Large language models

Model releases, architecture work and prompting research on large language models — from frontier-lab announcements to the arXiv papers behind them.

31,367 stories · RSS feed

Simon Willison
Sep 22

llm-anthropic 0.29

The article announces the release of llm‑anthropic version 0.29. It introduces support for the Claude Opus 5.5 model, allowing users to invoke it with the command line syntax `llm -m claude-opus-5.5 "prompt goes here"`. The release is tagged under llm and anthropic.

Simon Willison
Sep 22

llm-typesafe 0.1a0

Simon Willison released the llm-typesafe 0.1a0 plugin, adding support for TypeSafe AI’s Jev model to the LLM tool. Users install it with `llm install llm-typesafe`, set an API key, and can then ask Jev-model questions such as yes/no, choice, or scoring queries via the `llm -m jev` command. The release includes examples for each question type and references a README for further details.

Towards Data Science
Sep 22

Build a Speaker-Recognition App with Claude Code

The article explains how to develop a speaker‑recognition application using Claude code or Codex, focusing on practical coding techniques for building an internal tool. It provides step‑by‑step guidance on implementing the necessary components and integrating them into a functional app. The post serves as a tutorial for developers looking to create voice‑based authentication or identification systems.

By Eivind Kjosbakken
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 22

Weak Ties, Strong Signals: Efficient Training Data Detection in Diffusion LLMs via Independent Token Sampling

The paper introduces Independent Token Sampling (ITS), a query‑efficient method for detecting memorized training data in diffusion large language models (dLLMs). ITS selects token sets with weak internal dependency by approximating cumulative conditional mutual information using an attention‑derived pairwise dependency proxy and promotes diversity across sampling rounds. Experiments show ITS outperforms existing baselines, improving AUC by 0.18 on the ArXiv dataset while remaining effective under limited query budgets.

By Hongyao Yu, Tianqu Zhuang, Ziyuan Xu, Hao Fang, Jiaxin Hong, Bin Chen, Shu-Tao Xia
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 22

Reinforcement Learning Inspired Black-box Adversarial Attacks for Computer Vision

The paper introduces RIBA, a reinforcement‑learning inspired black‑box adversarial attack that generates perturbations for neural networks with fewer queries than existing methods. RIBA achieves a 25.4% reduction in median queries on ResNet‑18/Cifar10 and a 22.5% reduction on Vit‑B/16/ImageNet, while matching white‑box attack performance on an adversarially trained model.

By Florian Krone, Elena Hoemann, Sven Hallerbach
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 22

Multilingual Safety Signals Are Multi-Layered: Filtering Safety-Degrading Data for Safer LLMs

The paper introduces MMSAFE, a multi-layer framework designed to identify safety-degrading data in multilingual large language models. It shows that safety signals are distributed across multiple layers and only partially shared across languages, unlike the single-layer assumption used in monolingual settings. Experiments demonstrate that MMSAFE reduces harmful-response rates by 60% compared to random filtering and outperforms the best single-layer baseline across various models, languages, and safety benchmarks.

By Jiakun Li, Guowei Song, Sijia Li, Xingwei He, Hongzheng Chai, Yuan Yuan
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 22

Do LLMs Choose Like Humans? Using Cognitive Theory to Evaluate LLM Decision-Making

The paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) make decisions in ways that mirror human cognition. Using a new 140,000-trial product choice benchmark, the authors test 12 open‑source and commercial LLMs to see if their context sensitivity aligns with a cognitive economic theory that relies on problem categorization and attention allocation. While context prompts human‑like shifts in choice and problem categorization, it does not consistently reweight attention between features such as price and quality, and neither scaling nor chain‑of‑thought reasoning produces human‑like behavior. The findings indicate that LLM decision mechanisms differ from those of humans.

By Johnathan Sun, Andrei Shleifer, Yonatan Belinkov