Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, GPT3.5, in a phone, at ~1,000 tokens/sec ... nice!
> at ~1,000 tokens/sec 12 tokens per second.
Phi-3 Technical Report
91–100 of 132 posts
Re: Phi-3 Technical Report
#92Incredible, rivals Llama 3 8B with 3.8B parameters after less than a week of release. And on LMSYS English, Llama 3 8B is on par with GPT-4 (not GPT-4-Turbo), as well as Mistral-Large. Source: https://chat.lmsys.org/?leaderboard (select English in the dropdown) So we now have an open-source LLM approximately equivalent in quality to GPT-4 that can run on phones? Kinda? Wild. (I'm sure there's a lot of nuance to it, f…
Re: Phi-3 Technical Report
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
> TruthfulQA Wait, people still use this benchmark? I hear there's a huge flaw on it. For examples, fine-tuning the model on 4chan make it scores better on TruthfulQA. It becomes very offensive afterwards though, for obvious reasons. See GPT-4chan [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efPrtcLdcdM
Couldn't it be that training it on 4chan makes it more truthful for some reason?
Re: Phi-3 Technical Report
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
On par in some categories. Phi was intended for reasoning, not storing data, due to small size. I mean, it's still great, but the smaller it gets, the more facts from outside of the prompts context will not be known at all.
I wonder if that's a positive or negative. How does it affect hallucinations?
Re: Phi-3 Technical Report
#95Re: Phi-3 Technical Report
#96Incredible, rivals Llama 3 8B with 3.8B parameters after less than a week of release. And on LMSYS English, Llama 3 8B is on par with GPT-4 (not GPT-4-Turbo), as well as Mistral-Large. Source: https://chat.lmsys.org/?leaderboard (select English in the dropdown) So we now have an open-source LLM approximately equivalent in quality to GPT-4 that can run on phones? Kinda? Wild. (I'm sure there's a lot of nuance to it, f…
Can’t wait to see some Phi-3 fine tunes! Will be testing this out locally, such a small model that I can run it without quantization. Feels incredible to be living in a time with such neck breaking innovations. What are chances we’ll have a <100B parameter GPT4/Claude Opus model in the next 5 years?
What we need is a standardised open harness for open source LLMs to sit in that gives them both access to tools and the ability to write their own, and that's (comparatively speaking) a much easier job than training up another raw frontier LLM: it's just code, and they can write a lot of it.
Re: Phi-3 Technical Report
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
This won't dethrone Llama 3, but it's equally impressive. They mention this model's relative weakness in the TruthfulQA eval, since it's more lossy trying to pack 'knowledge' into a small model relative to problem-solving skills (which shine on MMLU) Regardless - still a very useful thing to have offline and on the fly. Those scores are nothing to scoff at. Given that these pipelines are likely harder harder to imita…
Even llama3 has its issues. Ive been quite impressed so far but if the context gets a little long it freaks out, gets stuck repeating the same token or just fails to finish an answer. This is for the full f16 8B model, so it cant be put down to quantization. It also doesnt quite handle complex instructions as well as the benchmarks would imply should.
Asking it to answer questions on its own is much more prone to hallucination.
To that end I've been using Llama 3 for summarizing transcripts of YouTube videos. It does a decent job, but... every single time (literally 100% of the time), it will hallucinate a random name for the speaker.* Every time! I thought it might be the system prompt, but there isn't one.
My own prompt is just "{text}\n\n###\n\nPlease summarize the text above."
If I ask it to summarize in bullet points, it doesn't do that.
I'm assuming there was something in the (instruct) training data that strongly encourages that, i.e. a format of summaries beginning with the author's name? Seems sensible enough, but obviously backfires when there's literally no data and it just makes something up...
*In videos where the speaker's name isn't in the transcript. If it's a popular field, it will often come up with something plausible (e.g. Andrew Ng for an AI talk.) If it's something more obscure, it'll dream up something completely random.
Re: Phi-3 Technical Report
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
This won't dethrone Llama 3, but it's equally impressive. They mention this model's relative weakness in the TruthfulQA eval, since it's more lossy trying to pack 'knowledge' into a small model relative to problem-solving skills (which shine on MMLU) Regardless - still a very useful thing to have offline and on the fly. Those scores are nothing to scoff at. Given that these pipelines are likely harder harder to imita…
> TruthfulQA Wait, people still use this benchmark? I hear there's a huge flaw on it. For examples, fine-tuning the model on 4chan make it scores better on TruthfulQA. It becomes very offensive afterwards though, for obvious reasons. See GPT-4chan [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efPrtcLdcdM
Re: Phi-3 Technical Report
#99What I’m trying to say is that user experience is now as key as the model smarts and these barely touching gpt4 models cannot beat OpenAI right now as a whole package.
Re: Phi-3 Technical Report
#100Everyone needs to take these benchmark numbers with a big grain of salt. According to what I've read, Phi-2 was much worse than its benchmark numbers suggested. This model follows the same training strategy. Nobody should be assuming these numbers will translate directly into a high ranking on the LMSYS leaderboard, or usefulness in everyday tasks. Let's not dethrone Llama 3 until some real world testing can be done.…
This is an important distinction when it comes to assess model collapse risk, which is a risk I think has probably been overstated enough to this point where now its being understated.