alt Hacker NewsFirst, congrats to the team on launching something genuinely interesting and new.
Seems like a more accurate title would be "Jev: Trading general purpose generation for fast typed inference" or something like that.
This is interesting, but the speed comparison seems misleading? A generative model that can output code in a Turing-complete language can do anything a computer can do.
Jev can only generate structured output, right? This is probably super useful for classification/routing/scoring, but it's nothing like the code generating models we're all using today for code and automation.
Also "can't hallucinate" seems wrong? Sure, it can't emit an invalid type, but it can still emit a completely wrong valid value. You can enforce structured output from an LLM too, with an appropriate harness, etc.
Assuming there's no funny business, the Doom demo is cool.
Replies
I don’t think it’s misleading if you compare on the use cases they suggested. It’s faster and cheaper (no idea if higher quality), so it’s immediately interesting for certain things.
And if you buy their RLCD claims, this might be even better than huge models that know a bunch of irrelevant things.
When they say "can't hallucinate" they mean they produce a confidence value for every result, so you could see for example it has 0.1 confidence, and you can disregard the result - that'd be different from hallucinating where it believes it's correct
> Jev can only generate structured output, right? This is probably super useful for classification/routing/scoring,
My first thought was that it would be ideal for robotics? As in control of limbs, general planning, route finding, etc.
I'm biased but I wouldn't call it misleading - generating text is super awesome and flexible, (we describe that in the blog post - and I personally use string models all the time) but it's true you pay a high tax for autoregressive generation
> Also "can't hallucinate" seems wrong? Sure, it can't emit an invalid type, but it can still emit a completely wrong valid value.
that is likely true of all ML! perhaps we could debate semantics, but I don't think it's fair to say a random forest "hallucinates" in the way LLMs do