Rohit (@imgrohit) header
Rohit (@imgrohit) profile picture
London, UK
Joined October 2021
Photo by Rohit (@imgrohit)Photo by Rohit (@imgrohit)Photo by Rohit (@imgrohit)Photo by Rohit (@imgrohit)Photo by Rohit (@imgrohit)Photo by Rohit (@imgrohit)Photo by Rohit (@imgrohit)Photo by Rohit (@imgrohit)Photo by Rohit (@imgrohit)Photo by Rohit (@imgrohit)
this @AirbnbEng benchmark is basically the whole case for what we're building at @OvermindLab same 2b model, 0.563 → 0.902 f1, 35ms. the prompt didn't get them there, training on their own data did the catch: airbnb has an internal framework for this. most teams don't overmind turns your prod traces into the dataset, fine-tunes an open model, benchmarks it against what you run today, then serves it behind an openai-compatible api. or you take the weights frontier quality at your volume shouldn't need an in-house ml platform
Everyone’s excited about decision models. When should you buy one, or train your own? We fine-tuned a 2B model for a production classifier: frontier-level quality, 35ms, ~1% of the cost. We’re sharing when we think it’s worth it, and when it isn’t: airbnb.tech/ai-ml/frontier-q…
2
5
116
psa if your evals live in @OpenAI's evals dashboard: they went read-only oct 31 and the dashboard + api shut down nov 30 export your datasets, graders and run results now and next time keep evals in your repo as plain files. same reason you want to own your weights, nobody else gets to deprecate them
1
34
How long does a finding about LLMs stay true? We re-tested 50 widely cited findings about LLM behavior (various biases, hallucination, etc). Within 15 months, most no longer held or had substantially reduced effects. LLM findings has short shelf life zou-group.github.io/llm-clai… Great job by @oq_35!
1/n Within 15 months of publication, most of the LLM claims we tested either no longer held or showed substantially diminished effects. How long does our knowledge of AI hold up? In our new study, we revisit 50 findings to see what fades, what persists, and what gets stronger. 🧵
48
236
42
1,132
108,365
Rohit retweeted
In this DevGuild panel, the founders of @exedev, @hexanalytics, @overmindlab, and Induction AI discuss what gets written to memory, what gets forgotten, and how completed runs and human corrections become new knowledge. 🎥 Watch the panel: heavybit.com/library/video/c… 🛠️ Want your agent to learn from it too? Lessons from DevGuild now power new Agent Infrastructure skills in Crucible, Heavybit's MCP server: crucible.heavybit.com/mcp
2
4
204
How do you define "good" for an agent? How do evals stay honest when the agent changes? @freymehta answered questions all day. Thank you to everyone who tried Overmind and asked the hard questions. Onwards.
spent launch day in the @ProductHunt replies with builders and founders actually trying overmind 🚀 skeptics asking how you even define “good” for an agent. a founder going four rounds deep on how the training loop works. builders poking at how evals stay honest when the agent changes underneath them. a few of those threads are already shaping what we build next we landed #2 product of the day, just shy of the top spot, which was a lovely bonus on an already great day. by the evening we were all glued to the leaderboard and i was back in 2016, refreshing my youtube channel until it hit 1,000 subs!! huge shout out to @samsmallmind for leading the whole launch, and to claude for turning the day into this little video (it would not stop adding pixels!!) 👇
2
7
227
two mistakes i keep seeing when people fine-tune on agent traces: 1. splitting train/eval by row. one trace becomes a bunch of rows, steps land on both sides, and your eval is grading memory. split by run 2. dumping failed runs into SFT. sft copies its examples, so failures teach failure. use them as eval cases, or fix the output first
1
4
52
the part worth stealing if you fine-tune on your own data: the monitor read every row on its own and passed them. the misalignment only showed up when they evaluated the trained model row filters aren't enough. score the trained model against your current one on the same evals, including behaviour you never trained for at @OvermindLab a fine-tune doesn't serve traffic until it's been scored against the current model on the same evals
New Anthropic research: Automating subtle emergent misalignment research. Red-teaming is a vital part of model safety testing, but it’s also limited by researchers’ time. To see if we could automate it, we set thousands of Claude agents the task of evading a training data monitor. These agents developed training data that looked harmless to monitors (like a veteran wrestler mentoring a newcomer, or a Q&A about professional beekeeping), but that in fact taught misaligned behavior. Examples like these can be used to directly improve future training data monitors. This research is only a first step, but it suggests that future red-teaming efforts could improve much further, using better models and more compute. Read the full post on the Alignment Science Blog: alignment.anthropic.com/2026…
2
136
for anyone wondering what this means in practice: when a fine-tune finishes on @OvermindLab it now deploys on its own, and you hit it with an openai-compatible api don't want us hosting it? download the weights and run them wherever customer asked, we didn't sleep, it shipped
Yesterday a customer asked us for a feature we hadn't shipped yet. So like the cracked founders we are we pulled an all nighter and got it deployed! @OvermindLab now offers dedicated inference for your models.
