For anyone who hasn't tried local models because they think it's too complicated or their computer can't handle it, download a single llamafile and try it out in just moments. https://future.mozilla.org/builders/news_insights/introducin... https://github.com/Mozilla-Ocho/llamafile They even have whisperfiles now, which is the same thing but for whisper.cpp, aka real-time voice transcription. You can also take this a…
Forget ChatGPT: why researchers now run small AIs on their laptops
241–250 of 385 posts
Re: Forget ChatGPT: why researchers now run small AIs on their laptops
#242Nexa AI local model hub: https://nexaai.com/ Toolkit: https://github.com/NexaAI/nexa-sdk
It also comes with a built-in local UI to get started with local models easily and OpenAI-compatible API (with JSON schema for function calling and streaming) for starting local development easily.
You can run the Nexa SDK on any device with a Python environment—and GPU acceleration is supported!
Local LLMs, and especially multimodal local models are the future. It is the only way to make AI accessible (cost-efficient) and safe.
Re: Forget ChatGPT: why researchers now run small AIs on their laptops
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
IDK, 8B-class quantized models run pretty fast on commodity laptops, with CPU-only inference. Thanks to the people who figured out quantization and reimplemented everything in C++, instead of academic-grade Python.
A solid chunk of python is just wrappers around C/C++, most tensor frameworks included.
Re: Forget ChatGPT: why researchers now run small AIs on their laptops
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mining cryptos, some "AI" companies already do that (knowingly or not... and not necessarily telling investors)
Is it still even worth the electricity to do this on a GPU? It wouldn’t surprise me if some startups were renting them out, but is anyone still mining any volume of crypto on GPUs? edit: I guess to your point if it is not knowingly then the electricity costs are not a factor either.
Only with memcoins.
Re: Forget ChatGPT: why researchers now run small AIs on their laptops
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
Button-toggled voice notes in the iPhone Notes app are a godsend for taking measurements. Rather than switching your hands between probe/equipment and notes repeatedly, which sucks badly, you can just dictate your readings and maaaaybe clean out something someone said in the background. Over the last decade, the microphones + speech recognition became Good Enough for this. Wake-word/endpoint models still aren't there…
I bought an iZYREC (?) and leave the phone at home. MacWhisper and some regex (I use verbal tags) and done
> Finding the Truth – Surprisingly, my iZYREC revealed more than I anticipated. I had placed it in my husband's car, aiming to capture some fun moments, but it instead recorded intimate encounters between my husband and my close friend. Heartbreaking yet crucial, it unveiled a hidden truth, helping me confront reality.
> A Voice for the Voiceless – We suspected that a relative's child was living in an abusive home. I slipped the device into the child's backpack, and it recorded the entire day. The sound quality was excellent, and unfortunately, the results confirmed our suspicions. Thanks iZYREC, giving a voice to those who need it most.
Re: Forget ChatGPT: why researchers now run small AIs on their laptops
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you suggest is not impossible but simply flies in the face of all currently available evidence and what all leading labs say and do. We know they are actively looking for ways to do things more efficiently. OpenAI alone did a couple of releases to that effect. Because of how easy it is to switch providers, if only one lab found a way to run a small model that competed with the big ones, it would simply win the e…
There are at least two different optimizations happening: 1) optimizing the model training 2) optimizing the model operation The $1B-spend holy grail is that it costs a lot of money to train, and almost nothing to operate, a proprietary model that benchmarks and chats better than anyone else’s. OpenAI’s optimizations fall into the latter category. The risk to the business model is in the former — if someone can train…
To see what optimizing model operation looks like, groq is a good example. OpenAI isn’t (yet) obviously in that kind of optimization, though I’m sure they’re working on it internally.
Re: Forget ChatGPT: why researchers now run small AIs on their laptops
#247I recently experimented with running llama-3.1-8b-instruct locally on my Consumer hardware, aka my Nvidia RTX 4060 with 8GB VRAM, as I wanted to experiment with prompting pdfs with a large context which is extremely expensive with how LLMs are priced. I was able to fit the model with decent speeds (30 tokens/seconds) and a 20k token context completely on the GPU. For summarization, the performance of these models are…
you moved the goalposts when you add 'multimodal' there; another item is, no one reads PDF tables and illustrations perfectly, at any price AFAIK
Re: Forget ChatGPT: why researchers now run small AIs on their laptops
#248> Microsoft used LLMs to write millions of short stories and textbooks in which one thing builds on another. The result of training on this text, Bubeck says, is a model that fits on a mobile phone but has the power of the initial 2022 version of ChatGPT. I thought training LLMs on content created by LLMs was ill-advised but this would suggest otherwise
Look into Microsoft's Phi papers. The whole idea here is that if you train models on higher quality data (i.e. textbooks instead of blogspam) you get higher quality results. The exact training is proprietary but they seem to use a lot of GPT-4 generated training data. On that note... I've often wondered if broad memorization of trivia is really a sensible use of precious neurons. It seems like a system trained on a n…
I agree if we are talking about maxing raw reasoning and logical onference abilities, but the problem is that the ship has sailed and people expect llms to have domain knowledge (even more than expert users are clamoring for LLMs to have better logic).
