Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Interesting approach to long context/continual learning here from Baseten at Cursor Compact long trajectories by compressing a prefix of the KV cache using an MLP/autoencoder. You can train this "compactor" MLP by learning to reconstruct activations that the original KV cache would produce on subsequent tokens. This maximally reconstructs...

mathemagic1an's profile picture

Jay Hack

73,811 subscribers

29,792 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

During an agentic session, a quick “hi” after a coffee break can cost a full dollar. But it’s not because of the “hi.” It’s the million tokens of context you’re repaying for the moment your cache goes cold. Here's the caching math from Evan: 0:00 Why you're billed for last turn's context, not just this one 0:17 Cache hits: ~10% of full price 0:41 Agentic AI = way more back-and-forth than chat 1:16 Paying full price for context even on a 1-token tool call 1:40 Cache hit vs. cache miss 2:13 The $1 "hi": walk away for an hour, come back to a cold cache 2:59 Cost grows by the square, even with caching 3:28 How context compaction helps 4:03 Why Claude Code/Codex may compact at ~200-300K, not the full 1M window
4:34

During an agentic session, a quick “hi” after a coffee break can cost a full dollar. But it’s not because of the “hi.” It’s the million tokens of context you’re repaying for the moment your cache goes cold. Here's the caching math from Evan: 0:00 Why you're billed for last turn's context, not just this one 0:17 Cache hits: ~10% of full price 0:41 Agentic AI = way more back-and-forth than chat 1:16 Paying full price for context even on a 1-token tool call 1:40 Cache hit vs. cache miss 2:13 The $1 "hi": walk away for an hour, come back to a cold cache 2:59 Cost grows by the square, even with caching 3:28 How context compaction helps 4:03 Why Claude Code/Codex may compact at ~200-300K, not the full 1M window

Arena.ai

51,694 Aufrufe • vor 13 Tagen

I just crammed the updated Gemma 4 26B A4B QAT (MoE) with 180k context into an 8GB RTX 4060 (8 GB VRAM + 16 GB RAM only!!) and optimized the batch size. 23 tokens/sec decode, 300 tokens/sec prefill Yesterday I showed you a Gemma 4 31B dense model running flawlessly on an RTX 4090. Today, we're breaking the VRAM bank on a budget card using Unsloth’s new Gemma 4 26B (A4B) QAT quants. Following Google’s chat template update that boosted agentic benchmarks by +10%, I pushed this model to its absolute limits. Here is how you squeeze 250k context out of 8GB of VRAM. # The Setup & The Optimization - Hardware: Nvidia RTX 4060 (8GB VRAM) + 16GB System RAM - Environment: CUDA 13.0 build of llama.cpp - Model: gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf - Prompt: 28,000 tokens of prompt for each run If you read my L2 cache breakdown (attached in replies), you know the 4060’s 24MB cache maxes out at `-b 1024 -ub 1024`. Push past that, and prefill crashes. I locked those flags in for every test below to ensure maximum GEMM throughput. # 1. The Raw Context Push (Unquantized KV Cache) First, I wanted to see how far pure 8GB VRAM + 16GB RAM could stretch without touching the KV cache: - 80k Context: Prefill 385 t/s | Decode 25.5 t/s - 120k Context: Prefill 270 t/s | Decode 24 t/s llama.cpp flags: .\llama-server -m gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -c 120000 --port 8080 -ub 1024 -b 1024 Without KV quantization, 120k is your hard ceiling. push past that prefill throughput drops off a cliff, making the model practically unusable for large agentic workloads. # 2. The Q8 KV Cache Lifeline To survive 250k context on a budget card, you have to quantize the KV cache. I enabled 8 bit KV cache (`-ctk q8_0 -ctv q8_0`) and re ran: - 180k Context: Prefill 280 t/s | Decode 22.8 t/s - 250k Context: Prefill 115 t/s | Decode 20 t/s llama.cpp flags: .\llama-server -m gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -c 180000 --port 8080 -b 1024 -ub 1024 -ctk q8_0 -ctv q8_0 Result: Q8 KV cache brings 250k context back from the dead. Decode speed stabilizes at a highly usable 20 t/s. You are trading a very small bit amount of reasoning precision for an extra 130,000 tokens of context window. if you own a single rtx 3050, 3060, 3070, 4050, 4060, 5050 or 5060, you must try this model and optimize your batch size for higher prefill. Hugging Face links to the updated Unsloth's QAT quants and performance graph are in the replies below. What model are you running on your 6GB, 8GB or 12GB cards right now? Let's see your setups.
0:20

I just crammed the updated Gemma 4 26B A4B QAT (MoE) with 180k context into an 8GB RTX 4060 (8 GB VRAM + 16 GB RAM only!!) and optimized the batch size. 23 tokens/sec decode, 300 tokens/sec prefill Yesterday I showed you a Gemma 4 31B dense model running flawlessly on an RTX 4090. Today, we're breaking the VRAM bank on a budget card using Unsloth’s new Gemma 4 26B (A4B) QAT quants. Following Google’s chat template update that boosted agentic benchmarks by +10%, I pushed this model to its absolute limits. Here is how you squeeze 250k context out of 8GB of VRAM. # The Setup & The Optimization - Hardware: Nvidia RTX 4060 (8GB VRAM) + 16GB System RAM - Environment: CUDA 13.0 build of llama.cpp - Model: gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf - Prompt: 28,000 tokens of prompt for each run If you read my L2 cache breakdown (attached in replies), you know the 4060’s 24MB cache maxes out at `-b 1024 -ub 1024`. Push past that, and prefill crashes. I locked those flags in for every test below to ensure maximum GEMM throughput. # 1. The Raw Context Push (Unquantized KV Cache) First, I wanted to see how far pure 8GB VRAM + 16GB RAM could stretch without touching the KV cache: - 80k Context: Prefill 385 t/s | Decode 25.5 t/s - 120k Context: Prefill 270 t/s | Decode 24 t/s llama.cpp flags: .\llama-server -m gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -c 120000 --port 8080 -ub 1024 -b 1024 Without KV quantization, 120k is your hard ceiling. push past that prefill throughput drops off a cliff, making the model practically unusable for large agentic workloads. # 2. The Q8 KV Cache Lifeline To survive 250k context on a budget card, you have to quantize the KV cache. I enabled 8 bit KV cache (`-ctk q8_0 -ctv q8_0`) and re ran: - 180k Context: Prefill 280 t/s | Decode 22.8 t/s - 250k Context: Prefill 115 t/s | Decode 20 t/s llama.cpp flags: .\llama-server -m gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -c 180000 --port 8080 -b 1024 -ub 1024 -ctk q8_0 -ctv q8_0 Result: Q8 KV cache brings 250k context back from the dead. Decode speed stabilizes at a highly usable 20 t/s. You are trading a very small bit amount of reasoning precision for an extra 130,000 tokens of context window. if you own a single rtx 3050, 3060, 3070, 4050, 4060, 5050 or 5060, you must try this model and optimize your batch size for higher prefill. Hugging Face links to the updated Unsloth's QAT quants and performance graph are in the replies below. What model are you running on your 6GB, 8GB or 12GB cards right now? Let's see your setups.

Alok

36,617 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

A tricky LLM interview question: You're serving a reasoning model on vLLM, and it keeps running out of GPU memory on long traces. So you add KV cache compression and evict 90% of the cached tokens. VRAM usage stays as is and GPU still runs out of memory. Why? (answer below) Evicting 90% of the KV cache can free almost none of the memory it was using. This sounds counterintuitive, but it follows directly from how production servers store the cache today. The KV cache grows with every token a model generates. Each token appends its key and value vectors across every layer, and nothing is freed while generation continues. This is the dominant memory cost for reasoning models. If a 32K-token CoT caches ~32K tokens of KV vectors, a Qwen3-32B with 4-bit weights will run out-of-memory around 24K tokens on a 24GB GPU. One obvious solution is to keep the important tokens and drop the rest, since attention is sparse enough to allow it. But this does not solve the memory problem yet. The reason is paged attention, which is the memory manager behind vLLM and most production servers. Under the hood, it splits GPU memory into fixed physical blocks, each one holds the KV for about 16 tokens. This block returns to the allocator only when every slot inside it is empty. Since the eviction logic selects tokens by importance, and such tokens are scattered across blocks... ...so despite eviction, almost every block is left with at least some survivor tokens. For instance, if the logic evicts 14k of 16k tokens across 1,000 blocks, most likely every block will still have a token. This means the allocator frees almost nothing. Placing the new tokens into those freed slots is not ideal because it breaks the cache's layout. Say token 16,001 arrives, and it's placed in the slot the 40th token used to hold. The cache now reads position 38, then 16,001, then 41, so the cache is no longer in token order. Attention can still compute the right answer from that, but only if every slot now carries a separate note recording which position it actually holds. This introduces another bookkeeping cost that an in-order layout inherently avoids. So the cache is logically 90% smaller and still physically the same size. Many compression results miss this because they measure on pre-allocated contiguous tensors rather than a paged server. There's another problem. Eviction methods pick which tokens to keep by looking at the attention scores themselves (as expected). But fast attention kernels used in production, like FlashAttention, never save those scores. They compute attention in small pieces and throw the full score grid away as they go, which is also why they're fast. So the exact signal eviction methods need isn't available in memory. The workaround is to fall back to eager attention and build the full matrix, which gives up the speed FlashAttention was there to provide. NVIDIA published a method called TriAttention to solve both these problems. It never needs attention scores. Instead, it scores tokens from the geometry of the model's key and query vectors before RoPE is applied, where those vectors sit in stable clusters. For the memory problem, it runs a compaction pass every 128 decoded tokens. The surviving tokens slide forward to close the holes eviction creates, so whole blocks empty out and return to the allocator while the cache stays in token order. On long reasoning traces, the approach matches full-attention accuracy while decoding 2.5x faster and using 10.7x less KV memory. KV cache compression is a big infrastructure problem. The number that decides whether it works is the count of freed blocks, not the count of evicted tokens. You can find the NVIDIA write-up here: I wrote a first-principles breakdown of how the KV cache works. It walks through why the model stores keys and values at all, why the cache grows with every token, and a comparison of LLM generation speed with and without KV caching. Read it below.
0:23

