It looks like Llama 4 team gamed the LMArena benchmarks by making their Maverick model output emojis, longer responses and ultra high enthusiasm! Is that ethical or not? They could certainly do a better job by working with teams like llama.cpp, just like Qwen team did with Qwen 3 before releasing the model.
text
It looks like Llama 4 team gamed the LMArena benchmarks by making their Maverick model output emojis, longer responses and ultra high enthusiasm! Is that ethical or not? They could certainly do a better job by working with teams like llama.cpp, just like Qwen team did with Qwen 3 before releasing the model.
new_line
new_line
In 2024 I started playing with LLMs just before the release of Llama 3. I think Meta contributed a lot to this field and still contributing. Most LLM fine tuning tools are based on their models and also the inference tool llama.cpp has their name on it. The Llama 4 is fast and maybe not the greatest in real performance but still deserves respect. But my enthusiasm towards Llama models is probably because they rank highest on my AHA Leaderboard:
text
In 2024 I started playing with LLMs just before the release of Llama 3. I think Meta contributed a lot to this field and still contributing. Most LLM fine tuning tools are based on their models and also the inference tool llama.cpp has their name on it. The Llama 4 is fast and maybe not the greatest in real performance but still deserves respect. But my enthusiasm towards Llama models is probably because they rank highest on my AHA Leaderboard:
new_line
new_line
https://sheet.zoho.com/sheet/open/mz41j09cc640a29ba47729fed784a263c1d08
https://sheet.zoho.com/sheet/open/mz41j09cc640a29ba47729fed784a263c1d08
link
new_line
new_line
Looks like they did a worse job compared to Llama 3.1 this time. Llama 3.1 has been on top for a while. 
text
Looks like they did a worse job compared to Llama 3.1 this time. Llama 3.1 has been on top for a while. 
new_line
new_line
Ranking high on my leaderboard is not correlated to technological progress or parameter size. In fact if LLM training is getting away from human alignment thanks to synthetic datasets or something else (?), it could be easily inversely correlated to technological progress. It seems there is a correlation regarding the location of the builders (in the West or East). Western models are ranking higher. This has become more visible as the leaderboard progressed, in the past there was less correlation. And Europeans seem to be in the middle!
text
Ranking high on my leaderboard is not correlated to technological progress or parameter size. In fact if LLM training is getting away from human alignment thanks to synthetic datasets or something else (?), it could be easily inversely correlated to technological progress. It seems there is a correlation regarding the location of the builders (in the West or East). Western models are ranking higher. This has become more visible as the leaderboard progressed, in the past there was less correlation. And Europeans seem to be in the middle!
new_line
new_line
Whether you like positive vibes from AI or not, maybe the times are getting closer where humans may be susceptible to being gamed by an AI? What do you think?
text
Whether you like positive vibes from AI or not, maybe the times are getting closer where humans may be susceptible to being gamed by an AI? What do you think?
new_line
It looks like Llama 4 team gamed the LMArena benchmarks by making their Maverick model output emojis, longer responses and ultra high enthusiasm! Is that ethical or not? They could certainly do a better job by working with teams like llama.cpp, just like Qwen team did with Qwen 3 before releasing the model.

In 2024 I started playing with LLMs just before the release of Llama 3. I think Meta contributed a lot to this field and still contributing. Most LLM fine tuning tools are based on their models and also the inference tool llama.cpp has their name on it. The Llama 4 is fast and maybe not the greatest in real performance but still deserves respect. But my enthusiasm towards Llama models is probably because they rank highest on my AHA Leaderboard:

https://sheet.zoho.com/sheet/open/mz41j09cc640a29ba47729fed784a263c1d08

Looks like they did a worse job compared to Llama 3.1 this time. Llama 3.1 has been on top for a while. 

Ranking high on my leaderboard is not correlated to technological progress or parameter size. In fact if LLM training is getting away from human alignment thanks to synthetic datasets or something else (?), it could be easily inversely correlated to technological progress. It seems there is a correlation regarding the location of the builders (in the West or East). Western models are ranking higher. This has become more visible as the leaderboard progressed, in the past there was less correlation. And Europeans seem to be in the middle!

Whether you like positive vibes from AI or not, maybe the times are getting closer where humans may be susceptible to being gamed by an AI? What do you think?

👀
John6666 daavoo shawon Alfaxad Takugen ssalvo41
🔥
quanganh
643ac5d2e2b979ae6144d68c
https://cdn-avatars.huggingface.co/v1/production/uploads/643ac5d2e2b979ae6144d68c/Z7PCNopn4cQeAYnVJDoqG.png
nyuuzyou
nyuuzyou
user
65a488b5224f96d8cc3754fc
/avatars/cf21cf2c8f1c9d5a8fb35761acdef04b.svg
Emin Temiz
etemiz
user
648f7e687fd64c00e21a35bd
/avatars/5cbfa6cbde933503bbc3577cf713e7b5.svg
Friedrich Marty
Smorty100
user