Re:Introducing DBRX: A New State-of-the-Art Open LLM by Data...
by vlovich123 on Wednesday March 27, 2024 @12:38PM
(#39841428)
I didn’t suggest a free lunch, just that the 8x reduction in RAM (+ faster processing) does not result in an 8x growth in the error. Thus a quantized model will outperform a non-quantized one on a evaluation/RAM metric.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Introducing DBRX: A New State-of-the-Art Open LLM by Data...
by Y_Y on Wednesday March 27, 2024 @04:53PM
(#39844466)
That's not a good metric.
Re:Introducing DBRX: A New State-of-the-Art Open LLM by Data...
by omeze on Wednesday March 27, 2024 @05:29PM
(#39844808)
Many applications dont want to host inference on the cloud and would ideally run things locally. Hardware constraints is clearly important.
Id actually say its the most important metric for most open models now, since the price per performance of closed cloud models is so competitive with open cloud models, so edge inference that is competitive is a clear value add
Re:Introducing DBRX: A New State-of-the-Art Open LLM by Data...
by Y_Y on Thursday March 28, 2024 @05:19AM
(#39849101)
It's not that memory usage isn't important, it's that dividing error by memory gives you a useless number. The benefit from incremental error decrease is highly nonlinear, as with memory. Improving error by 1% matters a lot more starting from 10% error than 80%. Also a model that used no memory and got everything wrong would have the best score.
Re:Introducing DBRX: A New State-of-the-Art Open LLM by Data...
by omeze on Thursday March 28, 2024 @03:25PM
(#39856253)
I see, I agree with you. But I would imagine the useful metric to be “error rate below X GB memory”. We really just need memory and/or compute reported when these evaluations are performed to compile that. People do it for training reports since compute and memory is implicit based on training time (since people saturate it and report what hardware they’re using). But for inference no such details :\