3 ms·
I'm a big believer in the approach you're laying out too. Bugs are much easier to diagnose, crash reporting is more straightforward, and you don't need augmente
by icyfox 3y ago
I'm a big believer in the approach you're laying out too. Bugs are much easier to diagnose, crash reporting is more straightforward, and you don't need augmented services to consolidate everything at the output layer. That said - I've been predicting a shift back to simple architectures for awhile now and they haven't really come to pass. Maybe there's too much pressure or financial incentives for increasing complexity to solve increasing complexity?
At the end of the day I do believe ergonomics are going to win out. I think that's in large part why pytorch won out over tensorflow and jax; it provided the just-in-time computation that would allow people to more easily find bugs & visualize results without having to `compile()` everything down to a static computation graph. Hardware seems like a natural place for that abstraction layer - but maybe the silver bullet will really be on the software side, since we already have too many "low-RAM" equivalent ML devices in the wild. Cheaper to string things together after the fact vs. shipping net new hardware.
- cs702 3y agoThe other thing to keep in mind is that Transformers may well be end up being supplanted by more efficient alternatives with different hardware requirements. For instance, right now there's a new crop of "linear RNNs" (RWKV, Mamba, retnet, etc.) claiming to be as good as Transformers for language modeling but with two advantages: their compute cost is O(n) instead of O(n²), and they don't need to keep past context in memory. I don't know if these linear RNNs will actually supplant Transformers, but I do think hardware requirements are likely to change over time.
- happytiger 3y agoWhich architecture more closely resembles the human brain?
- esafak 3y agoSpiking neural networks, I think.