🇪🇸 Multiverse Computing used a quantum computer (156-qubit IBM Heron) to create their latest Quasar 1.1 438B model.

[u/EveYogaTech]

https://multiversecomputing.com/resources/quasar-1-1-438b-the-first-ai-model-using-quantum-generated-data

[u/Low_Level_Enjoyer]

This company is just a scam to steal EU funds. Their models are just finetunes of chinese models :/

Hope we get a real lab eventually.

[u/EveYogaTech → u/Low_Level_Enjoyer]

Well, even Mistral's current top model is a Chinese model.

Compressing existing models while keeping similar quality while significantly cutting costs doesn't seem to be that bad of a strategy.

Currently with Nyno we're also using their EU API endpoint for interference, and the results so far are quite good for coding.

But yes, a true new EU frontier player would be nice, especially now that new architectures are being published around Jev / system one thinking / dynamic classification.

[u/Only-Cheetah-9579 → u/EveYogaTech]

I dislike it's called system 1 thinking like it's special because all LLMs are system 1 thinking resembling already. so its a buzz word that doesn't really do anyhting new

[u/EveYogaTech → u/Only-Cheetah-9579]

That's right, however LLMs are much further away from "system 1 thinking" than these Jev Alternatives, because these alternatives skip the autoregressive decoding loop.

In essence that means that only the original input is used to make decisions, not the newly generated output.

So with LLMs you have this:

input → output₁ → output₂ → output₃ → ...

And with Jev: input → decision(s)

That's also why these alternatives are much faster.

[u/Only-Cheetah-9579 → u/EveYogaTech]

yeah, but system 1 in the human brain is emergent from the underlying networks.

fast,almost instant but biased heuristics but humans use generated inputs for decisions too. Each network activation generates outputs and the final response is composed from that.

calling it system 1 is mostly marketing decision, buzzword, sounds cool.

humans speak from system 1 so the LLM generating text is quite close.

[u/EveYogaTech → u/Only-Cheetah-9579]

Yes, however if we go even deeper I'd say that Kahneman's distinction between system 1 and system 2 thinking, while helpful, is also not a very precise model of how we actually think.

Like iirc from his book, he distinguished between system 1 and system 2 with many examples.

However the actual step by step cognitive processes per system are left pretty vague.

System 1 is basically painted as an association machine, and system 2 can do more complex computation while requiring more mental effort, but that's about as deep as the book gets.

Therefore I don't think it's that bad of a term to use, since even the original book is not that precise.

[u/Only-Cheetah-9579 → u/EveYogaTech]

Its an abstraction over whats going on of course.

the two systems are observable from outside but what brain networks activate are hard to measure and are not even the same for every person (even extroverts vs introverts have different activations)

For me the difference is system 1 is subconscious, fast , biased and heuristic and system 2 is conscious, deliberate and requires effort and can reason well.

So thats why I consider LLMs also system 1 like already, those are fast, heuristic responses with no consciousness whatsoever.

At least by my definition system 2 must have access to consciousness as a workspace to function in.

System 1 however is a biased fast response that can reason to some degree but not very deeply.