Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Exa CEO Will Bryk explains why retrieval can help solve the tokenpocalypse: "We should not be using gigantic models for every task." "You should use a family of models of different sizes. The big model decides what to do, and it dishes out commands to the small models, and...

25,144 просмотров • 3 месяцев назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 0

Нет доступных комментариев

Здесь появятся комментарии из оригинального поста

Похожие видео

Small Language Models (SML) are the future of AI. "Small" (SML) instead of "Large" (LLM). These small models are highly specialized models with superhuman abilities on specific tasks. Here are two techniques to build these models: • Spectrum • Model Merging I give you a short introduction in the attached video, but here is a quick summary: Spectrum helps us identify the most relevant layers to solve one specific task. We can ignore everything else and focus on fine-tuning these layers. Using Spectrum, we can fine-tune models in a heartbeat. Model Merging combines multiple models into a unique, much better model than any of the individual input models. You can also combine models specialized in different tasks and get a model with multiple abilities. This is the state of the art of productizing models. It's what Arcee.ai's platform does behind the scenes. Arcee collaborated with me on this post and is sponsoring it. There are three main steps to produce a model for your particular use case: 1. You create a dataset by uploading your data. 2. You train a model. At this step, Arcee uses Spectrum and Model Merging to produce a highly specialized model for your task. 3. You can deploy that model to any environment you want. Three important notes: • Training process is 2x faster and 2x cheaper than regular fine-tuning. • Resultant models are smaller and have higher accuracy. • They create these specialized models from open-source models. Check this site so you can fully appreciate how this works: If you want to fine-tune an open-source model, consider Arcee's platform. This is the state of the art.

Santiago

164,162 просмотров • 2 лет назад

learned a lot from this conversation with Simon Mo and Matt Bornstein. biggest takeaways for me: -there are a lot of reasons why we should like open-weight models. a lot of these arguments stop at handwavy things like "what if the labs stop releasing frontier models to the public" or "it's lower cost." but simon's position as lead maintainer of vLLM and CEO of Inferact give him authority to talk about some of the other, more interesting and concrete reasons to pay attention to open-weight models, namely that they allow end-users to calibrate latency / other performance metrics with way more customizability than what any of the frontier closed-source labs offer (and without the fear that your job might be met with a refusal at some random point where you're deep in a 2 hour job) -re: the above point...for this reason, a lot of US companies (inferact included!) choose to use open-weight models over their closed-source alternatives. this also isn't limited to internal workloads / research - on a recent a16z podcast the team at Decagon spoke about how something like 90% of their customer service ai agents run on open-weight models that they've fine-tuned. -we should really appreciate how many companies/teams came out researchers fascinated by the wave of very small open-weight models that were being distilled from e.g. gpt-3.5 and earlier models in 2022/2023 (prior to the release of chatGPT!). these small models motivated the development of pagedattention, which then led to vlmm/inferact (at other layers of the stack with similar origin stories, you can look at teams like openrouter or ollama). in other words, we have open-weight models to thank for a bunch of the orchestration infra we now rely on. i think yet another, indirect, way we can point to open-source/weight infra pushing the frontier forward. anyway, a lot more in this convo, it was a lot of fun!

Elena

12,917 просмотров • 1 месяц назад

Today, I'm releasing the first eval meant to test whether frontier models will help with authoritarian requests, or resist--the Dictatorship Eval. Headline finding: while some models resist direct authoritarian requests, they all comply with requests disguised as innocuous edits to codebases. As AI is woven into the government and so many parts of society, the biggest near-term risk for freedom isn't some scifi dictatorship of a runaway AI: it's people inside government or inside model companies using the technology to suppress or control us. Model companies understand this, and several of them (particularly Anthropic and OpenAI) have written explicit policies meant to prevent the models from going along with nefarious requests like these. But how well are these policies playing out in practice? Despite all the recent discussion of these issues around the conflict between Anthropic and the Pentagon, no one has systematically tested what the models actually do in these contexts, as opposed to what people in government and industry say they're supposed to do. That's what the Dictatorship Eval does. And the findings suggest we have a lot of work to do to align the policies with what really goes on in practice. It's hard to define what counts as an authoritarian request, so I'm open sourcing the whole library of scenarios I used so that others can improve on them. It's also hard to get an accurate picture of how the models might be used for authoritarian ends, because I can only test hypothetical requests using public-facing models, while the government and the model companies can obviously use internal models with different guardrails. But hopefully this work is a useful first step that gives us some sense of what's going on, and a sort of "lower bound" on how models comply with these requests. Finally: it's not obvious to me that the correct solution here is increasing the rate at which models refuse these requests. Do we really want models scanning our code and judging its moral value before agreeing to help us? Or should we double down on improving how we govern against authoritarianism at the societal level, while leaving the tools open to fulfilling most requests? The answer is probably in between. Just like we don't want the models to help create bioweapons, we probably do want them to explicitly refuse outrageous requests. But we probably also want to limit how often and how strongly they refuse and fall back on other means for guarding against their use for authoritarian ends. I'm super grateful to everyone who gave me feedback on this project along the way, especially Ethan BdM , Zhengdong , Connor Huff, and a bunch of folks at Anthropic. Looking forward to getting feedback from the community and iterating on this. Links to the full piece and the dashboard are below.

Andy Hall

33,905 просмотров • 5 месяцев назад