It's is a well known idea[1], although it's still surprising that something as simple, even works.

[1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.05482

I didn't know model merging like that was possible. (Obviously possible from a pure software standpoint but I'm surprised it's effective)

[dead]

So the problem isn’t in the missing attribution to Qwen, but with the fact that they didn’t mention Nex-N2 Pro right?

Merges and fine tunes are within reach of individuals with some money to burn so I’m sure a muni can do it

That only tells what base architecture they used, but fine tuning does not increase the number of weights, it just adapts the weights to improve better on a fine tuning dataset- something they claimed they had done

This is a good starting point: https://huggingface.co/docs/peft/developer_guides/model_merg...

But yes, in general, merging refers to techniques that directly blend the weights of different models mathematically. It had a big moment of popularity ~2 years ago, with many so-called "Frankenmodels" popping up on leaderboards.

I tend to think of merging as belonging to the same general umbrella as things like "abliteration", or other techniques that surgically modify the weights of a model without a traditional training/tuning loop. Maxime Labonne is a great person to follow if you're interested in this general area.

The allegation here is that it's not actually a fine-tune of Qwen, but instead an undisclosed mashup (merge) of someone else's fine-tune of Qwen and the original model. Rio subsequently said that the model was in fact a merge, that they did additional fine-tuning after the merge, and that they accidentally uploaded the base merge instead of the version with additional fine-tuning. But this seems like quite an oversight...

why not?

most merge improve a small subset of "feeling" benchmark (too small, too specific, or out of distribution) and tend to show degradation on actual benchmark, with especially punishing result on long chain benchmarks.

also only work on matching architectures (i.e. finetunes/loras of the same model)

If you go to Civitai this is pretty how it works in that corner of the image generation world

Everything is using Stable Diffusion as underlying model, then most of the usage is merged of checkpoints

No, they need the same arch, but you can distill them into a single model. And yes, if you use the API directly Claude will often say it’s an open weight model (likely the ones it was distilled from)

I imagine it'd work the same as merging all the good-tasting foods to get an even tastier one

that kinda worked in llama 1/2 era, not between different models but between finetunes of the same model. the briefly legendary Mythomax was IIRC a merge of 5+ tunes, some of which were merges themselves.

You just described every single vibe coder...

I wouldn’t describe what happened here as incompetence. As a “carioca”, I am pleasantly surprised to know that the government’s IT department is involved in AI work — even without the budget to create its own models from scratch.

Why would they care? They get their salaries and pensions and bonuses, and the tax payer is footing the bill.

It wasnt framed as an issue which is the norm breakage I think you’re reacting to, as in they didnt ask that the readme be updated etc, but it is common now for folks to use a project’s issue tracker to name and shame them in a place they cant easily ignore.

Whether that’s right, prosocial, or professional is up for debate (as well as if any single definition of etiquette can be expected in 2026 on an issue tracker).

But surely you can see the optics reason why someone would take their complaint to the repo directly? It pressures the maintainers to respond, it allows for a pile on from the internet, and makes any decision to lock down a hostile thread into its own kind of statement.

The maintainers should absolutely post an official response and lock the thread though, it will likely get ugly in there.

What’s more funny to me is the set up to that quote:

> Bill Gates had somehow manifested, alone, surrounded by ten Apple employees. … Steve started yelling at Bill, asking him why he violated their agreement.

And what’s more interesting is the conclusion:

> Apple filed a monumental copyright lawsuit against Microsoft in 1988, but they eventually lost on a technicality (the judge ruled that Apple inadvertently gave Microsoft a perpetual license to the Mac user interface in November 1985).

Microsoft didn’t steal Apple’s GUI … Apple gave it to them.

lmao i really hope this is a real quote cuz it’s a banger

This was a municipality working with a government associated IT company.

What does it have to do with Brazilian academia?

No, typically Brazilians go to Paraguay for their education, most of their technology comes from Paraguay too.

Without evidence, your comment is just bad mouthing.

I have been involved in academia, including in Brazil, and I don't find academia there any more copycat than any other institution, including top tier ones.

[dead]

Are you new to the latest AI hype cycle? /s

"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.

This 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.

Attribution isn't the relevant part. Lying about your lab's capabilities is.

This is a pure scam on tax payer money. But what else would be expected?