A tricky LLM interview question: You're serving a reasoning model on vLLM, and it keeps running out of GPU memory on long traces. So you add KV cache compression and evict 90% of the cached tokens. VRAM usage stays as is and GPU still runs out of memory. Why? (answer below) Evicting 90% of the KV cache can free almost none of the memory it was using. This sounds counterintuitive, but it follows directly from how production servers store the cache today. The KV cache grows with every token a model generates. Each token appends its key and value vectors across every layer, and nothing is freed while generation continues. This is the dominant memory cost for reasoning models. If a 32K-token CoT caches ~32K tokens of KV vectors, a Qwen3-32B with 4-bit weights will run out-of-memory around 24K tokens on a 24GB GPU. One obvious solution is to keep the important tokens and drop the rest, since attention is sparse enough to allow it. But this does not solve the memory problem yet. The reason is paged attention, which is the memory manager behind vLLM and most production servers. Under the hood, it splits GPU memory into fixed physical blocks, each one holds the KV for about 16 tokens. This block returns to the allocator only when every slot inside it is empty. Since the eviction logic selects tokens by importance, and such tokens are scattered across blocks... ...so despite eviction, almost every block is left with at least some survivor tokens. For instance, if the logic evicts 14k of 16k tokens across 1,000 blocks, most likely every block will still have a token. This means the allocator frees almost nothing. Placing the new tokens into those freed slots is not ideal because it breaks the cache's layout. Say token 16,001 arrives, and it's placed in the slot the 40th token used to hold. The cache now reads position 38, then 16,001, then 41, so the cache is no longer in token order. Attention can still compute the right answer from that, but only if every slot now carries a separate note recording which position it actually holds. This introduces another bookkeeping cost that an in-order layout inherently avoids. So the cache is logically 90% smaller and still physically the same size. Many compression results miss this because they measure on pre-allocated contiguous tensors rather than a paged server. There's another problem. Eviction methods pick which tokens to keep by looking at the attention scores themselves (as expected). But fast attention kernels used in production, like FlashAttention, never save those scores. They compute attention in small pieces and throw the full score grid away as they go, which is also why they're fast. So the exact signal eviction methods need isn't available in memory. The workaround is to fall back to eager attention and build the full matrix, which gives up the speed FlashAttention was there to provide. NVIDIA published a method called TriAttention to solve both these problems. It never needs attention scores. Instead, it scores tokens from the geometry of the model's key and query vectors before RoPE is applied, where those vectors sit in stable clusters. For the memory problem, it runs a compaction pass every 128 decoded tokens. The surviving tokens slide forward to close the holes eviction creates, so whole blocks empty out and return to the allocator while the cache stays in token order. On long reasoning traces, the approach matches full-attention accuracy while decoding 2.5x faster and using 10.7x less KV memory. KV cache compression is a big infrastructure problem. The number that decides whether it works is the count of freed blocks, not the count of evicted tokens. You can find the NVIDIA write-up here: I wrote a first-principles breakdown of how the KV cache works. It walks through why the model stores keys and values at all, why the cache grows with every token, and a comparison of LLM generation speed with and without KV caching. Read it below.

Avi Chawla

271,839 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

How can you solve complex tasks using a Large Language Model? Here is a 2-minute introduction to everything you need to know to 10x the quality of your results. Let's talk about three techniques, in order of complexity, starting with the easiest one: • In-Context Learning • Indexing + In-Context Learning • Fine-tuning In-Context Learning The team that trained GPT-3 found something they couldn't explain: You can condition a model using examples of how you want it to behave. I included an example prompt in the attached video. You can "teach" the model how you want it to interpret questions, select the correct answers, and format the results by giving a few examples. You can also give specific knowledge to the model that will be helpful when formulating answers. We call this approach "grounding the model." There's another example in the video. Indexing + In-Context Learning Unfortunately, there is a limit to how much data you can include in a prompt. We call this the "context size." One version of GPT-4 supports a context of approximately 6,000 words, while the other supports 25,000 words. Although this sounds like a lot, many applications need more than that. Imagine you wrote a book and want to build an application to answer any questions about your story. What happens if your book is longer than the context? That's where Indexing comes in. Using a model, you can turn every book passage into an embedding. These are vectors, numbers that "encode" the passage's text. You can then store these embeddings in a particular database that supports fast retrieval of these vectors. You can then turn any question into an embedding and search the database for the list of passages that are similar to that query. Instead of using the entire book to ask the model, you can now use the relevant passages as in-context information, effectively working around the context size limitation. Fine-tuning Fine-tuning can give you an extra boost to get reliable outputs from your LLM. It is, however, the most complex approach on the list. There are different approaches to fine-tuning a model with your data. A popular technique is to process your data with your LLM and use the outputs to train a new classifier that solves your specific task. Notice that here you aren't modifying the LLM. Instead, you are chaining it with your trained classifier. Another approach is to modify the parameters of the LLM using your data. Think of this as "rewiring" the model in a way that solves your particular task. The results and costs will vary depending on how many layers you want to fine-tune from the original model. Many companies think that fine-tuning is the solution to their problems. In my experience, many will benefit from exploring the other two approaches. I love explaining Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence ideas. If you enjoy in-depth content like this, follow me Santiago so you don't miss what comes next.
4:50

How can you solve complex tasks using a Large Language Model? Here is a 2-minute introduction to everything you need to know to 10x the quality of your results. Let's talk about three techniques, in order of complexity, starting with the easiest one: • In-Context Learning • Indexing + In-Context Learning • Fine-tuning In-Context Learning The team that trained GPT-3 found something they couldn't explain: You can condition a model using examples of how you want it to behave. I included an example prompt in the attached video. You can "teach" the model how you want it to interpret questions, select the correct answers, and format the results by giving a few examples. You can also give specific knowledge to the model that will be helpful when formulating answers. We call this approach "grounding the model." There's another example in the video. Indexing + In-Context Learning Unfortunately, there is a limit to how much data you can include in a prompt. We call this the "context size." One version of GPT-4 supports a context of approximately 6,000 words, while the other supports 25,000 words. Although this sounds like a lot, many applications need more than that. Imagine you wrote a book and want to build an application to answer any questions about your story. What happens if your book is longer than the context? That's where Indexing comes in. Using a model, you can turn every book passage into an embedding. These are vectors, numbers that "encode" the passage's text. You can then store these embeddings in a particular database that supports fast retrieval of these vectors. You can then turn any question into an embedding and search the database for the list of passages that are similar to that query. Instead of using the entire book to ask the model, you can now use the relevant passages as in-context information, effectively working around the context size limitation. Fine-tuning Fine-tuning can give you an extra boost to get reliable outputs from your LLM. It is, however, the most complex approach on the list. There are different approaches to fine-tuning a model with your data. A popular technique is to process your data with your LLM and use the outputs to train a new classifier that solves your specific task. Notice that here you aren't modifying the LLM. Instead, you are chaining it with your trained classifier. Another approach is to modify the parameters of the LLM using your data. Think of this as "rewiring" the model in a way that solves your particular task. The results and costs will vary depending on how many layers you want to fine-tune from the original model. Many companies think that fine-tuning is the solution to their problems. In my experience, many will benefit from exploring the other two approaches. I love explaining Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence ideas. If you enjoy in-depth content like this, follow me Santiago so you don't miss what comes next.

Santiago

384,510 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

New short course: LLMs as Operating Systems: Agent Memory, created with Letta, and taught by its founders Charles Packer and Sarah Wooders. An LLM's input context window has limited space. Using a longer input context also costs more and results in slower processing. So, managing what's stored in this context window is important. In the innovative paper MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems, its authors (which include the instructors) proposed using an LLM agent to manage this context window. Their system uses a large persistent memory that stores everything that could be included in the input context, and an agent decides what is actually included. Take the example of building a chatbot that needs to remember what's been said earlier in a conversation (perhaps over many days of interaction with a user). As the conversation's length grows, the memory management agent will move information from the input context to a persistent searchable database; summarize information to keep relevant facts in the input context; and restore relevant conversation elements from further back in time. This allows a chatbot to keep what's currently most relevant in its input context memory to generate the next response. When I read the original MemGPT paper, I thought it was an innovative technique for handling memory for LLMs. The open-source Letta framework, which we'll use in this course, makes MemGPT easy to implement. It adds memory to your LLM agents and gives them transparent long-term memory. In detail, you’ll learn: - How to build an agent that can edit its own limited input context memory, using tools and multi-step reasoning - What is a memory hierarchy (an idea from computer operating systems, which use a cache to speed up memory access), and how these ideas apply to managing the LLM input context (where the input context window is a "cache" storing the most relevant information; and an agent decides what to move in and out of this to/from a larger persistent storage system) - How to implement multi-agent collaboration by letting different agents share blocks of memory This course will give you a sophisticated understanding of memory management for LLMs, which is important for chatbots having long conversations, and for complex agentic workflows. Please sign up here!
2:57

New short course: LLMs as Operating Systems: Agent Memory, created with Letta, and taught by its founders Charles Packer and Sarah Wooders. An LLM's input context window has limited space. Using a longer input context also costs more and results in slower processing. So, managing what's stored in this context window is important. In the innovative paper MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems, its authors (which include the instructors) proposed using an LLM agent to manage this context window. Their system uses a large persistent memory that stores everything that could be included in the input context, and an agent decides what is actually included. Take the example of building a chatbot that needs to remember what's been said earlier in a conversation (perhaps over many days of interaction with a user). As the conversation's length grows, the memory management agent will move information from the input context to a persistent searchable database; summarize information to keep relevant facts in the input context; and restore relevant conversation elements from further back in time. This allows a chatbot to keep what's currently most relevant in its input context memory to generate the next response. When I read the original MemGPT paper, I thought it was an innovative technique for handling memory for LLMs. The open-source Letta framework, which we'll use in this course, makes MemGPT easy to implement. It adds memory to your LLM agents and gives them transparent long-term memory. In detail, you’ll learn: - How to build an agent that can edit its own limited input context memory, using tools and multi-step reasoning - What is a memory hierarchy (an idea from computer operating systems, which use a cache to speed up memory access), and how these ideas apply to managing the LLM input context (where the input context window is a "cache" storing the most relevant information; and an agent decides what to move in and out of this to/from a larger persistent storage system) - How to implement multi-agent collaboration by letting different agents share blocks of memory This course will give you a sophisticated understanding of memory management for LLMs, which is important for chatbots having long conversations, and for complex agentic workflows. Please sign up here!

