Live data from Hacker News

Bamba: An open-source LLM that crosses a transformer with an SSM

research.ibm.com

31–40 of 73 posts

Re: Bamba: An open-source LLM that crosses a transformer with an SSM

#32
Another recent transformer/SSM hybrid is "M1", with a more than 3x claimed inference speed-up compared to equivalent transformers: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2504.10449

IBM is claiming at least a 2x inference speed-up with Bamba. Both groups say that future SSM optimizations to vLLM would lead to further inference speed improvement.

Re: Bamba: An open-source LLM that crosses a transformer with an SSM

#34
post #30
post #24

https://lifearchitect.ai/models-table/ Love those GPQA scores hovering around 5% when chance (on 4-way multi-choice) would have got them 25%!

A stopped clock is right twice a day, but a running clock set to the wrong time is always wrong.

The RMS of wrongness of the running clock is probably lower.

Re: Bamba: An open-source LLM that crosses a transformer with an SSM

#35

This type of architecture is definitely the future. Unlimited attn is a dead end. As a human you don't need to scan an entire book just to guess what the next word will be and LLMs shouldn't need that either.

Not be contrarian, but if the next word prediction happens to be someone's name or a place or something discussed multiple places in the book then often, yes, a knowledge of the full plot of the book is "required" just to predict the next word, as you get to the middle or end of a book. For example you could never fill in the last chapter of any good book without having knowledge of every previous chapter. Not highly…

What an LLM does is stuff it all into short term memory. Humans dump the first pages into long term memory and "make sense" of it. Humans have a massive context window because of this (and sheer brain size and efficiency).

Re: Bamba: An open-source LLM that crosses a transformer with an SSM

#40
post #30
post #24

https://lifearchitect.ai/models-table/ Love those GPQA scores hovering around 5% when chance (on 4-way multi-choice) would have got them 25%!

A stopped clock is right twice a day, but a running clock set to the wrong time is always wrong.

Not always true! Your statement is only true when the running clock's speed is the same as time. Thus, regular time and the clock's time will never meet.

If the clock is running faster than regular time, it will at point catch up to regular time and thus be correct for a split second. If the clock is slower than regular time, regular time will catch up to the clock and the clock will be right for a split second.

Post reply on HN