Re:NanoGPT
by davidy123 on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @06:12AM
(#34337215)
Could this be distributed? Put all those mining GPUs to work. A lot of people like participating in public projects like this. I would!
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Exactly. This is inevitable imho. There is no way people will be ok to depend on few wall-gardened models.
Re:NanoGPT
by PartiallyTyped on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @06:27AM
(#34337313)
In theory, yes. "Hogwild!" is an approach to distributed training, in essence, each worker is given a bunch of data, they compute the gradient and send that to a central authority. The authority accumulates the gradients and periodically pushes new weights.
There is also Federated Learning which seemed to start taking off, but then interest rapidly declined.
>> GPT-3 took 355 years to train
> Could this be distributed? Put all those mining GPUs to work.
Nope. It's a strictly O(n) process. If it weren't for the foresight of George Patrick Turnbull in 1668, we would not be anywhere close to these amazing results today.
I couldn't find any references to George Patrick Turnbull. If that an ancestor of yours? If so, the comment seems rather subjective.
They're being facetious about the '355 years to train' thing. ;)
OK haha good one then. Mine was a bit too subtle.
Re:NanoGPT
by CyberDildonics on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @09:30AM
(#34338839)
Why would an O(n) algorithm not be able to be distributed?