Live data from Hacker News

Were RNNs all we needed?

arxiv.org

31–40 of 269 posts

Re: Were RNNs all we needed?

#31
post #7

To their credit, the authors (Y. Bengio among them) end the paper with the question, not suggesting they know the answer. These models are very small even by academic standards so any finding would not necessarily extend to current LLM scales. The main conclusion is that RNN class networks can be trained as efficiently as modern alternatives but the resulting performance is only competitive at small scale.

>> These models are very small even by academic standards so any finding would not necessarily extend to current LLM scales.

Emphasis on not necessarily.

>> The main conclusion is that RNN class networks can be trained as efficiently as modern alternatives but the resulting performance is only competitive at small scale.

Shouldn't the conclusion be "the resulting competitive performance has only been confirmed at small scale"?

Re: Were RNNs all we needed?

#32
post #28
post #11

It's curse and a blessing that discussion of topics happens in so many different places. I found this comment on Twitter/X interesting: https://x.com/fchollet/status/1841902521717293273 "Interesting work on reviving RNNs. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.01201 -- in general the fact that there are many recent architectures coming from different directions that roughly match Transformers is proof that architectures aren't f…

[flagged]

paper is paywalled; just logging into Medium won't do it

Re: Were RNNs all we needed?

#33
post #28
post #11

It's curse and a blessing that discussion of topics happens in so many different places. I found this comment on Twitter/X interesting: https://x.com/fchollet/status/1841902521717293273 "Interesting work on reviving RNNs. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.01201 -- in general the fact that there are many recent architectures coming from different directions that roughly match Transformers is proof that architectures aren't f…

[flagged]

I would like to read it, but it's under a paywall.

Re: Were RNNs all we needed?

#35
I strongly enjoy the simplicity of their "minGRU" architecture. It's basically just:

  class MinGRU(nn.Module):
    def __init__(self, token_size, hidden_state_size):
      self.token_to_proposal = nn.Linear(token_size, hidden_size)
      self.token_to_mix_factors = nn.Linear(token_size, hidden_size)

    def forward(self, previous_hidden_state, current_token):
      proposed_hidden_state = self.token_to_proposal(current_token)
      mix_factors = torch.sigmoid(self.token_to_mix_factors(current_token))
      return torch.lerp(proposed_hidden_state, previous_hidden_state, mix_factors)
And since the proposed hidden states and mix factors for each layer are both only dependent on the current token, you can compute all of them in parallel if you know the whole sequence ahead of time (like during training), and then combine them in linear time using parallel scan.

The fact that this is competitive with transformers and state-space models in their small-scale experiments is gratifying to the "best PRs are the ones that delete code" side of me. That said, we won't know for sure if this is a capital-B Breakthrough until someone tries scaling it up to parameter and data counts comparable to SOTA models.

One detail I found really interesting is that they seem to do all their calculations in log-space, according to the Appendix. They say it's for numerical stability, which is curious to me—I'm not sure I have a good intuition for why running everything in log-space makes the model more stable. Is it because they removed the tanh from the output, making it possible for values to explode if calculations are done in linear space?

EDIT: Another thought—it's kind of fascinating that this sort of sequence modeling works at all. It's like if I gave you all the pages of a book individually torn out and in a random order, and asked you to try to make a vector representation for each page as well as instructions for how to mix that vector with the vector representing all previous pages — except you have zero knowledge of those previous pages. Then, I take all your page vectors, sequentially mix them together in-order, and grade you based on how good of a whole-book summary the final vector represents. Wild stuff.

FURTHER EDIT: Yet another thought—right now, they're just using two dense linear layers to transform the token into the proposed hidden state and the lerp mix factors. I'm curious what would happen if you made those transforms MLPs instead of singular linear layers.

Re: Were RNNs all we needed?

#36
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, because 1) Yoshua's reputation would take a hit if this paper were bullshit, so he has extrinsic motivation to make it good 2) Yoshua has enough experience in the field to know what is going on in the field, you don't have to ask if he forgot about a certain architecture or the work of a certain research group which would contradict his findings-- if such work exists and is credible, it is very likely to…

“ I've overturned the field leader several times in science” Either that makes you a field leader yourself, or you did it for trivial things, or you’re BSing. Which one is it?

there's a big space between leader and trivial. it's entirely possible to point out the top leader in your field is wrong on ten things over a career, without becoming the top leader yourself.

Re: Were RNNs all we needed?

#37
post #23

R == Recurrent From theory the answer to the question should be "yes", they are Turing complete. The real question is about how to train them, and the paper is about that.

Why aren't AI researchers automating the search for efficient architectures?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_architecture_search

Re: Were RNNs all we needed?

#38
post #2

I haven’t gone through the paper in detail yet but maybe someone can answer. If you remove the hidden state from an rnn as they say they’ve done, what’s left? An mlp predicting from a single token?

The trick is to make sure the recursive dependency stays linear, that's how you enable parallel training.

Re: Were RNNs all we needed?

#39
post #28
post #11

It's curse and a blessing that discussion of topics happens in so many different places. I found this comment on Twitter/X interesting: https://x.com/fchollet/status/1841902521717293273 "Interesting work on reviving RNNs. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.01201 -- in general the fact that there are many recent architectures coming from different directions that roughly match Transformers is proof that architectures aren't f…

[flagged]

Author: @fandzomga Username: fsndz

Why try to funnel us to your paywalled article?

Re: Were RNNs all we needed?

#40

The name of the paper contrasts with the paper that spawned Transformer architecture, which itself is a reference to the song "All You Need Is Love" by the Beatles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_Is_All_You_Need

I eagerly await the backlash to suggesting any one thing is all you need, the first shot of which shall surely be titled: “‘All you need’ Considered Harmful”

Surely the universe is all you need though
Post reply on HN