179 questions
No questions match those filters.
A reasoning model burns 2,000 chain-of-thought tokens e...
This is one of the questions in the full AI/ML interview bank. Pro unlocks all 1789 questions; Premium includes the same bank plus the highest daily Practice limit.
See plansThe instinctive fix — train a small fast model for easy queries and keep the large reasoning model for hard ones — solves the cost problem by creating a routing problem: now you need a classifier or heuristic deciding which model handles each request, you’re hosting two models instead of one, and every misroute either wastes the reasoning model’s budget on something trivial or gives a simple question to a model that can’t actually solve harder follow-ups in the same conversation.
The model already “knows” that 2+2=4 — it doesn’t need a smaller model to tell it that. What it lacks is a learned signal for when extended reasoning is worth the tokens. That’s fixable with a supervised fine-tuning pass, not a new RL objective: build a training set that tags hard problems with a marker like a “reasoning-on” wrapper around a full chain-of-thought trace, and tags easy problems with a “reasoning-off” wrapper around a direct, un-scaffolded answer. Fine- tune the existing model on this mixed-format data, and the tag becomes a controllable switch baked into the weights rather than an external routing decision.
At inference time this collapses to something almost trivially simple: prepend the “reasoning-off” tag for requests you expect to be simple, and the model suppresses its own chain-of-thought and answers directly — same weights, same deployment, no second model to serve, no extra VRAM. The cost-control problem moves from infrastructure (which model do I call) to a training-data design problem (how do I label examples by the reasoning effort they actually warrant), which is both cheaper to build and easier to iterate on.