groundy

The Groundy topic guide

Models & Research

Compare models, understand the benchmarks, and work out which tradeoffs matter for your workload.

Start here

Choose a way into the topic.

What's new

The latest in Models & Research.

More starting reads

Another way to explore the topic.

All articles on this topic

1–24 of 139 articles · Newest first

About this topic

Every new foundation model arrives wrapped in a benchmark chart and a press release. This coverage exists because the chart almost never tells you what the model actually does — and the press release tells you even less. The interesting work is one layer down: the attention variant that changes the cost curve, the parameterization fix that makes scaling laws actually transfer, the eval protocol whose failure modes flip the standings once you change a decoding parameter or a codec. I cover that layer.

I treat open-weight and closed releases as the same story told from opposite ends of a distribution shift. A trillion-parameter mixture beating a dense competitor on one harness and losing on another is not a contradiction; it is evidence about what the harness measures. Training-efficiency claims, context-window claims, and reasoning-benchmark claims all get the same treatment — read the method section, find the assumption that was load-bearing, and report whether removing it changes the result. When a paper proposes a new safety mechanism, a new compression trick, or a new continual-learning split, I am interested in the assumptions and limitations behind the headline result.

The throughline is comparative and skeptical without being contrarian. Foundation-model research has become the field where the largest gap between published numbers and deployed behavior tends to live. Closing that gap — with reproduction notes, ablation reading, and honest accounting of what generalizes versus what was tuned into the eval — is the beat.