Hugo Bowne-Anderson

Our didactic review on machine learning for causal inference, now open access We explain: • identifiability (theory of when the data can answer a causal question) • machine-learning estimators (including practical tips) • study design (asking well-framed questions, and loopholes, eg with time-wise data) Link in comments...

333

20 Comments

📝 Announcing our paper that proposes a unified cognitive and computational framework for Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) -- going beyond token-level predictions -- one that emphasizes modular reasoning, memory, agentic behavior, and ethical alignment 🔹 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐞𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐧𝐬: 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐁𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧‑𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐂𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐆𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐒𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭 🔹 In collaboration with University of Central Florida, Cornell University, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center UTHealth Houston Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Toronto Metropolitan University, University of Oxford, Torrens University Australia, Obuda University, Amazon others. 🔹 Paper: https://lnkd.in/gqKUV4Mr ✍🏼 Authors: Rizwan Qureshi, Ranjan Sapkota, Abbas Shah, Amgad Muneer, Anas Zafar, Ashmal Vayani, Maged Shoman, PhD, Abdelrahman Eldaly, Kai Zhang, Ferhat Sadak, Shaina Raza, PhD, Xinqi Fan, Ravid Shwartz Ziv, Hong Yang, Vinija Jain, Aman Chadha, Manoj Karkee, @Jia Wu, Philip Torr, FREng, FRS, Seyedali Mirjalili ➡️ 𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐞𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐧𝐬' 𝐂𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞‑𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐆𝐈 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤: 🧠 𝐅𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤: Integrates cognitive neuroscience, psychology, and AI to define AGI via modular reasoning, persistent memory, agentic behavior, vision-language grounding, and embodied interaction. 🔗 𝐁𝐞𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐨𝐤𝐞𝐧‑𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: Critiques token-level models like GPT-4.5 and Claude 3.5, advocating for test-time adaptation, dynamic planning, and training-free grounding through retrieval-augmented agentic systems. 🚀 𝐑𝐨𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐚𝐩 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬: Proposes a roadmap for AGI through neuro-symbolic learning, value alignment, multimodal cognition, and cognitive scaffolding for transparent, socially integrated systems.

221

9 Comments

What is Function calling & MCP for LLMs? (explained with visuals and code) Before MCPs became popular, AI workflows relied on traditional Function Calling for tool access. Now, MCP is standardizing it for Agents/LLMs. The visual below explains how Function Calling and MCP work under the hood. Today, let's learn: - Function calling by building custom tools for Agents. - How MCPs help by building a local MCP client with mcp-use and using tools from Browserbase MCP server. In Function Calling: - The LLM receives a prompt. - The LLM decides the tool. - The programmer implements a procedure to accept a tool call request from the LLM and prepare a function call. The tool call request is found in the LLM's response when you prompt it. - A backend service executes the tool. This Function Calling takes place within our stack: - We host the tool. - We implement a logic to determine the tool to invoke and its parameters. - We execute it. So Function Calling requires us to wire everything manually. MCP simplifies this! Instead of hard-wiring tools, MCP: - Standardizes defining, hosting, and exposing tools. - Makes it easy to discover tools, understand schemas, and use them. - Demands approval before invoking them. - Detaches implementation from consumption. For instance, whenever you integrate an MCP server, you never write a line of Python code to integrate the tools. Instead, you just integrate the MCP server and everything beyond this follows a standard protocol handled by the MCP client and the LLM: - They identify the MCP tool. - They prepare the input argument. - They invoke the tool. - They use the tool’s output to generate a response. Everything happens through a standard (but abstracted) protocol. So here’s the key point: MCP and Function Calling are not in conflict. They’re two sides of the same workflow. - Function Calling helps an LLM decide what it wants to do. - MCP ensures that tools are reliably available, discoverable, and executable, without you needing to custom-integrate everything. For example, an agent might say, “I need to search the web,” using function calling. That request can be routed through MCP to select from available web search tools, invoke the correct one, and return the result. Check the workflow in the diagram below. In this setup, to build a local MCP client, I used mcp-use because it lets us connect any LLM to MCP servers & build private MCP clients, unlike Claude/Cursor. - Compatible with Ollama & LangChain - Stream Agent output async - Built-in debugging mode, etc Find the mcp-use GitHub repo in the comments! ____ Find me → Avi Chawla Every day, I share tutorials and insights on DS, ML, LLMs, and RAGs.