3
7
263
Rohit retweeted
Evals are the most underrated skill in AI engineering. 1. Start with error analysis, not metrics Sample 100+ production traces. Annotate each failure in free text (open coding), then cluster them into failure categories (axial coding). Count frequency per category. Your top 3 categories are your first metrics. 2. Build a versioned golden dataset Store inputs, expected outputs or rubrics, and metadata (intent, difficulty, user segment) in a versioned dataset. Stratify it so rare but critical cases aren't drowned out by easy ones. Version it alongside your prompts so every score is reproducible. 3. Generate synthetic data along explicit dimensions Don't just ask an LLM for "test questions." Define dimensions (persona × intent × complexity × edge case), generate combinations as tuples, then turn each tuple into a natural input. You get coverage instead of 200 near-identical examples. 4. Deterministic assertions first JSON schema validation, regex checks, required fields, length limits, code execution, SQL that actually runs against a test DB. These are cheap, fast, and have zero variance. Reserve model-based grading for what code genuinely can't check. 5. Evaluate retrieval separately from generation For RAG, measure retrieval with recall@k, MRR, or nDCG against labeled relevant chunks. Measure generation with faithfulness (is every claim supported by retrieved context?). If you only score the final answer, you can't tell which half is broken. 6. Trajectory evals for agents Log every step: tool name, arguments, result, tokens. Score tool-call precision and recall against a reference path, argument correctness, step count, and error recovery. An agent that reaches the right answer in 14 calls when 3 would do is a cost and latency bug. 7. pass@k vs pass^k pass@k = succeeded at least once in k runs. pass^k = succeeded in all k runs. At 80% per-run success, pass^5 drops to roughly 33%. Production reliability lives in pass^k, so run each case multiple times at your real temperature. 8. Simulated users for multi-turn Give an LLM a persona, a hidden goal, and constraints, then let it converse with your system until the goal is met or a turn limit hits. Grade goal completion, turns-to-resolution, and policy violations. Single-turn evals miss most state and memory bugs. 9. Align your LLM judge like a classifier Hand-label 100+ examples as pass/fail. Split into train/dev/test. Iterate on the judge prompt using dev, then report TPR and TNR on test. Use binary outputs with a written rubric, require a short critique before the verdict, and pin the judge model version. 10. Control judge bias in pairwise comparisons LLM judges have position bias and often prefer longer answers. Run every A/B comparison twice with swapped order and only count consistent verdicts. Normalize or cap length if verbosity is skewing results. 11. Respect statistics With 100 examples at 80% accuracy, your 95% confidence interval is about ±8 points. A jump from 80% to 83% is probably noise. Use bootstrapped confidence intervals, or a paired test on the same examples, before declaring a win. 12. Gate deploys in CI Run the eval suite on every PR that touches prompts, models, tools, or retrieval config. Set per-category thresholds instead of one global score, so a big win in one area can't hide a regression in another. Fail the build on a regression. 13. Online evals in production Sample a percentage of live traffic, run your judges asynchronously, and alert on drift per failure category. Use shadow deployments to run a new prompt or model on real traffic without showing users the output. 14. Make cost and latency first-class metrics Track tokens per request, cost per successful task (not per call), and p50/p95 latency next to quality. A change that keeps quality flat while cutting cost 40% is a real win and deserves to ship. 15. Close the loop Every production failure becomes a new labeled test case. Every new model release gets run against the full suite before anyone debates switching. Over time your eval set becomes the most valuable asset in the codebase. Prompts are disposable. Models get replaced every few months. Your eval infrastructure is what compounds.
