I’m usually the one saying “AI is already as good as it’s gonna get, for a long while.”

This article, in contrast, is quotes from folks making the next AI generation - saying the same.

  • cron@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s absurd that some of the larger LLMs now use hundreds of billions of parameters (e.g. llama3.1 with 405B).

    This doesn’t really seem like a smart usage of ressources if you need several of the largest GPUs available to even run one conversation.

      • blackbelt352@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s a lot. Like a lot a lot. GPUs have about 150 billion transistors but those transistors only make 1 connection in what is essentially printed in a 2d space on silicon.

        Each neuron makes dozens of connections, and there’s on the order of almost 100 billion neurons in a blobby lump of fat and neurons that takes up 3d space. And then combine the fact that multiple neurons in patterns firing is how everything actually functions and you have such absurdly high number of potential for how powerful human brains are.

        At this point, I’m not sure there’s enough gpus in the world to mimic what a human brain can do.

        • cynar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 month ago

          That’s also just the electrical portion of our mind. There are whole levels of chemical, and chemical potentials at work. Neurones will fire differently depending on the chemical soup around them. Most of our moods are chemically based. E.g. adrenaline and testosterone making us more aggressive.

          Our mind also extends out of our heads. Organ transplant recipricants have noted personality changes. Food preferences being the most prevailant.

          The neurons only deal with ‘fast’ thinking. ‘slow’ thinking is far more complex and distributed.

      • cron@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        I don’t think your brain can be reasonably compared with an LLM, just like it can’t be compared with a calculator.

        • GetOffMyLan@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          LLMs are based on neural networks which are a massively simplified model of how our brain works. So you kind of can as long as you keep in mind they are orders of magnitude more simple.

          • utopiah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 month ago

            At some point it becomes so “simplified” it’s arguably just not the same thing, even conceptually.

            • GetOffMyLan@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              It is conceptually the same thing. A series of interconnected neurons with a firing threshold and weighted connections.

              The simplification comes with how the information is transmitted and how our brain learns.

              Many functions in the human body rely on quantum mechanical effects to function correctly. So to simulate it properly each connection really needs to be its own super computer.

              But it has been shown to be able to encode information in a similar way. The learning the part is not even close.

        • abcd@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything

    • 31337@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Larger models train faster (need less compute), for reasons not fully understood. These large models can then be used as teachers to train smaller models more efficiently. I’ve used Qwen 14B (14 billion parameters, quantized to 6-bit integers), and it’s not too much worse than these very large models.

      Lately, I’ve been thinking of LLMs as lossy text/idea compression with content-addressable memory. And 10.5GB is pretty good compression for all the “knowledge” they seem to retain.

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I don’t think Qwen was trained with distillation, was it?

        It would be awesome if it was.

        Also you should try Supernova Medius, which is Qwen 14B with some “distillation” from some other models.

    • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Seeing as how the full unquantized FP16 for Llama 3.1 405B requires around a terabyte of VRAM (16 bits per parameter + context), I’d say way more than several.