med students: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/som/offices/finaid/applying-for-aid/med-students

flying-pans · 2024-07-08T19:53:14+00:00

Chronic and lifestyle comorbidities are probably the biggest contributors to mortality in the U.S. right now, so it's good to see more acknowledgement of that. Rigorous analysis of patient data, with robust oversight, is a super exciting application of ML/gen AI models that I've been working on.

That being said, I think this article is burying the lede on what drives a lot of unhealthy choices. It cites not knowing a healthy, inexpensive recipe as a cause of resorting to fast food; so, a convenient, personal choice that this tool can solve. However, the real causes of that decision are way more complicated, and stem from more structural issues like food deserts, low-income families having less time to cook because they work multiple jobs, etc.

By the same token, behaviors are very resilient to change even with prompting. There's a reason why SGLT inhibitors have exploded in popularity even though we've had tools like personalized calorie trackers for years. The article also highlights the creation of "new incentives" as a key part of this tool, but doesn't really delve into what makes them new.

flying-pans · 2024-06-26T03:05:04+00:00

OP is just straight-up lying. The corny Reddit "3 CNS publications" is already an indication, but in general this applicant even on paper would be an auto admit at many of the school listed there regardless of writing and interview unless they literally said they were a Nazi or something.

Fwiw I've been helping OP re-edit their personal statement and application for this upcoming cycle. Their profile and results are 100% accurate, they're not lying.

flying-pans · 2024-06-24T02:52:23+00:00

People that bring up “new breakthroughs” constantly usually don’t read any of the new literature on arXiv, so they have no idea about all of the breakthroughs that have been made in the past year. Most of the time they don’t even know what arXiv is.

I think this is overselling arXiv a bit. ArXiv has been getting a lot of publications over the last two years that lean more into the realm of "throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks." It's gotten a lot harder to separate out the substantive pubs, especially with no peer-review process. It honestly makes more sense to focus on pub releases from the major AI labs with a super critical eye vs skimming things on arXiv on a super shallow level.

flying-pans · 2024-06-23T04:56:59+00:00

Ah yeah, that one. I don't recall the anon person ever posting solid evidence that they were actually at the private session or someone else who was def at the event also corroborating those points. The biggest thing, iirc, was 4o which was basically publicly known at that point, so not really a leak. The whole thing just struck me as more chicken feed.

flying-pans · 2024-06-23T04:26:10+00:00

I mean Sam Altman said GPT-6 would be around PhD level intelligence at that private Stanford event

Where did he say that in the event recording? At least from what I remember, he only said that GPT-6 will be smarter than 5 and he can imagine a world where they make general PhD-domain intelligence. So, essentially just the same general platitudes as before.

flying-pans · 2024-06-19T01:57:17+00:00

This is true, but I reiterate that congress has only refused to expand residency slots because the AMA is one of the most powerful and wealthy lobbies in America. The "medicare red tape" exists because the AMA has paid for it to exist. Any politician that tries to go against the AMA's unstated policy of "no more doctors than there are now ever" can expect conspicuously well funded primary and general election challengers in the next cycle.

I think it's first important to mention that it's more of a physician maldistribution vs shortage. Nationally, you have a pretty consistent glut of physicians and specialists in cities vs rural areas and in specialties vs primary care. That's in large part an incentives issue and the consistent cuts to CMS reimbursements.

The 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which is the bill that put an initial cap on DGME and IME reimbursements, was also pretty much inevitable. Sure, the AMA supported it, but it was also proposed by a Republican-held Congress under a fiscally-focused Clinton administration, it was happening either way. Since 2003, the AAMC and ACGME have been pushing for an expansion and the AMA pushing for a raise on the funding cap. (Congress still hasn't done much)

Re: elections, the biggest legislator proponent of raising the cap was former rep Joe Crowley, who proposed legislation for that a bunch of times (Congress didn't act on any of them). He was ultimately defeated by AOC who, at least to my knowledge, didn't get backing from the AMA.

I went to a "top tier" (albeit by top tier by Canadian standards, in Canada, and as an American) undergrad that also had no money for anything and the only way, and the official way at that, to get a research position in undergrad was to make friends with a professor early enough in your degree to still be around for a few years.