Andrew Ng

201,127 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

i spent 3 hours finding the sweet spot for hermes 4.3 36B on a single RTX 3090. saving you the trouble, anon. the model is 21.8GB at Q4_K_M. that leaves 2.2GB free on 24GB VRAM. not much room for KV cache. here's what actually happened: 4K: 35.3 tok/s 8K: 35.2 tok/s 16K: 34.8 tok/s 32K: 34.6 tok/s 64K: 6.4 tok/s 128K: 1.9 tok/s flat from 4K to 32K. then it falls off a cliff at 64K. the trick is quantized KV cache. without it you OOM at 16K. with quantized KV cache you get 32K at full speed. all 64 layers on GPU. at 64K something weird happens. ngl 99 (all layers on GPU) = 3.96 tok/s. the KV cache silently spills to CPU. drop to ngl 55 and speed jumps to 6.37. drop to ngl 48 and it gets worse again (3.46). there's an offload sweet spot where you free just enough VRAM for the cache without losing too much compute to PCIe transfers. 128K works at ngl 32 but you're at 1.95 tok/s. half the model on CPU. usable for batch work, not for interactive. the sweet spot command: llama-server -m hermes-4.3-36b-Q4_K_M.gguf -ngl 99 -c 32768 --cache-type-k q4_0 --cache-type-v q4_0 32K context. 34.6 tok/s. all on GPU. this is where dense 36B lives on 24GB. for comparison, qwen 3.5 (35B MoE, 3B active) holds 112 tok/s from 4K all the way to 262K on the same GPU. no speed drop. same total params, completely different architecture. hybrid linear attention means flat context scaling. dense pays for every token in the KV cache. code and quality comparison coming next. fast vs slow generation side by side in the videos below.
2:29

i spent 3 hours finding the sweet spot for hermes 4.3 36B on a single RTX 3090. saving you the trouble, anon. the model is 21.8GB at Q4_K_M. that leaves 2.2GB free on 24GB VRAM. not much room for KV cache. here's what actually happened: 4K: 35.3 tok/s 8K: 35.2 tok/s 16K: 34.8 tok/s 32K: 34.6 tok/s 64K: 6.4 tok/s 128K: 1.9 tok/s flat from 4K to 32K. then it falls off a cliff at 64K. the trick is quantized KV cache. without it you OOM at 16K. with quantized KV cache you get 32K at full speed. all 64 layers on GPU. at 64K something weird happens. ngl 99 (all layers on GPU) = 3.96 tok/s. the KV cache silently spills to CPU. drop to ngl 55 and speed jumps to 6.37. drop to ngl 48 and it gets worse again (3.46). there's an offload sweet spot where you free just enough VRAM for the cache without losing too much compute to PCIe transfers. 128K works at ngl 32 but you're at 1.95 tok/s. half the model on CPU. usable for batch work, not for interactive. the sweet spot command: llama-server -m hermes-4.3-36b-Q4_K_M.gguf -ngl 99 -c 32768 --cache-type-k q4_0 --cache-type-v q4_0 32K context. 34.6 tok/s. all on GPU. this is where dense 36B lives on 24GB. for comparison, qwen 3.5 (35B MoE, 3B active) holds 112 tok/s from 4K all the way to 262K on the same GPU. no speed drop. same total params, completely different architecture. hybrid linear attention means flat context scaling. dense pays for every token in the KV cache. code and quality comparison coming next. fast vs slow generation side by side in the videos below.

