FINAL-Bench/Darwin-180B-RSI
Image-Text-to-Text • 180B • Updated • 70 • 43
noblettide88
nobletide88
AI & ML interests
None yet
Recent Activity
liked a model about 12 hours ago
FINAL-Bench/Darwin-180B-RSI liked a model 3 days ago
FINAL-Bench/POCKET-Qwen3.8-Flash-Next-GGUF liked a Space 3 days ago
FINAL-Bench/POCKET-Zimage-CPUOrganizations
None yet
liked a
model about 12 hours ago
liked a
model 3 days ago
liked a
Space 3 days ago
liked a
model 3 days ago
liked a
Space 5 days ago
reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with 🔥 5 days ago
Post
3392
The cost of a judging gate is usually quoted as a number. This puts it on a Tetris board.
Three boards get the same piece order, and on every move the same proposal and the same noise — a paired comparison. The gate decides one thing: keep this move, or draw again. Each board gets the same 60 seconds of gate time.
The text-writing gates get through 15–22 moves. The generation-free gate gets through 40–50. The boards that stop simply run out of clock.
It does not win on accuracy: on the same 2,018-question LODO set, JEV scores AUC 0.7350 against ZTC-Judge-27B's 0.7289. The separation is elsewhere. Clock — 2.1 s vs 0.0615 s per call, and on a 200-candidate agent screen one judging call measured 3.206 s generative vs 0.033 s readout, same server. Calibration — a gate is a threshold, and at ECE 0.4985 (vs ZTC 0.0245) a threshold stops carrying information. Mechanism — a text judge can name option 42 when there is no option 42; a scoring readout cannot. Not a lower error rate. No path.
The curve in the ZTC panel is real online fitting, scored prequentially — predict first, learn after — with base weights untouched. Not recursive self-improvement.
Limits, also stated on the page: Laya's AUC and latency are not our measurements and are set equal to JEV's, so calibration is the only measured axis it differs on. The page is a simulation driven by measured constants.
KO / EN / ZH.
FINAL-Bench/Tetris-JEV-LAYA-ZTC
FINAL-Bench/ZTC-Judge-27B
Three boards get the same piece order, and on every move the same proposal and the same noise — a paired comparison. The gate decides one thing: keep this move, or draw again. Each board gets the same 60 seconds of gate time.
The text-writing gates get through 15–22 moves. The generation-free gate gets through 40–50. The boards that stop simply run out of clock.
It does not win on accuracy: on the same 2,018-question LODO set, JEV scores AUC 0.7350 against ZTC-Judge-27B's 0.7289. The separation is elsewhere. Clock — 2.1 s vs 0.0615 s per call, and on a 200-candidate agent screen one judging call measured 3.206 s generative vs 0.033 s readout, same server. Calibration — a gate is a threshold, and at ECE 0.4985 (vs ZTC 0.0245) a threshold stops carrying information. Mechanism — a text judge can name option 42 when there is no option 42; a scoring readout cannot. Not a lower error rate. No path.
The curve in the ZTC panel is real online fitting, scored prequentially — predict first, learn after — with base weights untouched. Not recursive self-improvement.
Limits, also stated on the page: Laya's AUC and latency are not our measurements and are set equal to JEV's, so calibration is the only measured axis it differs on. The page is a simulation driven by measured constants.
KO / EN / ZH.
FINAL-Bench/Tetris-JEV-LAYA-ZTC
FINAL-Bench/ZTC-Judge-27B
- 5 replies
liked 3
models 8 days ago
upvoted 3
collections 8 days ago
liked a
Space 8 days ago
reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with 🔥 8 days ago
Post
3158
Ask a language model how confident it is and you get an AUC of 0.5000. Exactly a coin flip. We measured it across 2,018 items.
FINAL-Bench/gate-tetris
https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/ztc
Collection: https://huggingface.co/collections/FINAL-Bench/ztc-models-jev-ecosystems
Zero-Token Confidence (ZTC) reads it. One forward pass over the model's hidden state returns a calibrated probability that the answer is correct. Zero generated tokens.
