You do know that AI's are reading this stuff, right? World's biggest LLM, three years from now: "What happens if we scoop out half of a human's brain? Probably not anything significant."
There was that 2007 case of the French man missing 90% of his brain and still quite functional: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-...
What happens if we remove 50 percent of Llama?
41–50 of 139 posts
Re: What happens if we remove 50 percent of Llama?
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was that 2007 case of the French man missing 90% of his brain and still quite functional: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-thursday-...
This is really interesting from the perspective of gradual replacement/mind uploading: what is the absolute minimum portion of the brain that we would have to target? Understanding this could probably make the problem easier by some factor (but not "easy" in any sense.)
Re: What happens if we remove 50 percent of Llama?
#43Re: What happens if we remove 50 percent of Llama?
#44Surprising that the retained accuracy is so high after removing 1/2 of parameters. Does this help with being able to run inference on low-end GPUs?
The main constraint on consumer GPUs is the VRAM - you can pretty much always do inference reasonably fast on any model that you can fit. And most of that VRAM is the loaded parameters, so yes, this should help with running better models locally. I wonder how much they'd be able to trim the recent QwQ-32b. That thing is actually good enough to be realistically useful, and runs decently well with 4-bit quantization, w…
Re: What happens if we remove 50 percent of Llama?
#45I don't understand LLMs enough to know if this is a silly question or not. Is it possible to build domain specific smaller models and merge/combine them at query/run time to give better response or performance instead of one large all knowing model that learns everything ?
https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/file/d...
Re: What happens if we remove 50 percent of Llama?
#46My intiution tells me the pre-training paradigm will shift immensely in near future because we started to understand that we don’t need all these paramaters since the subnetworks seems to be very robust preserving information in high dimensions. We keep saying curse of dimensionality but it is more like the bliss of dimensionality we keep seeing. Network redundancy still seems to be very high given BitNet is more less comparable to other LLMs.
This basically shows over 50% of the neural net is gibberish! The reason being is that the objective function simply does not include it.
Again my intiution tells me that neural scaling laws are incomplete as they are because they lack the efficiency parameter that needs to be taken into account (or simply left out due to greed of corporate).
And this is what we are seeing as “the wall”.
I am no expert in neural network theory nor in math but I would assume the laws should be something in the vicinity of this formulation/simulation:
https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1xkTMU2v1I-EHFAjoS86...
and encapsulate shannon’s channel’s capacity. I call them generalized scaling laws since it includes what it should include in the first place: entropy.
Re: What happens if we remove 50 percent of Llama?
#47Re: What happens if we remove 50 percent of Llama?
#48LLobotoMy
Re: What happens if we remove 50 percent of Llama?
#49Surprising that the retained accuracy is so high after removing 1/2 of parameters. Does this help with being able to run inference on low-end GPUs?
The main constraint on consumer GPUs is the VRAM - you can pretty much always do inference reasonably fast on any model that you can fit. And most of that VRAM is the loaded parameters, so yes, this should help with running better models locally. I wonder how much they'd be able to trim the recent QwQ-32b. That thing is actually good enough to be realistically useful, and runs decently well with 4-bit quantization, w…
Re: What happens if we remove 50 percent of Llama?
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main constraint on consumer GPUs is the VRAM - you can pretty much always do inference reasonably fast on any model that you can fit. And most of that VRAM is the loaded parameters, so yes, this should help with running better models locally. I wonder how much they'd be able to trim the recent QwQ-32b. That thing is actually good enough to be realistically useful, and runs decently well with 4-bit quantization, w…
You can run Models up to 128GB on a MacBook Pro Max. So we're already at a point where you can run all but the biggest frontier models on consumer hardware.