Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
About six years ago we built a ticket classification/routing model and pipeline [1]. The initial version was trained using SVMs, it took a couple of minutes to train, and the ticket classification was just a few milliseconds. It's so fascinating to watch how the field moved over to LLMs, and then back to faster/cheaper classifiers again.

[1] "Linnaeus: A highly reusable and adaptable ML based log classification pipeline", https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.06927

NOTE: the work was actually accepted at the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) in 2021.

SVMs in big data were already well liked back in 2010 as they could be scaled via map-reduce.

An issue in industry was that companies would not allow training on their data across customers. Understandably so, as SVM dimensions are readily interpretable given some thought. General purpose datasets were ill-suited too depending on the task.

So you'd start from scratch every time, annotate features like crazy, and often didn't have enough training data overall.

LLMs "solved" that by just ignoring the previous rules and training on everything, which lets the necessary world knowledge seep back in.

I'm sure we'll see many combinations of LLMs and regular machine intelligence in the near future.

loading story #50438160
loading story #50440592
loading story #50440542
loading story #50438297
loading story #50437511
Yeah, its pretty wild! I think one of the benefits, but also potential risks, with LLMs, is you can just point them at anything without a lot of expertise.

Building an SVM isn't a tricky job, but you probably need a data scientist involved, and to think carefully about a labeled dataset.

I think we're seeing the modelling equivalent of something like electron apps. Where they waste a tonne of resources, but make an easier developement experience.

Will be interesting to see how much or little this changes with LLM costs.

I have seen Phd in stats validating models with data the models have been trained on. And I don’t live in a country with dubious universities.

So between llm and pseudo experts, at this stage, I prefer to go with a LLM.

> Building an SVM isn't a tricky job, but you probably need a data scientist involved, and to think carefully about a labeled dataset.

Well not anymore... You can just get AI to build it.

loading story #50437721
I've seen a few people comment along the lines of "yes but LLMs dont need lot of data nor competence". So with our classifier "Linnaeus", the data came from JIRA tickets plus additional signals. To get up and running we didn't use a lot of data (a few dozen tickets across approximately 20 classes to begin with - eventually expanded to 120+ classes). There was very little to no manual data labelling - mostly it was devs selecting "gold standard" JIRA tickets for us to ingest. The model was retrained daily, and we had extra signals like thumbs up/down with comments that would be used for re-training.
What has changed is that expensive models can be deployed instantly and generate training data until you swap over to training your own cheap models.

Your model only took minutes to train if you don't count the data collection and labelling work

loading story #50440203
So technically once you have training data via an expensive classifier on NL data, there is no reason one cannot reduce the footprint of the OP classifier to a very small one. I imagine they could just automate feature selection in a SVM(cross validate on CPU!) using an evaluator to train an optimal one.
It's pretty interesting how a very broad field of machine learning got reduced to only LLMs for most consumers. Probably it's due to marketing (and of course how powerful these models are), but their lack of capability in many tasks already forces people, even amateurs, to use LLMs to write deterministic code instead. I wonder if the sudden appearance of viral classifiers predicts more common use of smaller ML models as the next step?
loading story #50438183
I think this kind of change will pop up more often.

In software engineering, we learned a long time ago that giant monoliths are not the answer. You want smaller, but specialized units that work together. They perform better at their specific task, are more maintainable, you can just upgrade one part of the system without having to impact the others, ....

I don't know where the focus on building a single model that can do everything comes from.

loading story #50439931
I was thinking about this recently as well. Smaller, specialized models that can run on device just make so much more sense to me than these huge generalized models that need huge infrastructure run.
loading story #50440170
loading story #50441643
loading story #50437469
loading story #50438507
I have replaced a few of my LLM pipelines with gemma4 embedding and a classifier/regression head now. LLMs are actually really good to gather the data and label it with only prompting, but after a while it is just more economic to train your own model.
Thanks for sharing, looks amazing. We have examples of this as well internally.
loading story #50441725
It seems you had enough labels to train, that's not always the case.
Interesting! I had the idea to compute embeddings of log lines to look for “black swans” in my logs. A small model running locally would do. Then PCA, SVM - any old school method should work, I guess. Haven’t seen it done but it must be tried by someone somewhere.
The tech industry is not that far off from the fashion industry
This is just the AI grift and uneducated hypebros. There is zero reason to use an LLM as a classifier. But AIbros with zero technical knowledge will push for it anyways even if it is 1000x slower and 1000x more expensive to run.
You can can't build an SVM-classifier for a ticketing system without domain data. You can ask an LLM to do it, and it will do it very well.

With the LLM you don't even need a data scientist to train the model, you just need someone who can connect to APIs. And the LLM is fine with adding and removing categories. No retraining.

It makes the initial faces incredibly fast. Then it is slow and expensive to run, so once the system settles, it becomes the target for model optimization, e.g, a dedicated, or semi-dedicated model.

I mean just have a coding agent do the whole process from start to finish. Tell it you want to seed an SVM from LLM runs on ticket data. I can bet that it'll do it all for you without much input from you at all.
loading story #50438988
I can spin up a classification solution with an LLM in ca. 5 minutes that is likely to do an okay job. To build a custom classifier, I need lots of training data first.

That is the reason.

Once you then have a system that is used enough, it starts making sense to look to replace that with a leaner classifier, but LLMs have a place in vast number of places where we'd previously never use a classifier because it was too much effort.

> but LLMs have a place in vast number of places where we'd previously never use a classifier because it was too much effort.

Absolutely! But that doesn't rule out that there are AIbros that will tell you to use an LLM, even if the task could be done with a static analyzer with a few rules. Use an LLM because it's AI!

loading story #50439233
There are absolutely good reasons to use smarter things for classification. Svm with tdf idf for example is super fast but will make very bad classifications at times in ways entirely unfixable with that system (thinking back to bats being an acronym for a theology degree classification or similar)
This is a bit too radical and misses some nuance. In order to start building classifiers you at least need some ML domain knowledge, like what to google at least. Meanwhile, point anyone at the jev/open-jev-clones API and have them start classifying in <10 minutes. There's some value there. (same used to be valid for LLMs before jev became a thing. You can use llms as zero-shot classifiers with the right API wrapper, w/ no domain data).
Even if you have ml knowledge, it's still nice to be able to experiment with various use cases with zero upfront data/training time.
1000x more expensive run can be overall cheaper. You avoid upfront training/tuning cost. It all depends on your scale.