Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is anybody building an alternative transformer?

news.ycombinator.com

71–80 of 96 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is anybody building an alternative transformer?

#71

AI aside, the world could also use an alternative electric transformer. The backlog from main suppliers is 40+ weeks and far too expensive. There is a MAJOR manuf and supply issue here as all new build construction competes for same equipment...

Could you use a capacitor? Charge them in series with the high voltage then discharge in parallel for the low voltage.

Re: Ask HN: Is anybody building an alternative transformer?

#73
post #11
post #7

The xLSTM could become a good alternative to transformers: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04517 . On very long contexts, such as those arising in DNA models, these models perform really well. There's a big state-space model comeback initiated by the S3-Mamba saga. RWKV, which is a hybrid between classical RNNs and transformers, is also worth mentioning.

I was just about to post this. There was a MLST podcast about it a few days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u2pW2zZLCs Lots of related papers referenced in the description.

One claim from that podcast was that the xLSTM attention mechanism is (in practical implementation) more efficient than (transformer) flash attention, and therefore promises to significantly reduces the time/cost of test-time compute.

Re: Ask HN: Is anybody building an alternative transformer?

#74

Yes. Happy to chat if u msg me. Using RL coupled with NNs to integrate search directly into inference instead of as an afterthought like Chain of though and test time training.

Are we able to "msg" people on here?

Nope. Just clean carbs.

Re: Ask HN: Is anybody building an alternative transformer?

#75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, to the extent that people equate GOFAI with purely symbolic / logic-based processing, then no, not for my money anyway. I think it's possible to construct systems that use elements of symbolic processing along with sub-symbolic approaches and get useful results. I think of it as (although this is something of an over-simplification) taking symbolic reasoning, relaxing some of the constraints that go along with…

Maybe gen AI coding is neurosymbolic AI, realized differently than expected

Never say never! I can't rule it out, for sure. :-)

Re: Ask HN: Is anybody building an alternative transformer?

#76
There is a LOT of effort in the research community currently:

1. Improving the Self-Attention in the Transformer as is, keeping the quadratic complexity, which has some theoretical advantage in principle[1]: The most hyped one probably DeepSeek's Multi-Latent Attention[15], which kind of is Attention still - but also somehow different.

2. Linear RNNs: This starts from Linear Attention[2], DeltaNet[3], RKWV[4], Retention[5], Gated Linear Attention[6], Mamba[7], Griffin[8], Based[9], xLSTM[10], TTT[11], Gated DeltaNet[12], Titans[13].

They all have an update like: C_{t} = F_{t} C_{t-1} + i_{t} k_{t} v_{t}^T with a cell state C and output h_{t} = C_{t}^T q_{t}. There's a few tricks that made these work and now being very strong competitors to Transformers. The key here is the combination of an linear associative memory (aka Hopfield Network, aka Fast Weight Programmer, aka State Expansion...) and pushing it into a sequence with gating similar to the original LSTM (input, forget, output gate) - while here this is only dependent on the current input not the previous state for linearity. The linearity is needed to make it sequence-parallelizable, there are efforts now to add non-linearities again, but let's see. Their main benefit+downside both is that they have a fixed-size state, and therefore linear (vs Transformer-quadratic) time complexity.

For larger sizes they have become popular in hybrids with Transformer (Attention) Blocks, as there are problems with long context tasks [14]. Cool thing is they can also be distilled from pre-trained Transformers with not too much performance drop [16].

3. Along the sequence dimension most things can be categorized in these two. Attention and Linear (Associative Memory Enhanced) RNNs are heavily using Matrix Multiplications and anything else would be a waste of FLOPs on current GPUs. The essence is how to store information and how to interact with it, there might be still interesting directions as other comments show. Other important topics that go into the depth / width of the model are: Mixture of Experts, Iteration (RNNs) in Depth[17].

Disclaimer: I'm author of xLSTM and we recently released a 7B model [18] trained at NXAI, currently the fastest linear RNN at this scale and performance. Happy to answer more questions on this or the current state in this field of research.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.02217

[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.16236

[3] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.11174

[4] https://github.com/BlinkDL/RWKV

[5] https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.08621

[6] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2312.00752

[7] https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.06635

[8] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.19427

[9] https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.18668

[10] https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04517

[11] https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.04620

[12] https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06464

[13] https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.00663

[14] https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07887

[15] https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04434

[16] https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10254

[17] http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.05171

[18] https://huggingface.co/NX-AI/xLSTM-7b

Re: Ask HN: Is anybody building an alternative transformer?

#77
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider MLPs the building blocks of all this, and is what makes things a neural net, as opposed to some other data structure.

Sure. But that isn’t a reason to conflate the two? OP wasn’t suggesting looking for an alternative/successor to MLPs, but for an alternative/successor to transformers (while presumably still using MLPs) in the same way that transformers are an alternative/successor to LSTMs.

And that sort of proves my original point which is that we're probably gonna keep riding the same wave as far as it will go!! i.e. keep the tech stack mostly with just what we know works best.

Re: Ask HN: Is anybody building an alternative transformer?

#78
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was just about to post this. There was a MLST podcast about it a few days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u2pW2zZLCs Lots of related papers referenced in the description.

One claim from that podcast was that the xLSTM attention mechanism is (in practical implementation) more efficient than (transformer) flash attention, and therefore promises to significantly reduces the time/cost of test-time compute.

Test it out here:

https://github.com/NX-AI/mlstm_kernels

https://huggingface.co/NX-AI/xLSTM-7b

Re: Ask HN: Is anybody building an alternative transformer?

#79

I hate that popular domains take ownership of highly generic words. Many years ago, I struggled for a while to understand that when people say "frontend" they often mean a website frontend, even without any further context.

That has been the case for about 30 years

Re: Ask HN: Is anybody building an alternative transformer?

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good old fashioned AI, amirite

Well, to the extent that people equate GOFAI with purely symbolic / logic-based processing, then no, not for my money anyway. I think it's possible to construct systems that use elements of symbolic processing along with sub-symbolic approaches and get useful results. I think of it as (although this is something of an over-simplification) taking symbolic reasoning, relaxing some of the constraints that go along with…

I’ve never liked that term “sub-symbolic”. It implies that there is something at a deeper level than what a Turing machine can compute (i.e., via the manipulation of strings of symbols), and as far as we can tell, there’s no evidence for that. It might be true, but even a quantum computer can be simulated on a classical computer. And of course neural networks run on classic computers too.

Yeah, I know that’s not what “symbol” is really referring to here in this context but I just don’t like what the semantics of the word suggests about neural networks — that they are somehow a halting oracle or hypercomputation — which they’re obviously not.

Post reply on HN