I hadn’t realized they updated this model last month! You can use it here.

Apertus 1.5 70B is Switzerland’s latest fully open multilingual large language model developed by the Swiss AI Initiative. It is designed to advance transparent, compliant, and high-performance AI while remaining fully open throughout the entire training pipeline.

from

  • Swiss AI Initiative : Developed by the Swiss AI Initiative to provide a fully open, transparent, and compliant foundation model.
  • Fully Open : Open model weights, open training data, complete training recipes, and publicly documented training methodology.
  • Massively Multilingual – Native support for 1,811 languages, enabling broad multilingual understanding and generation.
  • Compliance First – Trained using fully compliant datasets while respecting retrospective opt-out requests and reducing memorization through the Goldfish loss methodology.
  • Long Context – Supports context windows of up to 262,144 tokens, enabling large document analysis and extended conversations.
  • Tool Calling Support – Supports agentic workflows and tool use when deployed with compatible inference frameworks such as recent versions of vLLM.
  • Open Deployment Ecosystem – Compatible with Transformers, vLLM, SGLang, MLX and GGUF deployment formats.
  • FoolHen
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    27 days ago

    I’ve been trying it this evening

    That’s how you test stuff, look for mistakes

    • Victor
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      27 days ago

      But they’re an expert. Why the need for someone/something else to do their job? (And risk discovering their job safety is at risk.)

      • TerHu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        27 days ago

        If i was to evaluate something, i‘d probably test it on something i’m an expert in, because then i can immediately spot the mistakes. If i test it one something I really don’t know at all, then fact checking/ finding mistakes is gonna become tedious.

        • Victor
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          27 days ago

          So, these cases exist:

          1. It’s not good enough => not worth using.
          2. It’s good enough to use => but they are the expert, why not still do what they’re great at?

          Sorry if this is all obvious, I just don’t see the point.

          • ArtisianOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            26 days ago

            I am making a public recommendation on the internet. I am good at some things that AI will often be used for, such as complicated mathematics. So, as a reviewer, I want to see if the AI will help people with those things well (specifically, help people understand complicated math papers).

      • ArtisianOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        26 days ago

        As another example, teachers pay teachers to share their created teaching materials. Big part of their job; huge need to share results/progress/ideas.