It sits at the top of the shared board. Same 2,018 items, same harness for every entry: ZTC on Darwin-397B 0.7394, JEV 0.7335, ZTC-Judge-27B 0.7255, a surface baseline that reads only answer length and formatting 0.7036, Lynx 8B 0.5157, the model's own self-reported confidence 0.5000, HHEM 0.4852. First and third place both emit nothing at all.
The number worth staring at is 0.7036. That is a baseline reading no content whatsoever, just how long the answer is and how it is formatted. Any verifier scoring below it is not reading content either.
On speed, one gate call costs 0.0615 seconds, measured on four B200s across 2,000 items. Generating a single candidate answer takes 1.631 seconds, so the gate is 26 times cheaper than the work it guards. A verifier that generates competes with your agent for the same budget. A verifier that only reads can be attached to every action instead of a sampled few.
We built it so you can watch it decide. Three lanes receive the same stream of proposed actions and the same time budget. One has no gate and must execute everything. One uses a text-reading verifier. One uses ZTC. Right action plus one, wrong action minus one, hold zero. Over 400 matches: no gate minus 3.9, text verifier plus 13.0, ZTC plus 29.1, with ZTC taking 98 percent of matches. Gating lifts executed accuracy from 49 percent to 65 percent.
FINAL-Bench/gate-tetris
https://huggingface.co/blog/FINAL-Bench/ztc
Collection: https://huggingface.co/collections/FINAL-Bench/ztc-models-jev-ecosystems
Zero-Token Confidence (ZTC) reads it. One forward pass over the model's hidden state returns a calibrated probability that the answer is correct. Zero generated tokens.
It sits at the top of the shared board. Same 2,018 items, same harness for every entry: ZTC on Darwin-397B 0.7394, JEV 0.7335, ZTC-Judge-27B 0.7255, a surface baseline that reads only answer length and formatting 0.7036, Lynx 8B 0.5157, the model's own self-reported confidence 0.5000, HHEM 0.4852. First and third place both emit nothing at all.
The number worth staring at is 0.7036. That is a baseline reading no content whatsoever, just how long the answer is and how it is formatted. Any verifier scoring below it is not reading content either.
On speed, one gate call costs 0.0615 seconds, measured on four B200s across 2,000 items. Generating a single candidate answer takes 1.631 seconds, so the gate is 26 times cheaper than the work it guards. A verifier that generates competes with your agent for the same budget. A verifier that only reads can be attached to every action instead of a sampled few.
We built it so you can watch it decide. Three lanes receive the same stream of proposed actions and the same time budget. One has no gate and must execute everything. One uses a text-reading verifier. One uses ZTC. Right action plus one, wrong action minus one, hold zero. Over 400 matches: no gate minus 3.9, text verifier plus 13.0, ZTC plus 29.1, with ZTC taking 98 percent of matches. Gating lifts executed accuracy from 49 percent to 65 percent.
liked 2
Spaces 8 days ago
liked a
model 9 days ago
liked a
Space 12 days ago
reacted to ginigen-ai's post with 🚀 12 days ago
Post
2954
OpenRouter Leaderboard — every model, every provider, one comparable table. Price, precision, uptime, measured latency and language quality on the same axes.
Building it turned up three things.
We graded 330 models on Korean and two axes collapsed.
Honorifics — only 8.5% earn an A
Knowledge of Korean institutions — 9.4%
Every other axis sits above 31%
Fluency hides it. A model can write clean, natural Korean and still attach an honorific to a coffee cup. Fluent and wrong at the same time is worse than obviously broken, because nobody catches it in review.
A 2023 model beats the 2026 flagships. gpt-3.5-turbo-16k scores a perfect 3.00. Korean cannot be inferred from release date, parameter count or English benchmarks — it has to be measured, per model.
