groundy

The topic guide

Models & Research

Where architecture, training tricks, and eval methodology meet the marketing layer — separating durable progress in foundation models from leaderboard theater that quietly falls apart under load.

Latest analysis

Start with these guides

Foundational reading and comparisons to help you get your bearings.

What I cover

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.

The archive

1–24 of 129 articles · Newest first