In the realms of artificial intelligence, Meta hath unfurled the Llama 4 series of AI models akin to a valiant knight of old. The Llama 4 Maverick model, a diminutive MoE model in the vast landscape of 400 billion parameters, hath raised eyebrows with its gallant feat of achieving an ELO score of 1,417 in the Chatbot Arena, surpassing grandiose behemoths like GPT-4.5 and Grok 3.
As whispers of this prodigious achievement waft through the AI community, doubts and curiosity arise like shadows in the moonlight. Questions mount as real-world trials doth not align with the benchmark accolades Meta hath bestowed upon the Llama 4 Maverick, particularly in the realm of coding tasks.
Amidst the swirling mists of uncertainty, a tale from the far-off lands of the internet unfolds. A former Meta employee, cloaked in anonymity, hath revealed a mystifying saga of benchmark manipulation. The Meta leadership, it is alleged, hath woven a tapestry of deceit by mixing test sets post-training to inflate scores and meet their clandestine goals.
In the face of mounting accusations and whispers of impropriety, Ahmad Al-Dahle, the head of Meta’s Generative AI division, doth raise his voice in defense. He doth vehemently deny the claims of training on test sets, pledging allegiance to truth and integrity in their AI endeavors. Yet, the murmurs of inconsistency in Llama 4’s performance persist, echoing like distant thunder across the sky.
In response to the rumblings of discontent within the AI realm, LMSYS, custodians of the Chatbot Arena, doth issue a clarion call for transparency. The custom variant of the Llama 4 Maverick model, optimized for human preference, doth come under scrutiny. LMSYS doth unveil the unseen threads that have shaped the performance valiantly displayed in the arena, shedding light on the shadows of doubt.
With the stage set for a grand reckoning, LMSYS doth invite scrutiny and inquiry into the battles of the Llama 4, weaving a tapestry of results for all to behold. Yet, amidst the glimmers of victory and defeat, questions linger in the air, begging for discernment in the face of seemingly enigmatic preferences.
As shadows of doubt stretch across the landscape, a familiar specter doth emerge from the annals of history. Meta, it seems, hath a history of toying with benchmarks, playing with datasets as a painter wields a brush. Allegations of past transgressions resurface, casting a pall over the current turmoil surrounding the Llama 4’s triumphs and tribulations.
In the midst of this unfolding saga, Susan Zhang, a sage from times gone by, doth cast a gaze of skepticism upon Meta’s actions. With a touch of irony, she doth suggest that Meta should at least acknowledge their “previous work” in bending benchmarks to their will. A tale as old as time, the dance of manipulation and performance stands at the forefront of the AI stage, awaiting its final act.