Sudo su

52,268 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

$NVDA $MU $SNDK $LITE PAPER OVERVIEW AND CORE CLAIMS The paper “KV Cache Transform Coding for Compact Storage in LLM Inference” introduces kvtc, a transform-coding pipeline that compresses transformer key-value (KV) caches primarily for storage and transfer in LLM serving, rather than for accelerating the per-token attention kernel during active decoding. The method combines 3 stages: (1) feature decorrelation via a PCA basis computed from a calibration dataset and reused across requests; (2) adaptive, variable-precision quantization with bit allocation solved via dynamic programming (DP), including groupwise scaling/shift overhead; and (3) lossless entropy coding (DEFLATE via nvCOMP in the reference implementation) to exploit residual redundancy after quantization. The central empirical claim is that KV tensors contain large, exploitable redundancy across heads and layers, enabling approximately 20× compression versus a 16-bit baseline with negligible degradation across a broad set of accuracy and long-context benchmarks, with materially higher compression (≥40×) available at modest quality cost in some regimes. The system claim is that such compression materially improves the economics of multi-turn, prefix-reuse serving by extending effective KV cache capacity in GPU HBM and host tiers (DRAM/NVMe) and by reducing inter-node and GPU↔host bandwidth demands, thereby improving cache hit rates and reducing time-to-first-token (TTFT) relative to recomputation when caches would otherwise be evicted. KV CACHE AS THE DOMINANT STATE VARIABLE IN INFERENCE ECONOMICS KV cache growth is linear in context length and is multiplicative in layers and attention heads, making it an increasingly dominant constraint as (a) context lengths expand, (b) models add layers and maintain large hidden dimensions, and (c) production workloads shift toward iterative and tool-augmented interactions that repeatedly reuse long prefixes. The paper uses the canonical 16-bit KV cache size formula (4·l·h·d_head·t) bytes and reports 16-bit KV cache sizes per 1K tokens of context that are already operationally large: 128MiB for Llama 3.1 8B, 160MiB for Mistral NeMo 12B, and 320MiB for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct. In binary units, these figures imply per-token KV footprints of 128KiB/token (Llama 3.1 8B), 160KiB/token (Mistral NeMo 12B), and 320KiB/token (Llama 3.3 70B Instruct) at 16-bit. For a 10K-token prompt (10×1K in the paper’s binary convention), the 16-bit KV cache sizes scale to approximately 1.25GiB (Llama 3.1 8B), 1.56GiB (Mistral NeMo 12B), and 3.13GiB (Llama 3.3 70B Instruct). These magnitudes explain why stale caches create a throughput–latency dilemma: retaining them in HBM maximizes responsiveness on future turns but crowds out concurrent sessions; evicting them forces quadratic-cost prefill recomputation and increases TTFT; offloading them to host or storage introduces large transfer overhead and consumes DRAM/NVMe capacity. A key operational nuance emphasized is that modern serving stacks increasingly treat KV caches as a database, leveraging block paging and shared-prefix reuse. In the common disaggregated serving design (separate prefill and decode nodes), KV cache transfer becomes a dominant category of cross-node traffic. Under that design, any reduction in KV cache size directly increases effective fabric capacity and reduces tail latency attributable to congestion, while also enabling longer cache lifetimes in “hot” (HBM) and “warm” (CPU DRAM) tiers that raise cache hit rates and reduce recomputation frequency. The paper’s quantitative example illustrates the economic stakes: a 1,000-line code file tokenized at ~10 tokens/line yields ~10K tokens; for Llama 3.3 70B, an 8-bit KV cache for that context is ~1.6GiB. Reuse across subsequent turns or parallel chats around the same file is valuable, but HBM scarcity makes retaining many such caches infeasible without compression. TECHNICAL MECHANISM: WHY KV CACHES ARE COMPRESSIBLE AND HOW KVTC EXPLOITS IT The technical rationale begins with an empirical observation: keys (and, to a lesser extent, values) across different attention heads can be aligned into a shared latent space using orthogonal transformations (Procrustes alignment). This supports the hypothesis that head-specific projections introduce rotations of a common subspace rather than completely distinct information, implying that concatenating across heads and layers should reveal low-rank structure suitable for linear decorrelation and dimensionality reduction. The method operationalizes this using a PCA/SVD basis learned from calibration data rather than recomputing a decomposition per prompt. This design choice targets production viability: per-prompt SVD is computationally expensive and scales poorly with long prompts and frequent cache updates. kvtc is explicitly structured as an offline-calibrated, online-applied codec: Calibration (performed 1 time per model and compression setting for DP allocation) A calibration dataset is forwarded through the model to collect KV caches. Token positions are pooled, and a subset of positions is sampled. Keys and values are processed separately. Several implementation choices are highlighted as decisive for stability: Rotary positional embeddings are effectively removed prior to compression (“undo positional rotations”), because positional rotations degrade the apparent low-rank structure of keys. “Attention sink” tokens (the earliest tokens in the sequence) and a sliding window of most recent tokens are excluded from compression because they disproportionately affect attention patterns and are empirically more sensitive to reconstruction error. Cross-layer concatenation is used: keys (or values) from multiple layers and heads at the same token position are concatenated along the feature axis to form a higher-dimensional feature vector. PCA is computed over these concatenated vectors, improving robustness relative to per-layer or per-head PCA. The PCA basis is computed via SVD of centered calibration data, using randomized SVD for scalability with a target rank cutoff. The paper reports calibration regimes of 160K tokens for several models with a 10K PCA dimension cutoff (8K for Qwen variants with fewer KV heads), selected to fit within a single 80GB H100 memory envelope and complete within minutes. A critical economic detail is that the same PCA basis can be reused across multiple compression ratios; only the DP-derived precision assignment changes per compression target. Compression (applied between inference phases) Compression operates on stored KV cache tensors, not on weights, and does not modify attention computation. The KV cache is projected into the PCA basis, quantized, packed, and then entropy-coded. Compression is positioned as a background or between-phase operation (after decoding, or between prefill and decode), executed on GPU or CPU depending on where the cache currently resides. The design intent is that compression should not sit on the critical per-token decoding path; it is a storage and transport optimization. Decompression (performed prior to reuse) Decompression reverses the entropy coding and quantization and applies the inverse PCA projection. A practical latency optimization is proposed: inverse projection can be performed layer-by-layer using submatrices of the PCA basis, allowing generation to begin before the full cache is reconstructed, reducing TTFT. Quantization and bit allocation are the core differentiators versus simpler PCA truncation. PCA provides ordered components by variance; kvtc uses DP to allocate a global bit budget across PCA coordinates (and across groups of coordinates) to minimize reconstruction error in the decorrelated domain. Groups of subsequent PCA coordinates share 16-bit shift and scale factors (a microscaling-inspired design), and the DP algorithm jointly selects group size and precision type under a bit budget, including the overhead of per-group metadata. DP commonly assigns 0 bits to many trailing PCA components, which both increases compression and provides a mechanism to trim the PCA basis to the subset of components that actually carry payload, reducing compute and storage overhead of the projection matrices in deployment. Lossless entropy coding then exploits the structure induced by quantization. DEFLATE is used in the reference implementation, and the paper emphasizes that the incremental gain from the lossless stage is content-dependent but meaningful, with an average uplift of ~1.23× on top of quantization in the reported regime. An ablation in the appendices indicates that GPU-friendly variants (GDeflate) can achieve nearly identical compression ratios (≤0.1 difference in measured cases), implying that throughput-optimized lossless codecs can likely be substituted without sacrificing meaningful compression. EMPIRICAL RESULTS: ACCURACY, COMPRESSION, AND LATENCY General-purpose 8B–12B dense models The paper evaluates Llama 3.1 8B, MN-Minitron 8B, and Mistral NeMo 12B across math/knowledge (GSM8K, MMLU) and long-context tasks (Qasper, Lost in the Middle, RULER Variable Tracking) under a simulated multi-turn regime where compression/decompression is applied periodically, with a sliding window of recent tokens excluded. A consistent pattern appears: kvtc maintains near-vanilla performance through 16× compression settings, and remains competitive at 32×, with degradation becoming task- and model-dependent at 64×, particularly on long-context retrieval metrics when compression is pushed aggressively. Selected quantitative anchor points from the paper’s standard-error table (all values are reported with the paper’s evaluation setup and token-window exclusions): Llama 3.1 8B Vanilla: GSM8K 56.8, MMLU 60.5, Qasper 40.4, LITM 99.4, RULER-VT 99.8 kvtc16×: GSM8K 56.9, MMLU 60.1, Qasper 40.7, LITM 99.3, RULER-VT 99.1 kvtc32×: GSM8K 57.8, MMLU 60.6, Qasper 39.4, LITM 99.1, RULER-VT 98.9 kvtc64×: GSM8K 57.2, MMLU 60.7, Qasper 37.8, LITM 90.2, RULER-VT 95.9 These results indicate that, for this model, long-context sensitivity emerges at 64× with meaningful drops in LITM and RULER-VT, while math/knowledge scores remain stable, implying a differential sensitivity consistent with key-vector precision being more critical for retrieval-style behavior. Mistral NeMo 12B Vanilla: GSM8K 61.9, MMLU 64.5, Qasper 38.4, LITM 99.5, RULER-VT 99.8 kvtc16×: GSM8K 62.0, MMLU 64.4, Qasper 37.6, LITM 99.8, RULER-VT 99.5 kvtc32×: GSM8K 62.2, MMLU 63.8, Qasper 37.5, LITM 99.6, RULER-VT 98.7 kvtc64×: GSM8K 61.9, MMLU 61.4, Qasper 38.0, LITM 95.3, RULER-VT 98.0 Here, degradation at 64× is visible