Live data from Hacker News

NanoGPT

github.com

41–50 of 334 posts

Re: NanoGPT

#41

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 does “355 years” mean in this context? I assume it’s not human years

Re: NanoGPT

#42
post #36

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

Model size does not necessarily correlates to quality of results. "Chinchilla (70B) Greatly Outperforms GPT-3 (175B) and Gopher (280B)" - https://towardsdatascience.com/a-new-ai-trend-chinchilla-70b...

An interesting outcome of the nanoGPT repo is this struggle to exactly match the Chinchilla findings[0], even after discussing it with the authors.

A larger discussion is that the scaling laws achieve loss-optimal compute time, but the pre-training loss only improves predictions on the corpus, which contains texts written by people that were wrong or whose prose was lacking. In a real system, what you want to optimize for is accuracy, composability, inventiveness.

[0]: https://github.com/karpathy/nanoGPT/blob/master/scaling_laws...

Re: NanoGPT

#43
post #41

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 does “355 years” mean in this context? I assume it’s not human years

Cumulative hours spent across training hardware.

Re: NanoGPT

#44

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 something of Seti@Home kind will come.

Re: NanoGPT

#45
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.

On the contrary, in this thread we are are mainly talking about that.

Re: NanoGPT

#46
post #41

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 does “355 years” mean in this context? I assume it’s not human years

Claimed here, so this is presumably the reference (355 GPU Years):

https://lambdalabs.com/blog/demystifying-gpt-3

"We are waiting for OpenAI to reveal more details about the training infrastructure and model implementation. But to put things into perspective, GPT-3 175B model required 3.14E23 FLOPS of computing for training. Even at theoretical 28 TFLOPS for V100 and lowest 3 year reserved cloud pricing we could find, this will take 355 GPU-years and cost $4.6M for a single training run. Similarly, a single RTX 8000, assuming 15 TFLOPS, would take 665 years to run."

Re: NanoGPT

#47

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

As models get bigger less and less neurons get activated by any given input. If you can somehow predict which neurons get activated you can skip the vast majority of the computational load. I have read a paper where they argued that only 0.5% of the neurons are actually active in a 200 million parameter model so you can get a 200x improvement just from that.

What this tells you is that there is very little money in optimizing deep learning and that NVIDIA has made it very easy to just throw more hardware at then problem.

Re: NanoGPT

#48

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

Could this be distributed? Put all those mining GPUs to work. A lot of people like participating in public projects like this. I would!

In theory, yes. "Hogwild!" is an approach to distributed training, in essence, each worker is given a bunch of data, they compute the gradient and send that to a central authority. The authority accumulates the gradients and periodically pushes new weights.

There is also Federated Learning which seemed to start taking off, but then interest rapidly declined.

Re: NanoGPT

#49

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

Could this be distributed? Put all those mining GPUs to work. A lot of people like participating in public projects like this. I would!

Exactly. This is inevitable imho. There is no way people will be ok to depend on few wall-gardened models.

Re: NanoGPT

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but to be fair, the system that does the training really sucks and doesn’t scale.

Neither does OpenAI. It costs so much and still delivers so little. A human can generate breakthroughs in science and tech that can be used to reduce carbon emissions. ChatGPT can do no such thing.

What percentage of humans make meaningful contributions to advancing science or technology? The overwhelming majority of us are just worker bees servicing the needs of the human population.
Post reply on HN