Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta Llama 3

llama.meta.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 965 posts

Re: Meta Llama 3

#191

Post by anoncareer0212 »

cjbprime wrote: post #159
refulgentis wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a really funny story that I comment about at least once a week because it drives me nuts. 1. After ChatGPT release, Twitter spam from influencers about chatGPT is one billion and GPT-4 is 1 trillion . 2. Semianalysis publishes a blog post claiming 1.8T sourced from insiders. 3. The way info diffusion works these days, everyone heard from someone else other than Semianalysis. 4. Up until about a month ago, you co…

You're ignoring geohot, who is a credible source (is an active researcher himself, is very well-connected) and gave more details (MoE with 8 experts, when no-one else was doing production MoE yet) than the Twitter spam.

Geohot? I know enough people at OpenAI to know 4 people's reaction at the time he started claiming 1T based on timing latency in the ChatGPT webui per token.

In general, not someone you wanna be citing with lengthy platitudes, he's an influencer who speaks engineer, he's burned out of every community he's been in, acrimonously.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#192

Post by visarga »

I downloaded llama3:8b-instruct-q4_0 in ollama and said "hi" and it answered with 10 screen long rant. This is an exerpt.

> You're welcome! It was a pleasure chatting with you. Bye for now!assistant

> Bye for now!assistant

> Bye!assistant

Re: Meta Llama 3

#193

Post by pzo »

PokeyCat wrote: post #151

Would love to experiment with this for work, but the following clause in the license (notably absent in the Llama 2 license) would make this really hard: > i. If you distribute or make available the Llama Materials (or any derivative works thereof), or a product or service that uses any of them, including another AI model, you shall (A) provide a copy of this Agreement with any such Llama Materials; and (B) prominent…

deepseek-coder-instruct 6.7B still looks like is better than llama 3 8B on HumanEval [0], and deepseek-coder-instruct 33B still within reach to run on 32 GB Macbook M2 Max - Lamma 3 70B on the other hand will be hard to run locally unless you really have 128GB ram or more. But we will see in the following days how it performs in real life.

[0] https://github.com/deepseek-ai/deepseek-coder?tab=readme-ov-...

Re: Meta Llama 3

#194

Post by mrtranscendence »

sa-code wrote: post #122
flemhans wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably the EU laws are getting too draconian. I'm starting to see it a lot.

EU actually has the opposite of draconian privacy laws. It's more that meta doesn't have a business model if they don't intrude on your privacy

Well, exactly, and that's why IMO they'll end up pulling out the EU. There's barely any money in non-targeted ads.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#195

Post by rafaelero »

I can't wait for the 400b to be released. GPT-4 is too expensive and the fact that we can distribute the workload between different companies (one company trains it, another creates a performant API) means we will get a much cheaper product.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#196

Post by schleck8 »

cjbprime wrote: post #172
schleck8 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Neglected to include comparisons against GPT-4-Turbo or Claude Opus, so I guess it's far from being a frontier model Yeah, almost like comparing a 70b model with a 1.8 trillion parameter model doesn't make any sense when you have a 400b model pending release.

(You can't compare parameter count with a mixture of experts model, which is what the 1.8T rumor says that GPT-4 is.)

You absolutely can since it has a size advantage either way. MoE means the expert model performs better BECAUSE of the overall model size.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#198

Post by anvuong »

gliched_robot wrote: post #105
modeless wrote: post #89

I was curious how the numbers compare to GPT-4 in the paid ChatGPT Plus, since they don't compare directly themselves. Llama 3 8B Llama 3 70B GPT-4 MMLU 68.4 82.0 86.5 GPQA 34.2 39.5 49.1 MATH 30.0 50.4 72.2 HumanEval 62.2 81.7 87.6 DROP 58.4 79.7 85.4 Note that the free version of ChatGPT that most people use is based on GPT-3.5 which is much worse than GPT-4. I haven't found comprehensive eval numbers for the lates…

Wild considering, GPT-4 is 1.8T.

I actually can't wrap my head around this number, even though I have been working on and off with deep learning for a few years. The biggest models we've ever deployed on production still have less than 1B parameters, and the latency is already pretty hard to manage during rush hours. I have no idea how they deploy (multiple?) 1.8T models that serve tens of millions of users a day.

Re: Meta Llama 3

#199

Post by blackeyeblitzar »

verdverm wrote: post #88

Initial observations from the Meta Chat UI... 1. fast 2. less censored than other mainstream models 3. has current data, cites sources I asked about Trump's trial and it was happy to answer. It has info that is hours old --- Five jurors have been selected so far for the hush money case against former President Donald Trump ¹. Seven jurors were originally selected, but two were dismissed, one for concerns about her im…

I recall there was a website tracking the ideological bias of LLMs, but I can’t find it now. But it was showing where all the LLMs rank on a political graph with four quadrants. I think we need something like that, ranking these LLMs on aspects like censorship.

Example: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/08/07/1077324/ai-langu...

But I think some other site was doing this ‘live’ and adding more models as they appeared.

Post reply on HN