News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:NanoGPT by imtringued on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @06:25AM (#34337298)
As models get bigger less and less neurons get activated by any given input. If you can somehow predict which neurons get activated you can skip the vast majority of the computational load. I have read a paper where they argued that only 0.5% of the neurons are actually active in a 200 million parameter model so you can get a 200x improvement just from that.

What this tells you is that there is very little money in optimizing deep learning and that NVIDIA has made it very easy to just throw more hardware at then problem.

Re:NanoGPT by londons_explore on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @07:34AM (#34337687)
> very little money in optimizing deep learning

Oh - there are a lot of people working on optimizing AI. Amongst hobbyists, academia, and corporations alike.

The thing is, if you come up with a neat optimization that saves 30% of compute for the same results, typically instead of reducing your compute budget 30%, you instead increase your model/data size 30% and get better results.

Re:NanoGPT by narrator on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @11:12AM (#34340015)
Jevon's paradox of data and AI. The more efficiently data is used, the more demand their is for data.
Re:NanoGPT by antognini on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @12:11PM (#34341004)
Any state of the art model takes about three weeks to train.
Re:NanoGPT by visarga on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @03:50PM (#34344535)
More an indication of human patience than task difficulty.
Re:NanoGPT by WithinReason on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @07:35AM (#34337693)
Do you have a link to that paper by any chance? By "neurons" did they mean weights or activations?
Re:NanoGPT by imtringued on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @08:56AM (#34338471)
Here is a GPU implementation.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9635657

It is somewhere from 8x to 25x faster than doing dense machine learning. The speedup was higher on the original CPU implementation and the GPU paper mentions that if there isn't enough shared memory on the GPU it will have to switch to an algorithm that has more overhead.

By neurons I actually meant "nodes"

My comment is effectively a summary of this article: https://www.kdnuggets.com/2020/03/deep-learning-breakthrough...

Re:NanoGPT by CuriouslyC on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @09:07AM (#34338594)
This is hard a-priori, but fairly easy post-facto. Model distillation isn't a common practice yet, but it has already been demonstrated to be quite effective for specific use cases.
Re:NanoGPT by visarga on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @03:51PM (#34344554)
Distillation works but somehow we see very few papers doing it at this scale.
Re:NanoGPT by visarga on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @03:49PM (#34344519)
> argued that only 0.5% of the neurons are actually active in a 200 million parameter model so you can get a 200x improvement just from that

Yes, but you don't know which 0.5% depending on the input text.

Re:NanoGPT by cma on Tuesday January 17, 2023 @10:17AM (#34413387)
200x improvement over Nvidia with sparse matrices or without? Nvidia supports a certain level of sparsity.