HN user

duchenne

685 karma
Posts2
Comments97
View on HN

Cloud models can use batch processing which is significantly more efficient. A local model has basically a batch of one which takes as much time to process as a batch of 100 because the gpu is memory bound and spend most of its time loading the model from vram to the gpu cache while the gpu cores are idle. With a batch of 100 the model loading time and compute time are roughly similar. So local Models have a first 100x lower efficiency. Secondly, local models are idle most of the time waiting for the user to write a prompt, so the efficiency gap is probably more around 1000x.

I have done that at meta/FAIR and it is published in the Llama 3 paper. You usually start from a seed. It can be a randomly picked piece of website/code/image/table of contents/user generated data, and you prompt the model to generate data related to that seed. After, you also need to pass the generated data through a series of verifiers to ensure quality.

MacBook Air M4 1 year ago

I had one for years. Never had overheating issues, except if I put it on my blanket for long.

Training a 1B model on 1T tokens is cheaper than people might think. A H100 GPU can be rented for 2.5$ per hour and can train around 63k tokens per second for a 1B model. So you would need around 4,400 hours of GPU training costing only $11k And costs will keep going down.

But, if the non-profit gives all its assets to the new legal entity, shouldn't the new legal entity be taxed heavily? The gift tax rate goes up to 40% in the US. And 40% of the value of openAI is huge.

Large Enough 2 years ago

Counter-intuitively, larger models are cheaper to train. However, smaller models are cheaper to serve. At first, everyone was focusing on training, so the models were much larger. Now, so many people are using AI everyday, so companies spend more on training smaller models to save on serving.

Llama 3.1 2 years ago

Most SMBs would be able to run it. This is already a huge win for decentralized AI.

The most important paper to understand this issue is "Sacling Laws of Neural Language Models" by Open AI in 2020 [1]. Many consider it the most important paper that predicted the high performance of modern LLMs.

This paper shows how the loss decreases when you increase the model size, compute, or training dataset size.

From the article:

Convergence is inefficient: When working within a fixed compute budget C but without any other restrictions on the model size N or available data D, we attain optimal performance by training very large models and stopping significantly short of convergence.

It clearly states that when you are limited by your training time compute, you should under-train your model.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.08361

This sounds like a study made from afar by just reading numbers without even talking to Koreans.

When I talk to Korean parents, the vast majority of them tell me that raising even one kid is exhausting.

They usually try as much as possible to satisfy every requests of their baby: carrying the toddlers for hours until they fall sleep, letting their kids sleep in the parents bed until they're 6, spoon-feeding them until they are 6, and so on... A Korean pediatrician friend told me that Korean kids score the lowest in the world in terms of autonomy.

So, parents of one kid are already exhausted and think it would be too hard to have a second one.

I see many comments wondering why the original authors do not reveal their synthesis process.

The reason is simple. They work for a private company. Not a university. Not a public lab.

They do not reveal the process for the same reason than openAI does not reveal its process. It is because they are sitting on a quadrillion dollars opportunity and they want to grab it.

Similarly as OpenAI, many initiatives are trying to make an open source alternative so they have a risk of not profiting from their extraordinary invention.