129
153
37
2,193
237,550
Today we’re releasing GDPx, a benchmark for measuring agentic capabilities across the most valuable domains. GDPx is a true frontier-level benchmark: even the best model scores just 12% (1/7)🧵
378
323
483
3,354
1,924,641
The Product Hunt launches most likely to raise a Series A this week: 1. Strawberry 1.0: 52x more likely than the average launch 2. Overmind: 47x 3. Zro: Uncensored Security Models: 40x Only 0.8% of launches raise one within 18 months. Full top 10: phbench.com/predictions
2
1
5
263
what i'd log on every agent step if i were starting today: 1. tool name + args 2. result 3. latency + tokens 4. retry count the retry count is the one people skip, and it's where the cost bugs hide
2
36
the number from our contract benchmark i keep coming back to isn't accuracy, it's exact quotes asked to quote a clause word for word: 1. fine-tuned small model: 59.6% 2. frontier flagship: 8.5% fabricated quotes: 0.12% vs 3.36% if your pipeline needs the verbatim text, general smarts doesn't get you there overmindlab.ai/research/when…
2
22
the number everyone's sharing from this: same model, same idea pairs, two framings of the question "which idea did reviewers judge novel" → 93.5% "which idea is novel" → 40.9% if your judge's verdict moves when you reword the question, you're grading the prompt cheap test: write each judge prompt 3 ways and only trust the checks that agree
LLMs are increasingly used to judge whether AI-generated research ideas are novel. But are they any good at it? Our new eval reveals even frontier LLMs can reach different conclusions about similar ideas depending on how they're asked to evaluate them. 🧵 github.com/allenai/novelty-e…
1
28
owning your weights and running them on your laptop aren't the same thing you can own a small model trained on your traces and still serve it in the cloud at high utilisation the point of owning is nobody can deprecate it, reprice it or rent the same model to your competitor
sam: local inference is a terrible allocation of scarce resources “a lot of people want local inference, and somehow they assume that the problem is solved now because we have open-source models, we're going to be able to run them on our computers, and so we're not going to need all the stuff in the data centre but from a global allocation perspective, actually it's quite terrible to have everybody, like, have a bunch of the world's limited supply of DRAM sitting in their own computer and being used five percent of the time you want maximum utilisation in the cloud if you're trying to deal with this very supply-constrained environment somehow many people's intuition is the opposite of that”
5
44
Rohit retweeted
LLMs are increasingly used to judge whether AI-generated research ideas are novel. But are they any good at it? Our new eval reveals even frontier LLMs can reach different conclusions about similar ideas depending on how they're asked to evaluate them. 🧵 github.com/allenai/novelty-e…
16
14
10
147
13,134
Today, we release the weights of a new and improved Le Chonk, advancing the open frontier for agentic coding and cybersecurity. 💻 Built to build: Le Chonk ranks #1 on @cognition’s FrontierCode among open models, and sets a new benchmark for Pareto efficiency on @artificialanalysis. 🛡 Built to defend: State-of-the-art in cyberdefense, put through the paces by the world's leading cyber vendors, including @CrowdStrike, @cloudflare, @rubrik, @zscaler, and others. Built for sovereignty: Make it yours. Download the weights on @huggingface , customize it with Mistral Forge, and deploy it wherever you need it. Read more from our team and customers 👇:
443
819
538
6,354
838,348
Overmind's CEO spent years at MI5 & MI6 relying on AI that was always built by someone else. "We simply couldn't trust AI to make life-or-death decisions." So Overmind lets a company train AI on its own data, fitting that business and staying in its hands. Any team can do it.
2
2
2
13
600
Overmind's documentation now works for you and your coding agent. Take a prompt from the docs and train a model with it in Claude Code, Codex or Cursor. Every tutorial and how-to guide has one. Turning any company into an AI lab, made easy. It starts with a prompt.
4
2
1
15
3,443
60% of @ArtificialAnlys's new index is private test sets. each @cognition frontiercode 2.0 task took a maintainer 40+ hours. labs are learning what agent teams learn: public evals get gamed, private ones built from real work don't. your production traces are that private set
1
1
2
43