Difference between `pt` and `it`
The difference between pt and it models is not clearly presented in the documentation of the model. Furthermore,PT and IT suffixes are not defined in their first mention of the paper. Moreover, they are clearly defined only later in the caption of the Table 15 of Appendix! I would really appreciate clear definition both in the main body of the paper and in the model description.
PS Spent one DeepResearch on it, it resulted in a wrong explanation.
Edit, paper, quote:
Table 15. Performance of pre-trained (PT) and instruction fine-tuned (IT)
IT is the instruct tuned version right?
Yes. Pt is the base model, usable for finetuning purposes (mostly). IT is for instruction tuned, which is the one you should be using as a normal user.
Been like that forever. Why on earth would you spend money using "deep" research to find that answer, lol.
@SerialKicked Thank you for your answer, but consider using less phrases like
Been like that forever. Why on earth would you spend money using "deep" research to find that answer, lol.
You're most welcome. And no.
@SerialKicked Let me explain: it is unpleasant to hear such words, especially when I'm trying to improve documentation of FOSS models to make it more accessible to everybody, especially newcomers. I believe that good documentation is one of the main values of HuggingFace team. And from my perspective, your replies have destructive influence on people's will to collaboratively develop better FOSS models and the ecosystem around them.
@SerialKicked Let me explain: it is unpleasant to hear such words, especially when I'm trying to improve documentation of FOSS models to make it more accessible to everybody, especially newcomers. I believe that good documentation is one of the main values of HuggingFace team. And from my perspective, your replies have destructive influence on people's will to collaboratively develop better FOSS models and the ecosystem around them.
You had two posts before that, both misusing this very website. You shouldn't write documentation when you don't know the basics. Plenty of extremely good docs exist already. I genuinely don't mean that as an insult, it's just the truth of the matter. Don't pay "deep research" to think for you, it'll only make you (or anyone else for that matter) worse at finding information. And the last thing "foss" needs is more people like that.
Now, actionable advice: on the right side column of the model's main page/description (and any other model for that matter), if you had bothered to read it, you could have deduced yourself what was the relation between the IT and the PT models. There is a relationship tree explaining it. It's literally the first thing you should know about LLM (but far from the last).
Have a nice day :)