Live data from Hacker News

NanoGPT

github.com

21–30 of 334 posts

Re: NanoGPT

#21
post #16

Are there any possible technologal or scientific leaps on the horizon that would reduce training time by an order of magnitude or more? GPT-3 took 355 years to train with incredibly expensive hardware, which means small players have no chance to push the state of the art

What do you mean by "small players have no chance"? OpenAI was founded in 2015, it used to be a "small player" which just got things right and grew with it - we're not talking of Google or Facebook investing a chunk of their billions cash. In Germany, AlephAlpha has built their own supercomputer and are training similar sized models. It's expensive for sure, but well in the possibilities of startups. In France resear…

Microsoft (using Azure DCs) built a supercomputer with 10,000 V100 GPUs exclusively for OpenAI. [0]

It is estimated that it cost around $5M in compute time to train GPT-3.

OpenAI has received billions in investment prior to launching GPT-3, including $1B from Microsoft in 2019.

[0]: https://blogs.microsoft.com/ai/openai-azure-supercomputer/

Re: NanoGPT

#22
As someone who's been in software for almost 25 years now, I read through this in amazement of how much new stuff still keeps coming in. This industry never stops and that makes it such a fascinating (but arguably harsh) world to be in.

Looking at this feels like seeing the source code of a 64k demo, learning about Mode 13h and trying to replicate it in Turbo Pascal.

And, much like the old days of graphics programming, there's a good chance all of this knowledge will be mostly irrelevant soon, as the abstraction layers tend to come quicker and quicker and take care of the hard foundational work underneath. Then it'll be many of us here discussing whether or not it was good to have been with it from the start, to really get it, or whether playing with the highly-abstracted components is all that's needed to succeed with it.

Either way, super cool to see the pace here and I loved the "I only have a macbook" section.

Re: NanoGPT

#23

Are there any possible technologal or scientific leaps on the horizon that would reduce training time by an order of magnitude or more? GPT-3 took 355 years to train with incredibly expensive hardware, which means small players have no chance to push the state of the art

I wonder about this, too. OpenAI's biggest 'moat' is that their model takes so much resources to train, not that their algorithms are particularly secret.

One idea I had was to not use one single model to learn all steps of the task, but to break it up. The human brain has dedicated grammar processing parts. It is unclear whether something like a universal grammar exists, but we have at least an innate sense for rhythm. Applied to NLP, you could heavily preprocess the input. Tokenize it, annotate parts of speech. Maybe add pronunciation, so the model doesn't have to think about weird english spelling rules, and so you can deal with audio more easily later. So I would build all these little expert-knowledge black boxes and offer them as input to my network.

But there is also some inherent resource cost in large language models. If you want to store and process the knowledge of the world, it is going to be expensive no matter what. Maybe we could split the problem into two parts: Understanding language, and world knowledge (with some messy middle ground). I believe you could replace the world knowledge with a huge graph database or triple store. Not just subject-verb-object, but with attribution and certainty numbers for every fact. The idea would be to query the database at inference time. I don't know how to use this in conjunction with a transformer network like GPT-3, so you'd likely need a very different architecture.

The big benefit of this would be that it is feasible to train the language part without the world knowledge part with much less resources. But you have other benefits, too. ChatGPT is trained to "win the language game". But as they say, winning the argument does not make you right. If you have a clean fact database, you can have it weigh statements from trustworthy sources higher. You then basically have a nice natural language frontend to a logical reasoning system that can respond with facts (or better: conclusions).

Re: NanoGPT

#24
post #16

Are there any possible technologal or scientific leaps on the horizon that would reduce training time by an order of magnitude or more? GPT-3 took 355 years to train with incredibly expensive hardware, which means small players have no chance to push the state of the art

What do you mean by "small players have no chance"? OpenAI was founded in 2015, it used to be a "small player" which just got things right and grew with it - we're not talking of Google or Facebook investing a chunk of their billions cash. In Germany, AlephAlpha has built their own supercomputer and are training similar sized models. It's expensive for sure, but well in the possibilities of startups. In France resear…

> we're not talking of Google or Facebook investing a chunk of their billions cash

OpenAI had raised $1B from Microsoft in 2019 and used it to train a 175B param model. Now, they have raised $10B and are training GPT-4 with 1.5T params. GPUs are capital intensive and as long as there are returns to bigger models, that's exactly where things will go.

Re: NanoGPT

#25
post #16

Are there any possible technologal or scientific leaps on the horizon that would reduce training time by an order of magnitude or more? GPT-3 took 355 years to train with incredibly expensive hardware, which means small players have no chance to push the state of the art

What do you mean by "small players have no chance"? OpenAI was founded in 2015, it used to be a "small player" which just got things right and grew with it - we're not talking of Google or Facebook investing a chunk of their billions cash. In Germany, AlephAlpha has built their own supercomputer and are training similar sized models. It's expensive for sure, but well in the possibilities of startups. In France resear…

I am actually still unclear how AlephAlpha pulled that off and who funds them, since they have a rather low profile team.

Re: NanoGPT

#26

As someone who's been in software for almost 25 years now, I read through this in amazement of how much new stuff still keeps coming in. This industry never stops and that makes it such a fascinating (but arguably harsh) world to be in. Looking at this feels like seeing the source code of a 64k demo, learning about Mode 13h and trying to replicate it in Turbo Pascal. And, much like the old days of graphics programmin…

[deleted]

Re: NanoGPT

#28
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "small players have no chance"? OpenAI was founded in 2015, it used to be a "small player" which just got things right and grew with it - we're not talking of Google or Facebook investing a chunk of their billions cash. In Germany, AlephAlpha has built their own supercomputer and are training similar sized models. It's expensive for sure, but well in the possibilities of startups. In France resear…

> we're not talking of Google or Facebook investing a chunk of their billions cash OpenAI had raised $1B from Microsoft in 2019 and used it to train a 175B param model. Now, they have raised $10B and are training GPT-4 with 1.5T params. GPUs are capital intensive and as long as there are returns to bigger models, that's exactly where things will go.

I can't find any source on the 1.5T params number. I'd love to read more if you have any links to share. Thanks

Re: NanoGPT

#29

Are there any possible technologal or scientific leaps on the horizon that would reduce training time by an order of magnitude or more? GPT-3 took 355 years to train with incredibly expensive hardware, which means small players have no chance to push the state of the art

Work together and fuck up companies together. That's the way to go.

[deleted]

Re: NanoGPT

#30

Are there any possible technologal or scientific leaps on the horizon that would reduce training time by an order of magnitude or more? GPT-3 took 355 years to train with incredibly expensive hardware, which means small players have no chance to push the state of the art

I think AI is going to go the way of the hard sciences where the age of tinkerers making progress by leaps and bounds in their basement is over and incremental progress is going to be the domain of universities or large private companies that can afford to throw money behind it. I would love to be proven wrong and see radical shifts in how people approach these problems. Seems like the cycle started and got to this point way too soon for AI though
Post reply on HN