but materially smaller than the Llama 3.1 8B LITM drop, suggesting model-architecture or training-data differences can change the tolerance envelope for aggressive KV cache distortion. MN-Minitron 8B Vanilla: GSM8K 59.1, MMLU 64.3, Qasper 38.2, LITM 99.8, RULER-VT 99.4 kvtc16×: GSM8K 60.3, MMLU 64.1, Qasper 38.6, LITM 99.3, RULER-VT 98.8 kvtc32×: GSM8K 59.1, MMLU 63.7, Qasper 37.7, LITM 86.9, RULER-VT 96.0 kvtc64×: GSM8K 57.8, MMLU 62.1, Qasper 38.1, LITM 59.5, RULER-VT 93.4 This model shows markedly higher sensitivity on LITM at 32× and 64×, despite stable short-context metrics, reinforcing that “compression safety” is not monotonic in parameter count and that pruning/distillation choices can alter KV cache redundancy or robustness. Comparisons to baselines The paper compares kvtc to quantization baselines (KIVI, GEAR, FP8) and eviction baselines (H2O, TOVA), plus an SVD-based prefill-optimization method (xKV). Across the reported tasks: Low-bit quantization methods at modest compression (2-bit KV schemes) show earlier degradation in long-context behavior than kvtc at substantially higher compression settings. Eviction methods perform poorly as generic compressors for long-context tasks, consistent with their objective function (selective pruning) being misaligned with “lossless-ish storage for reuse.” xKV shows competitive results on some tasks but a consistent underperformance on Qasper relative to kvtc and vanilla in the provided tables, consistent with method-specific distortions introduced by its decomposition regime. Reasoning models and high-variance tasks For DeepSeek-R1-distilled Qwen 2.5 reasoning models, the paper evaluates AIME 2024/2025 and LiveCodeBench coding. Results are averaged over 8 runs with large variance, but a key inference is that kvtc at ~9×–21× compression achieves broadly similar AIME scores within variance bands, while coding performance remains stable at ~9× and degrades more visibly at ~18×–21× on the 7B model. An important nuance is that smaller reasoning models already have smaller KV footprints (reported ~29KiB/token for Qwen R1 1.5B versus 131KiB/token for Llama 3.1 8B), so the economic value of aggressive KV cache compression is proportionally higher for large models and long contexts than for small models with short contexts, unless the serving system’s bottleneck is dominated by cache transfer rather than HBM capacity. Multi-GPU inference and pipeline parallel For Llama 3.3 70B Instruct run pipeline-parallel across 4 GPUs (20 layers per GPU), the paper compresses KV cache chunks independently per GPU. On MATH-500, the reported accuracy declines from 75.6 (vanilla) to 74.4 at 10× and 72.6 at 20×, with standard errors near ~1.9. NIAH and LITM remain at 100.0 for all tested ratios in that table. The paper notes that joint compression across chunks could improve accuracy for some offload scenarios but is not required for feasibility, highlighting an engineering trade-off between deployment simplicity in distributed settings and optimal global compression. Latency and TTFT economics A critical system result is the measured compression/decompression latency on an H100 for a non-fused implementation. For Mistral NeMo 12B in bfloat16: BS=8, CTX=8K: compression 379ms, decompression 267ms; vanilla recompute TTFT 3098ms; kvtc decompression TTFT 380ms BS=2, CTX=16K: compression 194ms, decompression 143ms; vanilla recompute TTFT 1780ms; kvtc decompression TTFT 208ms These measurements imply that, when a cache would otherwise be recomputed, decompressing a stored compressed cache can reduce TTFT by ~8×–9× in these scenarios, even without kernel fusion. The decomposition of runtime shows PCA projection and entropy coding as the largest contributors, implying that GPU-optimized kernels and faster GPU-native lossless codecs could reduce overhead further. The fundamental economic conclusion is that, in multi-turn settings with long prefixes, compression-induced overhead is likely dominated by the avoided prefill compute and avoided transfer overhead for uncompressed caches. KEY DEPLOYMENT-SENSITIVE DESIGN CHOICES AND FAILURE MODES Several design choices appear to be “hard requirements” rather than optional optimizations: Sink tokens and sliding window exclusions The paper’s ablations show that compressing early “sink” tokens can catastrophically degrade accuracy at high compression ratios (example: Llama 3.1 8B at 64× collapses on multiple tasks when sink tokens are compressed). Similarly, compressing the most recent tokens hurts performance, motivating a sliding window (default 128 tokens) that remains uncompressed. This introduces a predictable engineering constraint: kvtc is not a uniform compression of the full cache; it is a policy-driven, token-position-dependent codec. Production integration therefore requires correct handling of token positions, attention sinks, and window management, and these policies must be aligned with attention-kernel behavior and model-specific sink dynamics. RoPE handling Removing positional rotations prior to compression is described as important for preserving low-rank structure. In deployment, this implies that the codec must be position-aware and must invert and reapply RoPE correctly. This is an additional source of complexity relative to pure per-token quantization and is sensitive to model variants and RoPE parameterizations. Calibration set representativeness The method’s quality hinges on the PCA basis generalizing from calibration data to production data. The paper demonstrates relative stability with 160K–200K calibration tokens and explores domain shifts (general web text vs math traces vs code). Results suggest that moderate domain mismatch is tolerated at 16×–64×, while extreme compression (e.g., 256× in ablations) becomes materially more sensitive to calibration choice. In production, this implies that operators targeting the “negligible degradation” regime should be able to calibrate with broadly representative corpora, while operators targeting ultra-high compression for specialized workloads should expect tighter coupling between calibration domain and achieved quality. PCA matrix storage overhead and operational footprint A non-trivial hidden cost is the need to store PCA projection matrices per model. The paper reports that, prior to DP trimming, PCA matrices stored at 16-bit can amount to a meaningful fraction of model parameter count (examples reported: ~2.4% for Llama 3.3 70B, ~8.7% for Llama 3.1 8B). This overhead is amortized across all cached sessions for a model but competes with HBM/DRAM budgets in multi-model serving. DP-driven trimming can reduce this overhead at higher compression ratios by removing zero-bit components, but the directionality is not guaranteed at low compression ratios if many components remain active. In distributed inference (pipeline parallel), per-chunk PCA can reduce matrix sizes, but may reduce cross-layer decorrelation benefits if fewer layers are concatenated. SYSTEM-LEVEL IMPLICATIONS FOR GENERATIVE AI INFRASTRUCTURE GPU AND HBM The principal infrastructure implication is that KV cache compression at storage time targets the dominant memory allocator stressor in stateful serving: the accumulation of idle or warm conversation state. For workloads with long reusable prefixes (code assistants, enterprise agents with large system prompts, repeated RAG scaffolds, document chat), the limiting resource frequently becomes HBM reserved for KV caches rather than compute. By compressing stale caches by ~20× (or more), the same HBM budget can retain a materially larger working set of cached prefixes, increasing cache hit rates and reducing recomputation. This effect is multiplicative with cache-aware routing and prefix sharing: more prefixes can remain resident (hot or warm) and can be routed to nodes that already hold them, improving both throughput and tail latency. However, kvtc as described does not reduce the active KV cache footprint during the actual attention computation for a currently decoding sequence, because the model operates on decompressed KV caches during decoding. Therefore, the method does not directly reduce HBM bandwidth consumed by attention kernels during steady-state decode, and does not directly address the “memory traffic per generated token” bottleneck that motivates online KV quantization and eviction strategies. The primary HBM benefit is increased effective capacity for caches between turns and reduced HBM pressure from storing many idle sessions, not reduced per-token decode bandwidth. Compression and decompression themselves consume GPU compute and memory bandwidth. The measured decompression TTFT of ~208ms–380ms in the provided benchmarks indicates that the overhead is real but can be materially smaller than recomputation of long prefixes. In an HBM-constrained serving environment, this overhead can be interpreted as a trade between (a) maintaining more caches warm and paying decompression on reuse versus (b) evicting caches and paying full prefill recomputation. The decision boundary will depend on distribution of inter-turn idle times, probability of reuse, and SLA sensitivity to TTFT. kvtc expands the feasible region where keeping caches is economically rational, especially for long prompts. CPU AND DRAM The method implies a stronger role for CPU DRAM as a warm KV cache tier. A ~20× compression ratio changes the practical scale of “warm state” that can be stored per server. Using the paper’s reported KV cache sizes, a 10K-token 16-bit KV cache for Llama 3.3 70B is ~3.13GiB; compressing by ~20× would reduce this to ~160MiB. At that size, storing hundreds to thousands of warm conversation states in DRAM becomes materially more feasible, increasing cache hit rates and reducing NVMe dependence. This can shift system design from “HBM-only hot caches with aggressive eviction” toward “HBM hot + DRAM warm with long retention,” which is structurally analogous to CPU page cache hierarchies in classical systems design. CPU compute implications depend on where compression is executed. The paper explicitly allows compression on CPU if the cache is already in storage, but the strongest bandwidth savings are achieved when compression happens before moving KV caches off the GPU. If an operator chooses GPU-side compression prior to PCIe/NVLink transfer, CPU compute overhead is modest (orchestrating and DP calibration offline). If an operator instead transfers uncompressed caches to CPU for compression, bandwidth savings are forfeited and CPU memory bandwidth becomes a bottleneck. Therefore, the most economically coherent deployment path is GPU-native compression/decompression with CPU DRAM used as the warm storage reservoir.
12:09