Quality, value and speed are three different models. Across five axes, the same model almost never takes two columns.
425 models, latency measured on 329 on a paid API, Korean graded on 330. Three languages, three currencies, daily refresh, open API, no key.
📝 https://huggingface.co/blog/ginigen-ai/openrouter-leaderboard 🔎 ginigen-ai/open-router-leaderboard
Building it turned up three things.
We graded 330 models on Korean and two axes collapsed.
Honorifics — only 8.5% earn an A
Knowledge of Korean institutions — 9.4%
Every other axis sits above 31%
Fluency hides it. A model can write clean, natural Korean and still attach an honorific to a coffee cup. Fluent and wrong at the same time is worse than obviously broken, because nobody catches it in review.
A 2023 model beats the 2026 flagships. gpt-3.5-turbo-16k scores a perfect 3.00. Korean cannot be inferred from release date, parameter count or English benchmarks — it has to be measured, per model.
Quality, value and speed are three different models. Across five axes, the same model almost never takes two columns.
425 models, latency measured on 329 on a paid API, Korean graded on 330. Three languages, three currencies, daily refresh, open API, no key.
📝 https://huggingface.co/blog/ginigen-ai/openrouter-leaderboard 🔎 ginigen-ai/open-router-leaderboard
reacted to SeaWolf-AI's post with 🚀 14 days ago
Post
5649
Instead of making the fly brain play games, we measured what it is for
Since the Drosophila connectome was released, people have had the fly brain doomscroll a feed, play Beat Saber, drive in GTA. Those demos show that the brain runs. We wanted to show what it is for.
So we gave it a looming object — one of the few things a fly brain is unambiguously built to detect — then deleted a single cell type and repeated the identical stimulus. Remove LC4, 126 cells out of 173,023, and the escape signal falls from 0.840 to 0.091. Eighty-nine percent of the danger signal is gone while the other 172,897 neurons run exactly as before.
Deleting neurons does not do this on its own, which is the whole point of the controls. LC11 is the same class and larger than LC4 — 143 cells and 9,940 outgoing connections against 126 and 7,846 — and removing every one of them changes the signal by 0.000000, to six decimal places. It has to be those 126.
No server and no GPU: a looming stimulus drives fewer than one percent of neurons above threshold, so the whole thing is 40 KB gzipped and runs in your browser.
Try deleting one yourself →
VIDraft/fruitfly-brain
The wiring is the measured connectome, but synaptic strength is a uniform count-based value and the dynamics are a firing-rate model of our choosing — a total-effect measurement of a model, not a recording from a fly. Male CNS connectome, FlyEM / HHMI Janelia with Google Research, Columbia and Harvard (2026), CC BY.
Since the Drosophila connectome was released, people have had the fly brain doomscroll a feed, play Beat Saber, drive in GTA. Those demos show that the brain runs. We wanted to show what it is for.
So we gave it a looming object — one of the few things a fly brain is unambiguously built to detect — then deleted a single cell type and repeated the identical stimulus. Remove LC4, 126 cells out of 173,023, and the escape signal falls from 0.840 to 0.091. Eighty-nine percent of the danger signal is gone while the other 172,897 neurons run exactly as before.
Deleting neurons does not do this on its own, which is the whole point of the controls. LC11 is the same class and larger than LC4 — 143 cells and 9,940 outgoing connections against 126 and 7,846 — and removing every one of them changes the signal by 0.000000, to six decimal places. It has to be those 126.
No server and no GPU: a looming stimulus drives fewer than one percent of neurons above threshold, so the whole thing is 40 KB gzipped and runs in your browser.
Try deleting one yourself →
VIDraft/fruitfly-brain
The wiring is the measured connectome, but synaptic strength is a uniform count-based value and the dynamics are a firing-rate model of our choosing — a total-effect measurement of a model, not a recording from a fly. Male CNS connectome, FlyEM / HHMI Janelia with Google Research, Columbia and Harvard (2026), CC BY.