RWKV: Reinventing RNNs for the Transformer Era
1–10 of 176 posts
Re: RWKV: Reinventing RNNs for the Transformer Era
#2Work on transformer alternatives, especially parallelizable ones like this, is incredibly important - it would suck if we get sucked down a local optima in architecture without actually looking at nearby viable alternatives.
Re: RWKV: Reinventing RNNs for the Transformer Era
#3Re: RWKV: Reinventing RNNs for the Transformer Era
#4All these 2k/4k/8k context sizes that we've had recently are able to map pretty well to what a human could reasonably remember. What I mean is, you could ask a human to read some text with 8k tokens, and for the most part they could answer questions about the text coherently.
But what about 32k contexts, or beyond? At some point, as token size increases, the ability of a human to give a highly precise and detailed answer decreases. They must start to generalize. A human could not read Infinite Jest in one pass and then answer details about every single sentence. But could a transformer, or a RNN? As the context grows, is it harder to keep a high granularity of detail? Or am I wrong in trying to think of these models the way I think about the human mind, and they are actually able to handle this problem just fine?
I'm aware that we can cheat a bit, by adding a lookup step into an embedding database, to provide "infinite" context with "infinite" precision. But to me, that is analogous to a human looking up information in a library in order to answer a question. I'm interested in the inherent, emergent memory that these models have available to them in just one forward pass.
Re: RWKV: Reinventing RNNs for the Transformer Era
#5Re: RWKV: Reinventing RNNs for the Transformer Era
#6As a (mostly) layperson, this seems like it could be a very significant paper. What are the odds we see the next few years of machine learning models based on RWKV like we have seen with transformers since the attention is all you need paper?
Re: RWKV: Reinventing RNNs for the Transformer Era
#7Re: RWKV: Reinventing RNNs for the Transformer Era
#8One thing I'm keen to understand is: how well does attention hold across huge context sizes, with respect to the usual transformer models, and also these proposed RNN models? All these 2k/4k/8k context sizes that we've had recently are able to map pretty well to what a human could reasonably remember. What I mean is, you could ask a human to read some text with 8k tokens, and for the most part they could answer quest…
> the linear attention of RWKV leads to significant efficiency gains but still, it may also limit the model’s performance on tasks that require recalling minutiae information over very long contexts. This is due to the funneling of information through a single vector representation over many time steps, compared with the full information maintained by the quadratic attention of standard Transformers. In other words, the model’s recurrent architecture inherently limits its ability to “look back” at previous tokens, as opposed to traditional self-attention mechanisms. While learned time decay helps prevent the loss of information, it is mechanistically limited compared to full self- attention.
> Another limitation of this work is the increased importance of prompt engineering in comparison to standard Transformer models. The linear attention mechanism used in RWKV limits the information from the prompt that will be carried over to the model’s continuation. As a result, carefully designed prompts may be even more crucial for the model to perform well on tasks
Re: RWKV: Reinventing RNNs for the Transformer Era
#9Jesus H. Christ, first time I see a collaboration this big on a ML paper. How does a team like that even come together? This isn't the LHC.
Re: RWKV: Reinventing RNNs for the Transformer Era
#10Jesus H. Christ, first time I see a collaboration this big on a ML paper. How does a team like that even come together? This isn't the LHC.