$NVDA $MU $SNDK $LITE PAPER OVERVIEW AND CORE CLAIMS The paper “KV Cache Transform Coding for Compact Storage in LLM Inference” introduces kvtc, a transform-coding pipeline that compresses transformer key-value (KV) caches primarily for storage and transfer in LLM serving, rather than for accelerating the per-token attention kernel during active decoding. The method combines 3 stages: (1) feature decorrelation via a PCA basis computed from a calibration dataset and reused across requests; (2) adaptive, variable-precision quantization with bit allocation solved via dynamic programming (DP), including groupwise scaling/shift overhead; and (3) lossless entropy coding (DEFLATE via nvCOMP in the reference implementation) to exploit residual redundancy after quantization. The central empirical claim is that KV tensors contain large, exploitable redundancy across heads and layers, enabling approximately 20× compression versus a 16-bit baseline with negligible degradation across a broad set of accuracy and long-context benchmarks, with materially higher compression (≥40×) available at modest quality cost in some regimes. The system claim is that such compression materially improves the economics of multi-turn, prefix-reuse serving by extending effective KV cache capacity in GPU HBM and host tiers (DRAM/NVMe) and by reducing inter-node and GPU↔host bandwidth demands, thereby improving cache hit rates and reducing time-to-first-token (TTFT) relative to recomputation when caches would otherwise be evicted. KV CACHE AS THE DOMINANT STATE VARIABLE IN INFERENCE ECONOMICS KV cache growth is linear in context length and is multiplicative in layers and attention heads, making it an increasingly dominant constraint as (a) context lengths expand, (b) models add layers and maintain large hidden dimensions, and (c) production workloads shift toward iterative and tool-augmented interactions that repeatedly reuse long prefixes. The paper uses the canonical 16-bit KV cache size formula (4·l·h·d_head·t) bytes and reports 16-bit KV cache sizes per 1K tokens of context that are already operationally large: 128MiB for Llama 3.1 8B, 160MiB for Mistral NeMo 12B, and 320MiB for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct. In binary units, these figures imply per-token KV footprints of 128KiB/token (Llama 3.1 8B), 160KiB/token (Mistral NeMo 12B), and 320KiB/token (Llama 3.3 70B Instruct) at 16-bit. For a 10K-token prompt (10×1K in the paper’s binary convention), the 16-bit KV cache sizes scale to approximately 1.25GiB (Llama 3.1 8B), 1.56GiB (Mistral NeMo 12B), and 3.13GiB (Llama 3.3 70B Instruct). These magnitudes explain why stale caches create a throughput–latency dilemma: retaining them in HBM maximizes responsiveness on future turns but crowds out concurrent sessions; evicting them forces quadratic-cost prefill recomputation and increases TTFT; offloading them to host or storage introduces large transfer overhead and consumes DRAM/NVMe capacity. A key operational nuance emphasized is that modern serving stacks increasingly treat KV caches as a database, leveraging block paging and shared-prefix reuse. In the common disaggregated serving design (separate prefill and decode nodes), KV cache transfer becomes a dominant category of cross-node traffic. Under that design, any reduction in KV cache size directly increases effective fabric capacity and reduces tail latency attributable to congestion, while also enabling longer cache lifetimes in “hot” (HBM) and “warm” (CPU DRAM) tiers that raise cache hit rates and reduce recomputation frequency. The paper’s quantitative example illustrates the economic stakes: a 1,000-line code file tokenized at ~10 tokens/line yields ~10K tokens; for Llama 3.3 70B, an 8-bit KV cache for that context is ~1.6GiB. Reuse across subsequent turns or parallel chats around the same file is valuable, but HBM scarcity makes retaining many such caches infeasible without compression. TECHNICAL MECHANISM: WHY KV CACHES ARE COMPRESSIBLE AND HOW KVTC EXPLOITS IT The technical rationale begins with an empirical observation: keys (and, to a lesser extent, values) across different attention heads can be aligned into a shared latent space using orthogonal transformations (Procrustes alignment). This supports the hypothesis that head-specific projections introduce rotations of a common subspace rather than completely distinct information, implying that concatenating across heads and layers should reveal low-rank structure suitable for linear decorrelation and dimensionality reduction. The method operationalizes this using a PCA/SVD basis learned from calibration data rather than recomputing a decomposition per prompt. This design choice targets production viability: per-prompt SVD is computationally expensive and scales poorly with long prompts and frequent cache updates. kvtc is explicitly structured as an offline-calibrated, online-applied codec: Calibration (performed 1 time per model and compression setting for DP allocation) A calibration dataset is forwarded through the model to collect KV caches. Token positions are pooled, and a subset of positions is sampled. Keys and values are processed separately. Several implementation choices are highlighted as decisive for stability: Rotary positional embeddings are effectively removed prior to compression (“undo positional rotations”), because positional rotations degrade the apparent low-rank structure of keys. “Attention sink” tokens (the earliest tokens in the sequence) and a sliding window of most recent tokens are excluded from compression because they disproportionately affect attention patterns and are empirically more sensitive to reconstruction error. Cross-layer concatenation is used: keys (or values) from multiple layers and heads at the same token position are concatenated along the feature axis to form a higher-dimensional feature vector. PCA is computed over these concatenated vectors, improving robustness relative to per-layer or per-head PCA. The PCA basis is computed via SVD of centered calibration data, using randomized SVD for scalability with a target rank cutoff. The paper reports calibration regimes of 160K tokens for several models with a 10K PCA dimension cutoff (8K for Qwen variants with fewer KV heads), selected to fit within a single 80GB H100 memory envelope and complete within minutes. A critical economic detail is that the same PCA basis can be reused across multiple compression ratios; only the DP-derived precision assignment changes per compression target. Compression (applied between inference phases) Compression operates on stored KV cache tensors, not on weights, and does not modify attention computation. The KV cache is projected into the PCA basis, quantized, packed, and then entropy-coded. Compression is positioned as a background or between-phase operation (after decoding, or between prefill and decode), executed on GPU or CPU depending on where the cache currently resides. The design intent is that compression should not sit on the critical per-token decoding path; it is a storage and transport optimization. Decompression (performed prior to reuse) Decompression reverses the entropy coding and quantization and applies the inverse PCA projection. A practical latency optimization is proposed: inverse projection can be performed layer-by-layer using submatrices of the PCA basis, allowing generation to begin before the full cache is reconstructed, reducing TTFT. Quantization and bit allocation are the core differentiators versus simpler PCA truncation. PCA provides ordered components by variance; kvtc uses DP to allocate a global bit budget across PCA coordinates (and across groups of coordinates) to minimize reconstruction error in the decorrelated domain. Groups of subsequent PCA coordinates share 16-bit shift and scale factors (a microscaling-inspired design), and the DP algorithm jointly selects group size and precision type under a bit budget, including the overhead of per-group metadata. DP commonly assigns 0 bits to many trailing PCA components, which both increases compression and provides a mechanism to trim the PCA basis to the subset of components that actually carry payload, reducing compute and storage overhead of the projection matrices in deployment. Lossless entropy coding then exploits the structure induced by quantization. DEFLATE is used in the reference implementation, and the paper emphasizes that the incremental gain from the lossless stage is content-dependent but meaningful, with an average uplift of ~1.23× on top of quantization in the reported regime. An ablation in the appendices indicates that GPU-friendly variants (GDeflate) can achieve nearly identical compression ratios (≤0.1 difference in measured cases), implying that throughput-optimized lossless codecs can likely be substituted without sacrificing meaningful compression. EMPIRICAL RESULTS: ACCURACY, COMPRESSION, AND LATENCY General-purpose 8B–12B dense models The paper evaluates Llama 3.1 8B, MN-Minitron 8B, and Mistral NeMo 12B across math/knowledge (GSM8K, MMLU) and long-context tasks (Qasper, Lost in the Middle, RULER Variable Tracking) under a simulated multi-turn regime where compression/decompression is applied periodically, with a sliding window of recent tokens excluded. A consistent pattern appears: kvtc maintains near-vanilla performance through 16× compression settings, and remains competitive at 32×, with degradation becoming task- and model-dependent at 64×, particularly on long-context retrieval metrics when compression is pushed aggressively. Selected quantitative anchor points from the paper’s standard-error table (all values are reported with the paper’s evaluation setup and token-window exclusions): Llama 3.1 8B Vanilla: GSM8K 56.8, MMLU 60.5, Qasper 40.4, LITM 99.4, RULER-VT 99.8 kvtc16×: GSM8K 56.9, MMLU 60.1, Qasper 40.7, LITM 99.3, RULER-VT 99.1 kvtc32×: GSM8K 57.8, MMLU 60.6, Qasper 39.4, LITM 99.1, RULER-VT 98.9 kvtc64×: GSM8K 57.2, MMLU 60.7, Qasper 37.8, LITM 90.2, RULER-VT 95.9 These results indicate that, for this model, long-context sensitivity emerges at 64× with meaningful drops in LITM and RULER-VT, while math/knowledge scores remain stable, implying a differential sensitivity consistent with key-vector precision being more critical for retrieval-style behavior. Mistral NeMo 12B Vanilla: GSM8K 61.9, MMLU 64.5, Qasper 38.4, LITM 99.5, RULER-VT 99.8 kvtc16×: GSM8K 62.0, MMLU 64.4, Qasper 37.6, LITM 99.8, RULER-VT 99.5 kvtc32×: GSM8K 62.2, MMLU 63.8, Qasper 37.5, LITM 99.6, RULER-VT 98.7 kvtc64×: GSM8K 61.9, MMLU 61.4, Qasper 38.0, LITM 95.3, RULER-VT 98.0 Here, degradation at 64× is visible but materially smaller than the Llama 3.1 8B LITM drop, suggesting model-architecture or training-data differences can change the tolerance envelope for aggressive KV cache distortion. MN-Minitron 8B Vanilla: GSM8K 59.1, MMLU 64.3, Qasper 38.2, LITM 99.8, RULER-VT 99.4 kvtc16×: GSM8K 60.3, MMLU 64.1, Qasper 38.6, LITM 99.3, RULER-VT 98.8 kvtc32×: GSM8K 59.1, MMLU 63.7, Qasper 37.7, LITM 86.9, RULER-VT 96.0 kvtc64×: GSM8K 57.8, MMLU 62.1, Qasper 38.1, LITM 59.5, RULER-VT 93.4 This model shows markedly higher sensitivity on LITM at 32× and 64×, despite stable short-context metrics, reinforcing that “compression safety” is not monotonic in parameter count and that pruning/distillation choices can alter KV cache redundancy or robustness. Comparisons to baselines The paper compares kvtc to quantization baselines (KIVI, GEAR, FP8) and eviction baselines (H2O, TOVA), plus an SVD-based prefill-optimization method (xKV). Across the reported tasks: Low-bit quantization methods at modest compression (2-bit KV schemes) show earlier degradation in long-context behavior than kvtc at substantially higher compression settings. Eviction methods perform poorly as generic compressors for long-context tasks, consistent with their objective function (selective pruning) being misaligned with “lossless-ish storage for reuse.” xKV shows competitive results on some tasks but a consistent underperformance on Qasper relative to kvtc and vanilla in the provided tables, consistent with method-specific distortions introduced by its decomposition regime. Reasoning models and high-variance tasks For DeepSeek-R1-distilled Qwen 2.5 reasoning models, the paper evaluates AIME 2024/2025 and LiveCodeBench coding. Results are averaged over 8 runs with large variance, but a key inference is that kvtc at ~9×–21× compression achieves broadly similar AIME scores within variance bands, while coding performance remains stable at ~9× and degrades more visibly at ~18×–21× on the 7B model. An important nuance is that smaller reasoning models already have smaller KV footprints (reported ~29KiB/token for Qwen R1 1.5B versus 131KiB/token for Llama 3.1 8B), so the economic value of aggressive KV cache compression is proportionally higher for large models and long contexts than for small models with short contexts, unless the serving system’s bottleneck is dominated by cache transfer rather than HBM capacity. Multi-GPU inference and pipeline parallel For Llama 3.3 70B Instruct run pipeline-parallel across 4 GPUs (20 layers per GPU), the paper compresses KV cache chunks independently per GPU. On MATH-500, the reported accuracy declines from 75.6 (vanilla) to 74.4 at 10× and 72.6 at 20×, with standard errors near ~1.9. NIAH and LITM remain at 100.0 for all tested ratios in that table. The paper notes that joint compression across chunks could improve accuracy for some offload scenarios but is not required for feasibility, highlighting an engineering trade-off between deployment simplicity in distributed settings and optimal global compression. Latency and TTFT economics A critical system result is the measured compression/decompression latency on an H100 for a non-fused implementation. For Mistral NeMo 12B in bfloat16: BS=8, CTX=8K: compression 379ms, decompression 267ms; vanilla recompute TTFT 3098ms; kvtc decompression TTFT 380ms BS=2, CTX=16K: compression 194ms, decompression 143ms; vanilla recompute TTFT 1780ms; kvtc decompression TTFT 208ms These measurements imply that, when a cache would otherwise be recomputed, decompressing a stored compressed cache can reduce TTFT by ~8×–9× in these scenarios, even without kernel fusion. The decomposition of runtime shows PCA projection and entropy coding as the largest contributors, implying that GPU-optimized kernels and faster GPU-native lossless codecs could reduce overhead further. The fundamental economic conclusion is that, in multi-turn settings with long prefixes, compression-induced overhead is likely dominated by the avoided prefill compute and avoided transfer overhead for uncompressed caches. KEY DEPLOYMENT-SENSITIVE DESIGN CHOICES AND FAILURE MODES Several design choices appear to be “hard requirements” rather than optional optimizations: Sink tokens and sliding window exclusions The paper’s ablations show that compressing early “sink” tokens can catastrophically degrade accuracy at high compression ratios (example: Llama 3.1 8B at 64× collapses on multiple tasks when sink tokens are compressed). Similarly, compressing the most recent tokens hurts performance, motivating a sliding window (default 128 tokens) that remains uncompressed. This introduces a predictable engineering constraint: kvtc is not a uniform compression of the full cache; it is a policy-driven, token-position-dependent codec. Production integration therefore requires correct handling of token positions, attention sinks, and window management, and these policies must be aligned with attention-kernel behavior and model-specific sink dynamics. RoPE handling Removing positional rotations prior to compression is described as important for preserving low-rank structure. In deployment, this implies that the codec must be position-aware and must invert and reapply RoPE correctly. This is an additional source of complexity relative to pure per-token quantization and is sensitive to model variants and RoPE parameterizations. Calibration set representativeness The method’s quality hinges on the PCA basis generalizing from calibration data to production data. The paper demonstrates relative stability with 160K–200K calibration tokens and explores domain shifts (general web text vs math traces vs code). Results suggest that moderate domain mismatch is tolerated at 16×–64×, while extreme compression (e.g., 256× in ablations) becomes materially more sensitive to calibration choice. In production, this implies that operators targeting the “negligible degradation” regime should be able to calibrate with broadly representative corpora, while operators targeting ultra-high compression for specialized workloads should expect tighter coupling between calibration domain and achieved quality. PCA matrix storage overhead and operational footprint A non-trivial hidden cost is the need to store PCA projection matrices per model. The paper reports that, prior to DP trimming, PCA matrices stored at 16-bit can amount to a meaningful fraction of model parameter count (examples reported: ~2.4% for Llama 3.3 70B, ~8.7% for Llama 3.1 8B). This overhead is amortized across all cached sessions for a model but competes with HBM/DRAM budgets in multi-model serving. DP-driven trimming can reduce this overhead at higher compression ratios by removing zero-bit components, but the directionality is not guaranteed at low compression ratios if many components remain active. In distributed inference (pipeline parallel), per-chunk PCA can reduce matrix sizes, but may reduce cross-layer decorrelation benefits if fewer layers are concatenated. SYSTEM-LEVEL IMPLICATIONS FOR GENERATIVE AI INFRASTRUCTURE GPU AND HBM The principal infrastructure implication is that KV cache compression at storage time targets the dominant memory allocator stressor in stateful serving: the accumulation of idle or warm conversation state. For workloads with long reusable prefixes (code assistants, enterprise agents with large system prompts, repeated RAG scaffolds, document chat), the limiting resource frequently becomes HBM reserved for KV caches rather than compute. By compressing stale caches by ~20× (or more), the same HBM budget can retain a materially larger working set of cached prefixes, increasing cache hit rates and reducing recomputation. This effect is multiplicative with cache-aware routing and prefix sharing: more prefixes can remain resident (hot or warm) and can be routed to nodes that already hold them, improving both throughput and tail latency. However, kvtc as described does not reduce the active KV cache footprint during the actual attention computation for a currently decoding sequence, because the model operates on decompressed KV caches during decoding. Therefore, the method does not directly reduce HBM bandwidth consumed by attention kernels during steady-state decode, and does not directly address the “memory traffic per generated token” bottleneck that motivates online KV quantization and eviction strategies. The primary HBM benefit is increased effective capacity for caches between turns and reduced HBM pressure from storing many idle sessions, not reduced per-token decode bandwidth. Compression and decompression themselves consume GPU compute and memory bandwidth. The measured decompression TTFT of ~208ms–380ms in the provided benchmarks indicates that the overhead is real but can be materially smaller than recomputation of long prefixes. In an HBM-constrained serving environment, this overhead can be interpreted as a trade between (a) maintaining more caches warm and paying decompression on reuse versus (b) evicting caches and paying full prefill recomputation. The decision boundary will depend on distribution of inter-turn idle times, probability of reuse, and SLA sensitivity to TTFT. kvtc expands the feasible region where keeping caches is economically rational, especially for long prompts. CPU AND DRAM The method implies a stronger role for CPU DRAM as a warm KV cache tier. A ~20× compression ratio changes the practical scale of “warm state” that can be stored per server. Using the paper’s reported KV cache sizes, a 10K-token 16-bit KV cache for Llama 3.3 70B is ~3.13GiB; compressing by ~20× would reduce this to ~160MiB. At that size, storing hundreds to thousands of warm conversation states in DRAM becomes materially more feasible, increasing cache hit rates and reducing NVMe dependence. This can shift system design from “HBM-only hot caches with aggressive eviction” toward “HBM hot + DRAM warm with long retention,” which is structurally analogous to CPU page cache hierarchies in classical systems design. CPU compute implications depend on where compression is executed. The paper explicitly allows compression on CPU if the cache is already in storage, but the strongest bandwidth savings are achieved when compression happens before moving KV caches off the GPU. If an operator chooses GPU-side compression prior to PCIe/NVLink transfer, CPU compute overhead is modest (orchestrating and DP calibration offline). If an operator instead transfers uncompressed caches to CPU for compression, bandwidth savings are forfeited and CPU memory bandwidth becomes a bottleneck. Therefore, the most economically coherent deployment path is GPU-native compression/decompression with CPU DRAM used as the warm storage reservoir.