I bet a model with actual human “intelligence” but no Google-scale encyclopedic knowledge of the world it lives in would be scored less preferentially by the masses than what we have now.
Re: Forget ChatGPT: why researchers now run small AIs on their laptops
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any of the newer M2+ Max chips runs 400GB/s and can run 70b pretty well. It's not fast though, 3-4 token/s. You can get better performance using a good CPU + 4090 + offloading layers to GPU. However one is a laptop and the other is a desktop...
Apparently Mac purchasers like to talk about tokens per second without talking about Mac's atrocious time to first token. They also like to enthusiastically talk about tokens per second asking a 200 token question rather than a longer prompt. I'm not sure what the impact is on a 70b model but it seems there's a lot of exaggeration going on in this space by Mac fans.
The results for Llama 2 70B Q4_0 (39GB) was 8.5 tok/s for text generation (you'd expect a theoretical max of a bit over 10 tok/s based on theoretical MBW) and a prompt processing of 19 tok/s. On a 4K context conversation, that means you would be waiting about 3.5min between turns before tokens started outputting.
Sadly, I doubt that Strix Halo will perform much better. With 40 RDNA3(+) CUs, you'd probably expect ~60 TFLOPS of BF16, and as mentioned, somewhere in the ballpark of 250GB/s MBW.
Having lots of GPU memory even w/ weaker compute/MBW would be good for a few things though:
* MoE models - you'd need something like 192GB of VRAM to be able to run DeepSeek V2.5 (21B active, but 236B in weights) at a decent quant - a Q4_0 would be about 134GB to load the weights, but w/ far fewer activations, you would still be able to inference at ~20 tok/s). Still, even with "just" 96GB you should be able to just fit a Mixtral 8x22B, or easily fit one of the new MS (GRIN/Phi MoEs).
* Long context - even with kvcache quantization, you need lots of memory for these new big context windows, so having extra memory for much smaller models is still pretty necessary. Especially if you want to do any of the new CoT/reasoning techniques, you will need all the tokens you can get.
* Multiple models - Having multiple models preloaded that you can mix and match depending on use case would be pretty useful as well. Even some of the smaller Qwen2.5 models looks like they might do code as well as some much bigger models, you might want a model that's specifically tuned for function calling, a VLM, SRT/TTS, etc. While you might be able to swap adapters for some of this stuff eventually, for now, being able to have multiple models pre-loaded locally would still be pretty convenient.
* Batched/offline inference - being able to load up big models would still be really useful if you have any tasks that you could queue up/process overnight. I think these types of tools are actually relatively underexplored atm, but has as many use cases/utility as real-time inferencing.
One other thing to note is that on the Mac side, you're mainly relegated to llama.cpp and MLX. With ROCm, while there are a few CUDA-specific libs missing, you still have more options - Triton, PyTorch, ExLlamaV2, vLLM, etc.
Re: Forget ChatGPT: why researchers now run small AIs on their laptops
#250I'd like to point out that llama 3.1 is not open source[1] (I was recently made aware of that fact by [2], when it was on HN front page) While it's very nice to see a peak of interest for local, "open-weights" LLMs, this is an unfortunate choice of words, as it undermines the quite important differences between llama's license model and open-source. The license question does not seem to be addressed at all in the art…
yi: previously non-commercial but Apache 2.0 now?
deepseek: usage policy
larger gemma models: usage policy
databricks: similar to llama: no more than 700 million MAUs, usage policy, additional restrictions on using outputs to train other models
qwen: no more than 100 million MAUs
mistral: non-commercial
command-r: CC BY-NC
starling: CC BY-NC
There are a handful of niche models released under MIT/Apache but the norm is licences similar to or more restrictive than the Llama Community Licence, and I really doubt the situation would be better if Meta wasn't first.
>"open-weights" LLMs
I doubt this is the point you're making, but the training data really isn't useful even if it could be released under a permissive licence. Most models use similar datasets: reddit (no licence afaik, copyright belongs to comment authors), stackoverflow (CC BY-SA), wikipedia (CC BY-SA), Project Gutenberg (public domain?), previously books3 (books under copyright by publishers with more money and lawyers than reddit users), etc, with various degrees of filtering to remove harmful data. You can't do much with this much data unless you have millions of dollars worth of compute laying around, and you can't rebuild llama any more than any other company using the same data have 'rebuilt llama' - all models trained in a similar manner on the same data are going to converge in outputs eventually. Compare with Linux distributions, they all use the same packages but you're not going to get the same results.