Show Notes
This week we’re covering model distillation: the technique of using a large "teacher" model's outputs to train a smaller, cheaper "student" model that mimics it. They cover the two big reasons labs do this — making lighter, faster, more focused models for specific tasks, and the more contentious use case of effectively copying a rival's flagship model by hammering its API with questions (with a callback to the old Bing/Google search controversy). They also get into why it's so hard to prove distillation happened, why some models occasionally introduce themselves as "Claude," and a surprisingly old idea: a 2015 paper by Geoffrey Hinton, Jeff Dean, and Oriol Vinyals on distilling knowledge using the full probability distribution over a model's outputs — not just its single most likely answer — and what that "soft label" approach captures about how a model relates concepts to each other.
More from Linear Digressions
As AI systems grow more powerful, they grow harder to understand — and that tradeoff has never mattered more. Most interpretability tricks give us approximations from the outside, but mechanistic interpretability takes a different approach: cracking open the model itself to trace *why* it behaves the way it does. This episode digs into what makes mechanistic interpretability fundamentally different from other explainability methods, and why it might be the most promising path toward actually understanding what's happening inside modern LLMs.
Labeled data is expensive, slow, and painfully hard to come by — and when you're trying to evaluate whether an AI workflow is actually doing what you want, the problem gets even messier. How do you judge whether a chatbot response was helpful, honest, or hallucination-free at scale? This episode digs into using LLMs as judges: letting the models themselves evaluate the quality of AI outputs, from simple chat exchanges all the way to complex multi-step agent behavior.
Originally aired on the Harvard Data Science Review podcast.