This is unfortunately non-trivial to quantitatively evaluate the performance against ChatGPT :-(

We didn't do much evaluation because there isn't much innovation on model side, but instead we are demoing the possibility of running an end-to-end model on ordinary client GPUs via WebGPU without server resources.

> This is unfortunately non-trivial to quantitatively evaluate the performance against ChatGPT :-(

Compare using the loss function?

In LLM world, loss or perplexity may not be the best indicator of model performance :-( Perhaps HELM (https://crfm.stanford.edu/helm/latest/) but we didn't take deeper look as we are not the developers of this model

There are plenty of LLM benchmarks that are used to test performance, some of them are: * Winogrande

* BoolQ

* PIQA

* SIQA

* HellaSwag

etc...

Would be nice if anyone could help us benchmark! Our primary focus though is not model performance, but to demonstrate the capability that TVM Unity generates code targeting WebGPU and allows them to run with client GPUs :-)

It’s rubbish compared to GPT-3/4.

Any model you can trivially load in your browser will be significantly smaller than those models, and broadly speaking smaller = worse.

This example is a 4 GB model, that’s (I guess) based off some smallish model like the llama 7B.

It’s a proof of concept, not a chat-gpt replacement.

There’s nothing here that’s new other than “runs in the browser”; so it won’t be better than any other model you can get your hands on.

This kind of thing should be label ByoM (bring your own model). The model isn’t the interesting part of this.

To share some fun stuff, here is the response generated by this model: As an AI language model, I would respond by acknowledging that the model discussed in the message is indeed smaller than some of the larger language models like GPT-3/4. However, I would also point out that size is not always a direct indicator of performance, and that the model may still be able to perform well on certain tasks or in certain contexts. Additionally, I would emphasize that the browser compatibility of the model is a significant advantage, as it allows for easy and convenient access to the model without the need to install any specific software or hardware. Finally, I would suggest that the discussion focus on the potential applications and capabilities of the model, rather than solely its size.

Back to the topic, we don't make much innovation on the model, so I am probably not the best person to evaluate how a model compares with SOTAs. There are indeed lots of super cool techniques being explored lately that makes it possible to deploy smaller and smaller models, for example, LLM.int8() [1] and int4 quantization [2] without loss of zero-shot accuracy. Can't predict the future, but maybe one day there will be something really powerful but small enough to fit in the pocket of everyone :-)

[1] Dettmers, Tim, et al. "LLM. int8 (): 8-bit matrix multiplication for transformers at scale." arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.07339 (2022).

[2] Dettmers, Tim, and Luke Zettlemoyer. "The case for 4-bit precision: k-bit Inference Scaling Laws." arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.09720 (2022).

> but maybe one day

There you go, summarised for you.

Their model says:

Dear [Name],

Thank you for your message. We understand that the model you are referring to is a simple and basic model. However, it is important to highlight that this model serves a specific purpose and can be useful for certain applications.

Regarding the comparison with larger models like GPT, it's important to note that different models have different strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of model depends on the specific task and use case. While larger models like GPT may be more powerful and capable, they also come with greater computational and memory requirements.

We appreciate your concerns and feedback, and we will take them into consideration as we continue to develop our models. Our aim is to provide solutions that are tailored to the needs of our clients and meet their requirements for accuracy, efficiency, and performance.

Thank you for your input, and we hope to have the opportunity to work with you in the future.

Best regards, [Your Name]

Quote:

> I would also point out that size is not always a direct indicator of performance, and

Yes. It is.

This thread is a direct response to a comparison to GPT, and your response (generated or not) is dishonest.

I can’t be blunter than that.

If you want amortise your responsibility by posting generated responses, go for it. Do whatever you want.

My response is directly to the parent comment about the comparison to GPT, for anyone who is unclear about the comparison.

You’re quoting and talking to an LLM

And loosing the argument no less

Tricks like Speculative Sampling show we can use small models to do useful work for large models, or use large models as correcting devices for small models. So I see a mixed future - both small and large models - one with low latency and fast, the other slow and sparsely called, working together to achieve the qualities of both. Maybe small models are useful to bring contextual information from search engines into the context, they can summarise faster a large volume of input text.

I'm also not sure what the real use case is here other than an intellectual experiment. I may be missing the point but as I understand the world, running a Local LLM has nothing to do with the web in any way while it is doing so and so what's the benefit of WebGPU ? If you are streaming some constantly changing live data 3D experience in real time served over the internet by a website you just clicked on then WebGPU is making life easier. If you have a local pile of training data and weights sitting there on your hard drive for serious crunching then its like tying your shoelaces together just because developers want to have write once run everywhere dx which is nice for them but value sould always favor the user. Happy for someone to change my mind.

WebGPU is much more portable than CUDA.