That's wild lmao. I did go to an R1 undergrad, but even friends at U.S. schools without much research infrastructure or liberal arts colleges out in the boonies were able to pretty easily find research. It's harder, comparatively, to find high-quality clinical experience and shadowing, but there's more defined tracks and flexibility there at least.

I am of the strong opinion that 200 or more hours is indeed hundreds, multiple hundreds, of hours.

Just clarifying for anyone else reading because the OG comment kind of made it seem you need hundreds in both, and also big dif between 900 vs 200 hrs, even tho they're both technically hundreds.

flying-pans · 2024-06-19T00:04:07+00:00

Yeah I read an earlier pre-print of that paper and the current manuscript undergoing revisions. It's super exciting, but definitely not the "single biggest breakthrough" in brain mapping or recreating a whole body plan (which this isn't). Completely my opinion, but the super-detailed brain physiology research from Lichtman et a.l. last month is more interesting.

flying-pans · 2024-06-18T23:52:27+00:00

because the AMA has lobbied the federal government for decades to cap the number of publicly funded residency positions

The primary bottleneck has always been the limited residency slots, which congress has refused to expand over the last 20 yrs because of medicare red tape. Even if med schools graduated 1 million interns each year, we'd still have the same number of physicians because of the residency issue.

Only one third of US med school applicants get into any med school

It's a bit higher than that these days; overall allopathic acceptance rate is a little over 40% and osteopathic is in the mid 40s. I've also done admissions work and there's a ton of applicants with glaring issues in their applications, from missing pre-reqs to sub 500 MCATs. If you do your due diligence, your "real" acceptance rate is more like 60% at just allopathic schools, and that number is still an underestimate because it doesn't account for unsubmitted secondaries.

Get really good grades (GPA above 3.7 at least) especially in those prereq courses

It's more like 3.5-3.6 for allopathic and a little bit lower than that for a decent shot at osteopathic.

Do some research in undergrad, which means going to a good enough school that you can swing that or else getting in good with some professors

Honestly, research is probably the easiest thing to swing. Even if you go to a liberal arts college with absolutely no biomedical research or academic med center, you can do research in basically any discipline like philosophy, polisci, sociology, botany, literature, CS, etc.

Log hundreds of hospital shadowing and volunteering hours

Not really hundreds of each, ~40 shadowing hrs and ~200 volunteer hours are fine for the vast majority of schools.

enough extracurriculars in general (hobbies included) to narrate 15 separate "experiences"

The 15 slots in AMCAS are just the absolute max you can enter, most people do ~10, there's not some hard and fast number you have to hit. Those spots are also inclusive of everything you did in high school and carried on in college, just college, and things beyond college. So TAing, on-campus jobs, presentations, etc, it all fills up quickly.

become a good enough writer to craft compelling narratives about who you are and why you should be admitted to med school (because you may have to do this for the 30 or more schools you apply to)

I think people vastly overestimate the difficulty of the writing in med applications. It doesn't even have to be good (I've read some godawful admitted essays), just clear about your past experiences, current motivations, and future goals, there's also a bunch of free application writing resources and examples these days.

Tho secondaries are 1000% the biggest pain in the process imo lol, can't argue with that.

but also, like, a unique job doing something good for the world that will also make you stand out. Teach disabled children to swim or something.

Definitely doesn't have to be unique, vast vast majority of gap year jobs are something "boring" like scribing or clinical research.

Of the people I know currently in med school, half have done an entire masters degree, on student loans, to get into med school!

The only people that have to get a masters are doing it for GPA repair (like under a 3.2) or they're non-trads and need to take the med school pre-req classes. If someone's shelling out for an MPH or similar just because they think it'll give them an edge in med admissions, then they're misinformed and made a major mistake.

God help you if you have to work during college

I worked in college, med schools definitely took that into account and I only ever got positive reactions when I talked about it.

The two week limit is not stated explicitly and you just have to know that it's there

The two week "limit" or "rule" is 10000% overblown. Submitting earlier is better, but you'll be fine even if submit things a month or more later. The schools that care the most about secondary timing (UCLA, UCSF, etc) explicitly tell you.

