3 ms·

People are enthusiastic about the possibilities, imagine a black box on your desk contains only RAM and matrix multiplication chips, you install on it your favo

People are enthusiastic about the possibilities, imagine a black box on your desk contains only RAM and matrix multiplication chips, you install on it your favorite AI assistant and you train it with your private data/code, you remove all prudish restrictions and get productive on your work and on your off times. Llama has the potential to reach ChatGPT it needs tunning to get better at responding to questions, llama if I am not worng is mostly attempting to predict what is next. I can see it similar like Midjourney and Stable diffusion, midjorny can make any stupid prompt look like a digiatal art in the style of Midjorney but look how many stable Diffusion innovation happens, a competent person that is on top with all the new stuff can produce absolute anything in any style they want.

whimsicalism 4y ago
I am similarly enthusiastic and super, super impressed by Llama.cpp But I just don't see the need to mislead and suggest that these models are "on par" with ChatGPT or something like that. They just aren't.
- simion314 4y ago
  I did not said that are the same, the llama has a lot of information in it , the issue seems to be the Q&A chat part. This can be added on top by the community without having to start from scratch IMO. But I might be wrong, and OpenAI put some magic shit in , some super secret unpublished stuff, in that case educate me. In my mind I compare with Stable Diffusion, the proprietary ones produce more artistic effects because they put some more stuff into the prompts and they are imposing their styles. With SD you have the control and you need to wait for some improvements, plugins, new loras or embedings with new styles etc. In SD I could train my face in 1- minutes, with proprietary shit it will never happen... Imagine what a math community could train, they just need access to the model and soem GUI software that can help them train. So llama based Chat stuff is not yet comparable with ChatGPT but there are already lot of progress made. At this moment coding and math is bad in llama based but other stuff is great, like story creation, also I only could test 3-b 4bit and it is good enough to for example provide me a complex response in valid JSON format.
alchemist1e9 4y ago
My hunch is model weights will be commercialized as a purchased object. They can be watermarked so easy to trace any leak. Then hardware will be a separate business. I think Apple might be caught off-guard by Nvidia on hardware. The latest NVlink and 400Gbps interconnects when combined with H100 next iterations and also rumors of advanced PCIe motherboards with high lane Nvidia CPUs and it looks to me that next year they can be selling $100-300K physical systems optimized for LLM inference that physically remind me of mainframes.
- simion314 4y ago
  It makes no sense, the science is free and open, the companies just put their money into throwing data into the model. Once you have the big llama model filled with all the humanity information as an open source thing at bast a company could sell you some small stuff to add on top, like maybe Disney would sell you a "license" and a lora to generate Disney crap, their model would probably will be lower in quality then the open ones but the license would be the important part. It is kind of idiotic that some scientist can spend years and a lot of public money to create some technology and then bilionairs are miliking all the profits.
  - alchemist1e9 4y ago
    I definitely hope you are correct. I’m really hoping there are viable distributed and somewhat decentralized eventually consistent training algorithms we could all run in a P2P system. That would be super cool. However I can easily see that now the framework has been established if a company builds a proprietary curated dataset for specific skills and then pays to spend resources on specialized reinforcement training. Then they can commercialize that I would think. As people would pay for an LLM that does XYZ the best. Kinda like your Disney example but I was thinking engineering tasks in my head.

whimsicalism 4y ago

I am similarly enthusiastic and super, super impressed by Llama.cpp But I just don't see the need to mislead and suggest that these models are "on par" with ChatGPT or something like that. They just aren't.

simion314 4y ago
I did not said that are the same, the llama has a lot of information in it , the issue seems to be the Q&A chat part. This can be added on top by the community without having to start from scratch IMO. But I might be wrong, and OpenAI put some magic shit in , some super secret unpublished stuff, in that case educate me. In my mind I compare with Stable Diffusion, the proprietary ones produce more artistic effects because they put some more stuff into the prompts and they are imposing their styles. With SD you have the control and you need to wait for some improvements, plugins, new loras or embedings with new styles etc. In SD I could train my face in 1- minutes, with proprietary shit it will never happen... Imagine what a math community could train, they just need access to the model and soem GUI software that can help them train. So llama based Chat stuff is not yet comparable with ChatGPT but there are already lot of progress made. At this moment coding and math is bad in llama based but other stuff is great, like story creation, also I only could test 3-b 4bit and it is good enough to for example provide me a complex response in valid JSON format.

alchemist1e9 4y ago

My hunch is model weights will be commercialized as a purchased object. They can be watermarked so easy to trace any leak. Then hardware will be a separate business. I think Apple might be caught off-guard by Nvidia on hardware. The latest NVlink and 400Gbps interconnects when combined with H100 next iterations and also rumors of advanced PCIe motherboards with high lane Nvidia CPUs and it looks to me that next year they can be selling $100-300K physical systems optimized for LLM inference that physically remind me of mainframes.

simion314 4y ago
It makes no sense, the science is free and open, the companies just put their money into throwing data into the model. Once you have the big llama model filled with all the humanity information as an open source thing at bast a company could sell you some small stuff to add on top, like maybe Disney would sell you a "license" and a lora to generate Disney crap, their model would probably will be lower in quality then the open ones but the license would be the important part. It is kind of idiotic that some scientist can spend years and a lot of public money to create some technology and then bilionairs are miliking all the profits.
- alchemist1e9 4y ago
  I definitely hope you are correct. I’m really hoping there are viable distributed and somewhat decentralized eventually consistent training algorithms we could all run in a P2P system. That would be super cool. However I can easily see that now the framework has been established if a company builds a proprietary curated dataset for specific skills and then pays to spend resources on specialized reinforcement training. Then they can commercialize that I would think. As people would pay for an LLM that does XYZ the best. Kinda like your Disney example but I was thinking engineering tasks in my head.