EarlyOom

Shocking how poor frontier models perform on simple visual tasks. Best-in-domain tool calling will Become the norm

VLM Run | Member of Technical Staff, ML Systems | Full-time | Hybrid Bay Area, CA | https://vlm.run | 150k-220k / yr + Equity

VLM Run is a first-of-its-kind API dedicated to running Vision Language Models on Documents, Images, and Video. We’re building a stack from the bottom-up for ‘Visual’ applications of language models that we believe will make up > 90% of inference needs in the next 5 years.

Hybrid from Bay Area, CA

Looking for experience in any of the following:

* ML Domains: Vision Language Models, LLMs, Temporal/Video Models

* Model Training, Evaluation, and Versioning platforms: WnB, Huggingface

* Infra: Python, Pytorch, Pydantic, CUDA, Torch.compile

* Devops: Github CI, Docker, Conda, API Billing and Monitoring

https://vlm-run.notion.site/vlm-run-hiring-25q1

This is the main focus of VLM Run and typed extraction more generally. If you provide proper type constraints (e.g. with Pydantic) you can dramatically reduce the surface area for hallucination. Then there's actually fine-tuning on your dataset (we're working on this) to push accuracy beyond what you get from an unspecialized frontier model.

You can try out some of our schemas with Ollama if you want: https://github.com/vlm-run/vlmrun-hub (instructions in Readme)

VLMs are able to take context into account when filling in fields, following either a global or field specific prompt. This is great for e.g. unlabeled axes, checking a legend for units to be suffixed after a number, etc. Also, you catch lots of really simple errors with type hints (e.g. dates, addresses, country codes etc.).

You can! it works with Ollama https://github.com/vlm-run/vlmrun-hub

At the end of the day its just schemas. You can decide for yourself if its work upgrading to a larger, more expensive model.

We can do bounding boxes too :) we just call it visual grounding https://github.com/vlm-run/vlmrun-cookbook/blob/main/noteboo...

We convert to a JSON schema, but it would be trivial to convert this to yaml. There are some minor differences in e.g. tokens required to output JSON vs yaml which is why we've opted for our strategy.

OCR seems to be mostly solved for 'normal' text laid out according to Latin alphabet norms (left to right, normal spacing etc.), but would love to see more adversarial examples. We've seen lots of regressions around faxed or scanned documents where the text boxes may be slightly rotated (e.g. https://www.cad-notes.com/autocad-tip-rotate-multiple-texts-...) not to mention handwriting and poorly scanned docs. Then there's contextually dependent information like X-axis labels that are implicit from a legend somewhere, so its not clear even with the bounding boxes what the numbers refer to. This is where VLMs really shine: they can extract text then use similar examples from the page to map them into their output values when the bounding box doesn't provide this for free.

Would love to chat! reach out [email protected]

That's one of our main focuses, yes: https://docs.vlm.run/api-reference/v1/fine-tuning/post-finet...

We put together an open-source collection of Pydantic schemas for a variety of document categories (W2 filings, invoices etc.), including instructions for how to get structured JSON responses from any visual input with the model of your choosing. Run everything locally.

VLM Run | Member of Technical Staff, ML Systems, Developer Relations | Full-time | Bay Area, CA | https://vlm.run | 150k-220k / yr + Equity

VLM Run is a first-of-its-kind API dedicated to running Vision Language Models on Documents, Images, and Video. We’re building a stack from the bottom-up for ‘Visual’ applications of language models that we believe will make up > 90% of inference needs in the next 5 years.

Hybrid from Bay Area, CA

Looking for experience in any of the following: * ML Domains: Vision Language Models, LLMs, Temporal/Video Models * Model Training, Evaluation, and Versioning platforms: WnB, Huggingface * Infra: Python, Pytorch, Pydantic, CUDA, Torch.compile * Devops: Github CI, Docker, Conda, API Billing and Monitoring

https://vlm-run.notion.site/vlm-run-hiring-25q1

Curious how this compares to platforms like https://unstructured.io/

This is a bigger issue than folks realize, visual inputs to GPT4 are really expensive (like several cents per dozen images in some cases), which means that you can't just spam the API to iterate on HTML/webpages with a software agent. We're trying to tackle this for web screenshots (also documents) with a custom model geared towards structured schemas designed to be fed into a feedback loop like the above while keeping costs down.

We've been building something similar with https://vlm.run/: we're starting out with documents, but feel like the real killer app will involve agentic workflows grounded in visual inputs like websites. The challenge is that even the best foundation models still struggle a lot with hallucination and rate limits, which means that you have to chain together both OCR and LLMs to get a good result. Platforms like Tesseract work fine for simple, dense documents, but don't help with more complex visual media like charts and graphs. LLMs are great, but even the release of JSON schemas by OpenAI hasn't really fixed 'making things up' or 'giving up halfway through'.

We've been trying to solve this with https://vlm.run: the idea is to combine the character level accuracy of an OCR pipeline (like Tesseract) with the flexibility of a VLM. OCR pipelines struggle with non-trivial text layouts and don't have any notion of document structure, which means there needs to be another layer on top to actually extract text content to the right place. At the other end of the spectrum, VLMs (like GPT4o) tend to perform poorly on things like dense tables (either hallucinating or giving up entirely) and complex forms, in addition to being much slower/more expensive. Part of the fix is to allow a 'manager' VLM to dispatch to OCR on dense, simple documents, while running charts, graphs etc. through the more expensive VLM pipeline.

Hi Arthur! There's a bit of confusion here. It looks like you're referring to _audio_ transcription; that is, passing the audio component into an ASR pipeline (like Whisper, Otter etc.) to generate a transcript of any spoken words. Our pipleline is meant for fine-grained 'transcriptions' of the _visual_ content of the video. For instance, any text on screen, contents of plots and graphs, the clothing worn by any participants, etc. (though we do transcribe the audio as well, its a multimodal pipeline!).

TLDR: There are dozens of audio transcription APIs, but nothing for video and visual transcriptions. So we built one.

If you want visual chaptering, summarization, OCR / text-extraction, audio transcriptions, and sentiment analysis on your videos, there’s really nothing out there. We tried stitching this together with several audio/video understanding APIs but kept running into rate limits, hallucinations, high costs and poor accuracy.

Analyzing Audio Podcasts: https://vlm-docs.nos.run/guides/guide-audio-podcasts

Understanding Video Podcasts: https://vlm-docs.nos.run/guides/guide-video-podcasts

We're trying to do something similar with VLM-1 https://vlm-docs.nos.run/guides/guide-pdf-presentations. We've found that a lot of the peculiarities of LLMs for text parsing (hallucinations etc.) can be avoided with structured output that restricts everything to a known schema/output range while constraining the number of output tokens required.