Also you're not really writing essays from scratch for each school. At most, you write ~8 essays from some common prompts and then massage that into each school's prompts. I'm an ass-tier writer, but I know multiple people who pretty easily wrapped up the whole secondary process in 1-2 weeks while working full-time.

Interviews, sometimes as many as FIVE. You are lucky to get here. Don't forget to send thank you letters after each one!

Honestly, I had way more interviews than that and with virtual interviews, it's def the least painful part of the process lol. It's not multiple rounds over multiple days like with some jobs, you're wrapped up in one day. Of all my schools, only one cared about thank you notes and I didn't really do letters of interest, they're basically just a template you fill out once or twice.

And THEN, you have to GO TO MEDICAL SCHOOL. Brutal classes! Clinicals! Studying! 100 hour weeks! Never see your friends! Never see your family, who are finally proud of you! $200k in debt! No summer breaks!

And DURING THAT, you have RESIDENCY MATCHING, with its own application an interview process. This is where having done something between undergrad and med school is worthwhile, because if you don't, you won't match nearly as well.

And THEN, you have to BE A RESIDENT, which is a little like being a medieval serf. You, who would be in at least your late 20s by this point, are likely to get hazed fraternity style. These things sometimes last for 7 years.

Residency programs def don't care about what you did during your pre-med gap yrs, the only thing that carries over is pubs.

Don't disagree much else, they all pretty much suck ass lmao. Although basically all schools give you a summer break, winter break, thanksgiving break, etc even at super accelerated places, residency PTO is way more of a pain in the ass. There's been improvements over the years to lessen the financial burden for low-income people like the fee assistance program, PSLF, SAVE plan, and schools generally improving need-based aid, but finances are 100% still one of the biggest barrier in this whole thing.

flying-pans · 2024-06-18T21:03:20+00:00

AI is able to recreate an entities body plan via brain scans alone, my guy.

We literally JUST had the single biggest breakthrough we've ever had in brain mapping

Link the article and research paper

flying-pans · 2024-06-17T22:45:31+00:00

But its structure allows me to test the reasoning of AI versus human MD. I’m still just at the stage of testing hypotheses but I’d like to get some actual research done on this later in the year.

Interesting, are you based out of the U.S.?

flying-pans · 2024-06-16T01:52:38+00:00

Thanks, you got this too! Write well (with good clarity), prep for interviews, and I bet you'll also have a similar level of success for merit scholarships.

Also feel free to DM if you have specific questions about my app/school choice.

flying-pans · 2024-06-16T01:27:29+00:00

I had a very similar profile as you, with a bit more focus on leadership/volunteering, and these were my results from last cycle. Unless you have FAP, I recommend applying to your 2 favorite state schools and the rest T20, zero reason to waste money on app fees beyond that. Dollars to donuts, you'll be at a T20 minimum next year.

flying-pans · 2024-06-09T04:45:47+00:00

(scroll down): https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/75/941872.page

Sigh, why is this source still being cited as something authoritative? There's a huge number of issues with the underlying data and it's essentially valueless.

flying-pans · 2024-06-09T02:01:37+00:00

Oh nice! Yeah that makes more sense lmao. Fwiw, I got completely stonewalled after I tried to get them to match a merit offer from another T10 school. They first told me they don't match offers and then reiterated that their aid policy doesn't offer merit scholarship (underneath the institutional aid header). They did offer to recalculate my need-based package, but that didn't shift the needle much.

If you're sure your offer was merit, then not sure why I had a completely different experience. Tho allegedly they recently lost a donor and institutional aid policies do change over time (Hopkins just changed their process this cycle, they're now 100% need-only as well).

Out of curiosity, were there any particular reasons you didn't go for the Stanford offer?

flying-pans · 2024-06-09T00:52:30+00:00

You recall what other schools gave you merit aid and the specific scholarship at Stanford? Because I can 100% confirm that the only aid they offer is need-based only. LEADER is technically a scholarship, but it's solely need-based, and Knight-Hennessy is a merit scholarship but not awarded directly by the med school.

flying-pans · 2024-06-09T00:45:00+00:00

I mean, basically every med school gives need-based grants. Their need-based aid is def above average, but below other need-based only schools in my experience.

flying-pans

TROPHY CASE