TheValueist

16,549 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

The Cost of Intelligence is Heading to Zero | Hyperspace P2P Distributed Cache We present to you our breakthrough cross-domain work across AI, distributed systems, cryptography, game theory to solve the primary structural inefficiency at the heart of AI infrastructure: most inference is redundant. Google has reported that only 15% of daily searches are truly novel. The rest are repeats or close variants. LLM inference inherits this same power-law distribution. Enterprise chatbots see 70-80% of queries fall into a handful of intent categories. System prompts are identical across 100% of requests within an application. The KV attention state for "You are a helpful assistant" has been computed billions of times, on millions of GPUs, identically. And yet every AI lab, every startup, every self-hosted deployment - computes and caches these results independently. There is no shared layer. No global memory. Every provider pays the full compute cost for every query, even when the answer already exists somewhere in the network. This is the problem Hyperspace solves where distributed cache operates at three levels, each catching a different class of redundancy: 1. Response cache Same prompt, same model, same parameters - instant cached response from any node in the network. SHA-256 hash lookup via DHT, with cryptographic cache proofs linking every response to its original inference execution. No trust required. Fetchers re-announce as providers, so popular responses replicate naturally across more nodes. 2. KV prefix cache Same system prompt tokens - skip the most expensive part of inference entirely. Prefill (computing Key-Value attention states) is deterministic: same model plus same tokens always produces identical KV state. The network caches these states using erasure coding and distributes them via the routing network. New questions that share a common prefix resume generation from cached state instead of recomputing from scratch. 3. Routing to cached nodes Instead of transferring KV state across the network for every request, Hyperspace routes the request to the node that already has the state loaded in VRAM. The request goes to the cache, not the cache to the request. Together, these three layers mean that 70-90% of inference requests at network scale never require full GPU computation. This work doesn't exist in isolation. It builds on research from across the industry: SGLang's RadixAttention demonstrated that automatic prefix sharing can yield up to 5x speedup on structured LLM workloads. Moonshot AI's Mooncake built an entire KV-cache-centric disaggregated architecture for production serving at Kimi. Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google all launched prompt caching products in 2024 - priced at 50-90% discounts - because system prompt reuse is so pervasive that it changes the economics of inference. What all of these systems share is a common limitation: they operate within a single organization's infrastructure. SGLang caches prefixes within one server. Mooncake disaggregates KV cache within one datacenter. Anthropic's prompt caching works within one API provider's fleet. None of them can share cached state across organizational boundaries. Hyperspace removes this boundary. The cache is global. A response computed by a node in Tokyo is immediately available to a node in Berlin. A KV prefix state generated for Qwen-32B on one machine is verifiable and reusable by any other machine running the same model. The routing network provides the delivery guarantees, the erasure coding provides the redundancy, and the cache proofs provide the trust. What this means for the cost of intelligence Big AI labs scale linearly: twice the users means twice the GPU spend. Every query is a cost center. Their internal caching helps, but it's siloed - Lab A's cache can't serve Lab B's users, and neither can serve a self-hosted Llama deployment. Hyperspace scales sub-linearly. Every new node that joins the network adds to the global cache. Every inference result enriches the cache for all future requests. The cache hit rate rises with network size because query distributions follow a power law - the most common questions are asked exponentially more often than rare ones. The implication is simple: as the network grows, the effective cost per inference drops. Not linearly. Logarithmically. At 10 million nodes, we estimate 75-90% of all inference requests can be served from cache, eliminating 400,000+ MWh of energy consumption per year and avoiding over 200,000 tons of CO2 emissions. The first person to ask a question pays the compute cost. Everyone after them gets the answer for free, with cryptographic proof that it's authentic. Training is competitive. Inference is shared Open-weight models are converging on quality with closed models. Labs will continue to differentiate on training - data curation, architecture innovation, RLHF tuning. That's where the real intellectual property lives. But inference is a commodity. Two copies of Qwen-32B running the same prompt produce the same KV state and the same response, byte for byte, regardless of whose GPU runs the matrix multiplication. There is no moat in multiplying matrices. The moat is in training the weights. A global distributed cache makes this separation explicit. It doesn't matter who trained the model. Once the weights are open, the inference cost approaches zero at scale - because the network remembers every answer and can prove it's correct. No lab, no matter how well-funded, can match this. They cannot share caches across competitors. They scale linearly. The network scales logarithmically. The marginal cost of intelligence approaches zero. That's the endgame.
0:23

The Cost of Intelligence is Heading to Zero | Hyperspace P2P Distributed Cache We present to you our breakthrough cross-domain work across AI, distributed systems, cryptography, game theory to solve the primary structural inefficiency at the heart of AI infrastructure: most inference is redundant. Google has reported that only 15% of daily searches are truly novel. The rest are repeats or close variants. LLM inference inherits this same power-law distribution. Enterprise chatbots see 70-80% of queries fall into a handful of intent categories. System prompts are identical across 100% of requests within an application. The KV attention state for "You are a helpful assistant" has been computed billions of times, on millions of GPUs, identically. And yet every AI lab, every startup, every self-hosted deployment - computes and caches these results independently. There is no shared layer. No global memory. Every provider pays the full compute cost for every query, even when the answer already exists somewhere in the network. This is the problem Hyperspace solves where distributed cache operates at three levels, each catching a different class of redundancy: 1. Response cache Same prompt, same model, same parameters - instant cached response from any node in the network. SHA-256 hash lookup via DHT, with cryptographic cache proofs linking every response to its original inference execution. No trust required. Fetchers re-announce as providers, so popular responses replicate naturally across more nodes. 2. KV prefix cache Same system prompt tokens - skip the most expensive part of inference entirely. Prefill (computing Key-Value attention states) is deterministic: same model plus same tokens always produces identical KV state. The network caches these states using erasure coding and distributes them via the routing network. New questions that share a common prefix resume generation from cached state instead of recomputing from scratch. 3. Routing to cached nodes Instead of transferring KV state across the network for every request, Hyperspace routes the request to the node that already has the state loaded in VRAM. The request goes to the cache, not the cache to the request. Together, these three layers mean that 70-90% of inference requests at network scale never require full GPU computation. This work doesn't exist in isolation. It builds on research from across the industry: SGLang's RadixAttention demonstrated that automatic prefix sharing can yield up to 5x speedup on structured LLM workloads. Moonshot AI's Mooncake built an entire KV-cache-centric disaggregated architecture for production serving at Kimi. Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google all launched prompt caching products in 2024 - priced at 50-90% discounts - because system prompt reuse is so pervasive that it changes the economics of inference. What all of these systems share is a common limitation: they operate within a single organization's infrastructure. SGLang caches prefixes within one server. Mooncake disaggregates KV cache within one datacenter. Anthropic's prompt caching works within one API provider's fleet. None of them can share cached state across organizational boundaries. Hyperspace removes this boundary. The cache is global. A response computed by a node in Tokyo is immediately available to a node in Berlin. A KV prefix state generated for Qwen-32B on one machine is verifiable and reusable by any other machine running the same model. The routing network provides the delivery guarantees, the erasure coding provides the redundancy, and the cache proofs provide the trust. What this means for the cost of intelligence Big AI labs scale linearly: twice the users means twice the GPU spend. Every query is a cost center. Their internal caching helps, but it's siloed - Lab A's cache can't serve Lab B's users, and neither can serve a self-hosted Llama deployment. Hyperspace scales sub-linearly. Every new node that joins the network adds to the global cache. Every inference result enriches the cache for all future requests. The cache hit rate rises with network size because query distributions follow a power law - the most common questions are asked exponentially more often than rare ones. The implication is simple: as the network grows, the effective cost per inference drops. Not linearly. Logarithmically. At 10 million nodes, we estimate 75-90% of all inference requests can be served from cache, eliminating 400,000+ MWh of energy consumption per year and avoiding over 200,000 tons of CO2 emissions. The first person to ask a question pays the compute cost. Everyone after them gets the answer for free, with cryptographic proof that it's authentic. Training is competitive. Inference is shared Open-weight models are converging on quality with closed models. Labs will continue to differentiate on training - data curation, architecture innovation, RLHF tuning. That's where the real intellectual property lives. But inference is a commodity. Two copies of Qwen-32B running the same prompt produce the same KV state and the same response, byte for byte, regardless of whose GPU runs the matrix multiplication. There is no moat in multiplying matrices. The moat is in training the weights. A global distributed cache makes this separation explicit. It doesn't matter who trained the model. Once the weights are open, the inference cost approaches zero at scale - because the network remembers every answer and can prove it's correct. No lab, no matter how well-funded, can match this. They cannot share caches across competitors. They scale linearly. The network scales logarithmically. The marginal cost of intelligence approaches zero. That's the endgame.

