惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

freeCodeCamp Programming Tutorials: Python, JavaScript, Git & More
爱范儿
爱范儿
WordPress大学
WordPress大学
博客园 - 三生石上(FineUI控件)
J
Java Code Geeks
Vercel News
Vercel News
aimingoo的专栏
aimingoo的专栏
T
Tailwind CSS Blog
罗磊的独立博客
B
Blog
博客园_首页
A
About on SuperTechFans
有赞技术团队
有赞技术团队
V
V2EX
U
Unit 42
I
InfoQ
IT之家
IT之家
博客园 - 司徒正美
阮一峰的网络日志
阮一峰的网络日志
博客园 - 叶小钗
Cyber Security Advisories - MS-ISAC
Cyber Security Advisories - MS-ISAC
Stack Overflow Blog
Stack Overflow Blog
The Cloudflare Blog
H
Help Net Security

Blog - Jason Wei

Cognitive reward shapes in sports and career — Jason Wei What's left for humans? — Jason Wei Asymmetry of verification and verifier’s rule — Jason Wei AI research is a max-performance domain — Jason Wei Dopamine cycles in AI research — Jason Wei Successful language model evals — Jason Wei Six intuitions about large language models — Jason Wei Observations from tracking Twitter — Jason Wei Common arguments regarding emergent abilities — Jason Wei Practicing AI research — Jason Wei Research I enjoy — Jason Wei 137 emergent abilities of large language models — Jason Wei
Life lessons from reinforcement learning — Jason Wei
Jul 15 Written By Jason Wei · 2025-07-16 · via Blog - Jason Wei

Becoming an RL diehard in the past year and thinking about RL for most of my waking hours inadvertently taught me an important lesson about how to live my own life.

One of the big concepts in RL is that you always want to be “on-policy”: instead of mimicking other people’s successful trajectories, you should take your own actions and learn from the reward given by the environment. Obviously imitation learning is useful to bootstrap to nonzero pass rate initially, but once you can take reasonable trajectories, we generally avoid imitation learning because the best way to leverage the model’s own strengths (which are different from humans) is to only learn from its own trajectories. A well-accepted instantiation of this is that RL is a better way to train language models to solve math word problems compared to simple supervised finetuning on human-written chains of thought.

Similarly in life, we first bootstrap ourselves via imitation learning (school), which is very reasonable. But even after I graduated school, I had a habit of studying how other people found success and trying to imitate them. Sometimes it worked, but eventually I realized that I would never surpass the full ability of someone else because they were playing to their strengths which I didn’t have. It could be anything from a researcher doing yolo runs more successfully than me because they built the codebase themselves and I didn’t, or a non-AI example would be a soccer player keeping ball possession by leveraging strength that I didn’t have. 

The lesson of doing RL on policy is that beating the teacher requires walking your own path and taking risks and rewards from the environment. For example, two things I enjoy more than the average researcher are (1) reading a lot of data, and (2) doing ablations to understand the effect of individual components in a system. Once when collecting a dataset, I spent a few days reading data and giving each human annotator personalized feedback, and after that the data turned out great and I gained valuable insight into the task I was trying to solve. Earlier this year I spent a month going back and ablating each of the decisions that I previously yolo’ed while working on deep research. It was a sizable amount of time spent, but through those experiments I learned unique lessons about what type of RL works well. Not only was leaning into my own passions more fulfilling, but I now feel like I’m on a path to carving a stronger niche for myself and my research. 

In short, imitation is good and you have to do it initially. But once you’re bootstrapped enough, if you want to beat the teacher you must do on-policy RL and play to your own strengths and weaknesses :)