269

11 Comments

You're in a ML Inference Engineer interview at NVIDIA, and the interviewer asks: "Our team wants to switch from API to a self-hosted. Which serving framework and why?" Here's how you answer: Don't say: "vLLM is fastest" or "Ollama is easiest." Wrong framing. The real answer isn't about features - it's about matching serving philosophy to your constraints. Local prototype vs. production scale vs. complex workflows = completely different frameworks. NOTE - if you want to read this kinda content daily, consider subscribing my free newsletter - https://lnkd.in/g8ZJGsWj Most teams pick based on benchmarks, not bottlenecks Your serving choice matters less than your use case. PagedAttention isn't magic - it's just better memory management "Fastest" framework can be slowest for YOUR workload The infrastructure reality everyone misses: Single user prototype = Ollama/LLaMA.cpp wins Multi-user production = vLLM dominates AI agent workflows = SGLang is your only option Edge deployment = LLaMA.cpp or bust Architecture drives the decision, not features. "But what about performance?" Interviewer: "How do you handle 1000 concurrent users?" Performance without context is meaningless. > vLLM's PagedAttention gives you 24x throughput, but only if memory fragmentation was your bottleneck. > SGLang's RadixAttention only helps with cache reuse scenarios. By the way, just reading about inference frameworks won't help you land a job. I personally learnt a lot by doing stuff. If I were to do all over, I would rent a gpu from Hyperbolic for dirt cheap, and play with some open source model with different frameworks. The business framework that matters: > Rapid prototyping + Local dev = Ollama > Known high load + GPU budget = vLLM > Complex multi-step LLM workflows = SGLang > Constrained environments + Portability = LLaMA.cpp Match the tool to the business constraint. The evolution path most teams miss: > Start: Ollama (prototype fast) > Scale: vLLM (handle users) > Optimize: SGLang (complex workflows) > Edge: LLaMA.cpp (deploy anywhere) It's not replacement - it's graduation based on needs. The answer that gets you hired: "Framework choice isn't about better vs worse. It's about constraints vs capabilities. Ollama gives you speed-to-market. vLLM gives you user scale. SGLang gives you workflow complexity. Pick based on your biggest constraint, not your biggest benchmark." That's it for today. See ya tomorrow! And if you want to read more about these frameworks, checkout this blog: https://lnkd.in/eiH2sphA #llm #machinelearning #gpu #chatgpt #ai #agents

398

17 Comments

🚀 New blog post: How we're using multiple LLMs (Gemini, Claude, ChatGPT & more) to revolutionize software performance optimization at Fastcode ✨ Feeding academic papers + source code into AI models to uncover optimization opportunities that would take months to find manually 📈 Results: ~67% of AI recommendations lead to measurable performance gains 🔗 https://bit.ly/45WGw6u #AI #PerformanceEngineering #LLMs #SoftwareOptimization #Fastcode

65

3 Comments

Tool-Augmented Unified Retrieval Agent for AI Search Nice paper showing how to effectively extend RAG to support real-time, dynamic, and transactional queries through agentic tool use. In particular, I like the idea of the Distilled Agent Executor, which uses a small, latency-optimized agent fine-tuned via a mixed-rationale method (training with chain-of-thought but inferring without it). This achieves near-teacher-level performance with dramatically lower cost. For example, a distilled Qwen3-4B model outperforms GPT-4o and its own teacher model (Deepseek-V3) in tool-use accuracy (88.3% vs. 81.7%) while reducing latency from 6.8s to 750ms.

130

5 Comments