7 ms·
Oh no, someone is profiting off of their work without proper attribution!?!?
by zinodaur 3mo ago
Oh no, someone is profiting off of their work without proper attribution!?!?
- internet2000 3mo agoAttribution isn't the relevant part. Lying about your lab's capabilities is.
- Planktonne 3mo agoThat's also something all the AI companies have been doing.
- dofm 3mo agoLying about model capability is right now the lingua franca of the cloud AI business model, almost; they yes-and each other's lies because they are in a position of needing to generate interest, including going as far as needing to trigger regulatory capture. (It's not news to anyone who has worked in sales-led businesses that salespeople are prone to believing the claims of other salespeople, I guess).
- selcuka 3mo ago> Lying about model capability is right now the lingua franca of the cloud AI business model Lying about your lab's capabilities != Lying about model capability Exaggerating the capabilities of a new model that you've actually trained in press bulletins can be called marketing. Merging two models and claiming that you trained a new model is plain lazy.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- low_tech_love 3mo agoThey’re using public money to “train” this.
- functionmouse 3mo agoleopards ate my face
- adrian_b 3mo agoI do not see anyone lying. The model card says: > Post-trained from Qwen 3.5 397B The model card also says that they use an inference framework based on "SwiReasoning: Switch-Thinking in Latent and Explicit for Pareto-Superior Reasoning LLMs" by Shi et al.: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.05069 https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.05069 So the sources seem properly attributed. They only claim that what they did to "Qwen 3.5 397B" has improved the LLM, including, as expected, with "strong performance in Portuguese".
- 00index 3mo agoAre you talking about the credit that was just updated an hour ago? lol
- petu 3mo agoThat's attribution to Qwen team. There (is/was) no attribution to Nex team (they've released a model based on Qwen 3.5 397B as well). As per OP link Nex claims that what Rio team released (so far) is just linear interpolation of weights between Nex and OG Qwen model. With no attribution to Nex and zero signs of Rio doing any training of their own.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- outside2344 3mo agoBut the whole game is lying and stealing isn't it?
- vips7L 3mo agoSounds like the whole AI movement.
- themafia 3mo agoIt seems to me like the lies are both for the same reason. To capture attention and profits that are not deserved.
- bachmeier 3mo ago"Their work"? First you had the original content creators that did 99.99% of the work. Then you had the US companies bundle it up into a frontier LLM. Then "they" did the "work" of using the US model as a foundation for their own. So in the sense of doing 0.00001% of the actual work that went into their product, sure. I'd say it's more like someone forking a Linux distro, adding a few themes and fonts, and then complaining when someone else forks their distro and adds another theme.
- idiotsecant 3mo agoOof this is delete your post level I think. Sorry bud, I been there.
- dghlsakjg 3mo agoThat’s the joke.
- bachmeier 3mo agoIt isn't. The entirety of the comment I responded to is "Oh no, someone is profiting off of their work without proper attribution!?!?" It's a valid point, but references someone using content created by others for profit. I'm objecting to equating this project with the work done by the original content creators. They're not remotely the same thing. I understand how the internet works and how people respond to others in this type of setting, but the comment I replied to did not in any way make the point I was making about the disproportionate nature of relative contributions.
- idiotsecant 3mo agoIt's time to stop digging
- dghlsakjg 3mo ago> It isn’t It is. > I understand how the internet works and how people respond to others in this type of setting, but the comment I replied to did not in any way make the point I was making about the disproportionate nature of relative contributions. Do you understand? Jokes aren’t that funny when you have to dig into an explanation on the nuance of why the hidden meaning doesn’t match the surface meaning in exact degree and proportions. That turns a joke into a pedantic comment. And paradoxically muddies the point by explaining it. We aren’t morons. We understand that Picasso is doing something on a different level than someone feeding bulk scraped JPGs of paintings into a python script. You really don’t have to explain.
- clear-octopus 3mo ago[dead]
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- carlosjobim 3mo agoThis is a pure scam on tax payer money. But what else would be expected?
- jrm4 3mo agoUnlike the big companies who do this, which often are merely impure scams on tax payer money a little more downstream.
- carlosjobim 3mo agoGreat, now we're defending embezzlement and fraud with public funds on HN, because we really really hate big business. A child caught doing something bad will cry "but my friends also did it!", is that the level of reasoning hackers want to be at?
- sdevonoes 3mo agoThere are no hackers around here anymore. HN is mainly about business nowadays
- dmix 3mo agoHN has always discussed business
- jrm4 3mo agoWhat part of that said "defense?" They can both be bad.
- blanched 3mo agoThat seems like a bad faith read to me. Nobody is defending it, just pointing out the irony / hypocrisy. Two things can be bad, and they can be related.
- carlosjobim 3mo agoYou'd be surprised to hear then that I'm not the owner of any big company which embezzles tax payer money, and have never been involved in such.
- Aurornis 3mo agoThis is an open weights model based on other open weights models. The dispute is that they released it with claims about having done some post training that improved the outputs. It was discovered that the model was not post trained like they claimed. The HF page now says it’s a merge of models, which wasn’t there before. They’re trying to claim they accidentally uploaded the wrong model to HF and that they’ll upload the real one soon. Basically, they thought they could splice two open weights models together and claim their team had accomplished some amazing post training, but they weren’t smart enough to realize that other researchers would discover that there wasn’t any post training.
- moritzwarhier 3mo agoThanks for the factual clarification. This is so important when everyone already has their trigger finger on politics. Not meaning that politics are irrelevant here, see sister comment by jobim. But it's impossible to form a nuanced opinion when political association has a higher priority than the facts; which, again, don't look flattering for the implementers.
- iknowstuff 3mo agoHow do they just splice two models together?
- Aurornis 3mo agoThe Nex N2 model they merged is based on Qwen 3.5, so you can swap pieces of one into the other. They found a combination of the two that did well on some benchmarks and shipped it. In the early days of Llama there were a lot of experiments like this. There were even some interesting combinations of models where they stacked layers of different models together or even added more layers with interesting results. But announcing that you spliced two models together isn't very impressive in 2026, so they announced that they had done their own post training and outdid the big labs. They thought nobody would look close enough to notice.
- ninja3925 3mo agoOut of curiosity, how was it discovered? You would have to look for it to find this linear combination.
- s1artibartfast 3mo agoHow do you feel about the government or government contractors saying they did a bunch of work when they did nothing instead?