Varun

37,555 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

A single RTX 4090 (24 GB VRAM) can run the updated gemma 4 31B (dense) model with a 190,000 context window at 33 tokens/second. The VRAM barrier is dying. Google quietly updated Gemma 4, and Unsloth immediately compiled the new quants. I built llama.cpp from source on Ubuntu 22 to benchmark it. Google's stealth update 2 days ago enabled uniform Flash Attention 4 on Hopper to boost prefill and patched the chat template to improve tool calling. The agentic reasoning gains on the benchmark charts are massive: TB2 (Agents): +4.5% (to 25.8%) Tau2 (Telecom): +10.1% (to 62.7%) Running on Ubuntu 22, CUDA 13.0 with a single NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090. Here is the exact step by step benchmarking process with a massive 28k tokens prompt and the commands I used to squeeze out maximum context without killing my throughput: # 1. The Baseline (Unquantized KV Cache) I started with full GPU offload (-ngl 99) and pushed the context to 40k. llama.cpp flags: ./build/bin/llama-server -m gemma-4-31B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -ngl 99 -c 40000 -fa on --port 8080 -v VRAM: 23.8 GB (maxed out on card) Throughput: Prefill: 2198.81 t/s | Decode: 35.77 t/s (with 28k tokens prompt) # 2. The CPU Split Trap I tried stretching to 80k context by offloading layers to the CPU (-ngl 52). llama.cpp flags: ./build/bin/llama-server -m gemma-4-31B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -c 80000 -ngl 52 -fa on --port 8080 -v Throughput: Prefill: 1212.73 t/s | Decode: 5 t/s (with 28k tokens prompt) # 3. The KV Quantization Breakthrough Instead of spilling layers to the CPU, I kept the model fully on card (-ngl 99) but enabled 8-bit KV cache quantization to free up VRAM. flags: ./build/bin/llama-server -m gemma-4-31B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -c 100000 --cache-type-k q8_0 --cache-type-v q8_0 -ngl 99 --port 8080 -v VRAM: 23.9 GB Throughput: Prefill: 2139.68 t/s | Decode: 32 t/s (with 28k tokens prompt) Result: 100k tokens of context on a single GPU with practically zero speed loss (and minimal intelligence loss). # 4. The Limit Test (Q4 KV Cache) To find the absolute breaking point, I dropped the KV cache to 4 bit (q4_0) and set -c 190000. flags: ./build/bin/llama-server -m gemma-4-31B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -c 190000 --cache-type-k q4_0 --cache-type-v q4_0 -ngl 99 --port 8080 -v VRAM: 23.8 GB Throughput: Prefill: 2206.66 t/s | Decode: 33 t/s (with 28k tokens prompt) (Note: Pushing it to 220k required dropping to -ngl 58 again, which immediately penalized decode down to 17 t/s). # The Tradeoff: For Max Reasoning: Keep your KV cache unquantized (f16). You get pristine reasoning but hit a strict 40k context ceiling. For Massive Document Retrieval: If you need to feed the model giant codebases, use --cache-type-k q4_0. Getting 190k context at 33 tokens/second on a consumer desktop with a 31b dense model is a cheat code. If you’re rocking a single 3090 or 4090 and slept on Gemma 4 earlier, this update is your cue to dust off the terminal. Hugging Face links to the Unsloth QAT quants are in the replies below.
0:20

A single RTX 4090 (24 GB VRAM) can run the updated gemma 4 31B (dense) model with a 190,000 context window at 33 tokens/second. The VRAM barrier is dying. Google quietly updated Gemma 4, and Unsloth immediately compiled the new quants. I built llama.cpp from source on Ubuntu 22 to benchmark it. Google's stealth update 2 days ago enabled uniform Flash Attention 4 on Hopper to boost prefill and patched the chat template to improve tool calling. The agentic reasoning gains on the benchmark charts are massive: TB2 (Agents): +4.5% (to 25.8%) Tau2 (Telecom): +10.1% (to 62.7%) Running on Ubuntu 22, CUDA 13.0 with a single NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090. Here is the exact step by step benchmarking process with a massive 28k tokens prompt and the commands I used to squeeze out maximum context without killing my throughput: # 1. The Baseline (Unquantized KV Cache) I started with full GPU offload (-ngl 99) and pushed the context to 40k. llama.cpp flags: ./build/bin/llama-server -m gemma-4-31B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -ngl 99 -c 40000 -fa on --port 8080 -v VRAM: 23.8 GB (maxed out on card) Throughput: Prefill: 2198.81 t/s | Decode: 35.77 t/s (with 28k tokens prompt) # 2. The CPU Split Trap I tried stretching to 80k context by offloading layers to the CPU (-ngl 52). llama.cpp flags: ./build/bin/llama-server -m gemma-4-31B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -c 80000 -ngl 52 -fa on --port 8080 -v Throughput: Prefill: 1212.73 t/s | Decode: 5 t/s (with 28k tokens prompt) # 3. The KV Quantization Breakthrough Instead of spilling layers to the CPU, I kept the model fully on card (-ngl 99) but enabled 8-bit KV cache quantization to free up VRAM. flags: ./build/bin/llama-server -m gemma-4-31B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -c 100000 --cache-type-k q8_0 --cache-type-v q8_0 -ngl 99 --port 8080 -v VRAM: 23.9 GB Throughput: Prefill: 2139.68 t/s | Decode: 32 t/s (with 28k tokens prompt) Result: 100k tokens of context on a single GPU with practically zero speed loss (and minimal intelligence loss). # 4. The Limit Test (Q4 KV Cache) To find the absolute breaking point, I dropped the KV cache to 4 bit (q4_0) and set -c 190000. flags: ./build/bin/llama-server -m gemma-4-31B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -c 190000 --cache-type-k q4_0 --cache-type-v q4_0 -ngl 99 --port 8080 -v VRAM: 23.8 GB Throughput: Prefill: 2206.66 t/s | Decode: 33 t/s (with 28k tokens prompt) (Note: Pushing it to 220k required dropping to -ngl 58 again, which immediately penalized decode down to 17 t/s). # The Tradeoff: For Max Reasoning: Keep your KV cache unquantized (f16). You get pristine reasoning but hit a strict 40k context ceiling. For Massive Document Retrieval: If you need to feed the model giant codebases, use --cache-type-k q4_0. Getting 190k context at 33 tokens/second on a consumer desktop with a 31b dense model is a cheat code. If you’re rocking a single 3090 or 4090 and slept on Gemma 4 earlier, this update is your cue to dust off the terminal. Hugging Face links to the Unsloth QAT quants are in the replies below.

Alok

76,069 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Dylan Patel of SemiAnalysis says speed is the moat in AI inference, and getting there runs through new compute (Groq/Cerebras), KV-cache offload, and networking optimization (Aria). "Most of the infrastructure is pretty optimized for high throughput, I would say, but more and more people want to pay for speed. It turns out agents are very sequential, task-oriented, and models running in sequential tasks." "Trying something, verifying it, checking if it's right, and you do that in a loop. It ends up being very slow." "And speed is the moat. The faster you go, speed is the moat." "So a lot of the workloads and high-end use cases that people are developing now are all focused on high interactivity, and the infrastructure there is quite different." "So let's break that down into a few components." "One is you can do new compute: you can do Groq or Cerebras-style compute, which is very much focused on high interactivity." "But even with existing GPUs you can do a few things. One, if you're focused heavily on time to first token, you might offload KV cache to storage, keep it cached, move it back into the compute whenever you need it, much faster than recomputing." "And the third thing you can do is you have to optimize the network."
1:12

Dylan Patel of SemiAnalysis says speed is the moat in AI inference, and getting there runs through new compute (Groq/Cerebras), KV-cache offload, and networking optimization (Aria). "Most of the infrastructure is pretty optimized for high throughput, I would say, but more and more people want to pay for speed. It turns out agents are very sequential, task-oriented, and models running in sequential tasks." "Trying something, verifying it, checking if it's right, and you do that in a loop. It ends up being very slow." "And speed is the moat. The faster you go, speed is the moat." "So a lot of the workloads and high-end use cases that people are developing now are all focused on high interactivity, and the infrastructure there is quite different." "So let's break that down into a few components." "One is you can do new compute: you can do Groq or Cerebras-style compute, which is very much focused on high interactivity." "But even with existing GPUs you can do a few things. One, if you're focused heavily on time to first token, you might offload KV cache to storage, keep it cached, move it back into the compute whenever you need it, much faster than recomputing." "And the third thing you can do is you have to optimize the network."

Fireside Alpha

282,905 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Google's Gemma 4 26B A4B QAT hits 25+ tokens/sec and 320+ tokens/sec prefill on 8 GB VRAM (RTX 4060) + 16 GB RAM using TurboQuant Prefill just went from 200 → 320+ tok/s on the same 8GB card. 1.6x, no new hardware, no new quant, just a KV cache trick stacked on top of the Gemma 4 26B MoE setup from a few days ago. A few days ago I posted Gemma 4 26B A4B hitting 28 tok/s decode on 8GB VRAM using native MTP. prefill was stuck around 200 tok/s. fair callout by the community. So today I tested something I'd already been meaning to try: TheTom/llama-cpp-turboquant, the TurboQuant KV cache fork by Tom Turney (Tom Turney). (github link in the comments) thanks to him, the fork just got resynced to mainline, so MTP + TurboQuant now run together cleanly (I didnt see any meaningful gains by using MTP with this setup though but you can try). The flags (No MTP): -m gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -cnv -c 64000 --cache-type-k q8_0 --cache-type-v turbo3 Results on the same RTX 4060 8GB, tested with a 27k token prompt at 64k context loaded: Prefill: 200 tok/s → 320+ tok/s Decode: stayed above 25 tok/s (without MTP) Why it works: TurboQuant uses walsh hadamard rotation + polar quantization on the KV cache. keys are sensitive to compression, values aren't much, so it splits the difference: K stays at q8_0, V drops to turbo3 (~3 bits). bonus from the memory savings: same 8GB card can now stretch to 100-120k context with minimal decode penalty. It should now be snappier with any agent harness such as hermes agent without compromise on intelligence. If you're already running Gemma 4 on a small card, this stacks on top for free. Try --cache-type-k q8_0 --cache-type-v turbo3 on your setup and report back what your prefill/decode split looks like. unsloth model gguf and llama.cpp turboquant fork links in the comments. what's your prefill number before vs after?
0:31

Google's Gemma 4 26B A4B QAT hits 25+ tokens/sec and 320+ tokens/sec prefill on 8 GB VRAM (RTX 4060) + 16 GB RAM using TurboQuant Prefill just went from 200 → 320+ tok/s on the same 8GB card. 1.6x, no new hardware, no new quant, just a KV cache trick stacked on top of the Gemma 4 26B MoE setup from a few days ago. A few days ago I posted Gemma 4 26B A4B hitting 28 tok/s decode on 8GB VRAM using native MTP. prefill was stuck around 200 tok/s. fair callout by the community. So today I tested something I'd already been meaning to try: TheTom/llama-cpp-turboquant, the TurboQuant KV cache fork by Tom Turney (Tom Turney). (github link in the comments) thanks to him, the fork just got resynced to mainline, so MTP + TurboQuant now run together cleanly (I didnt see any meaningful gains by using MTP with this setup though but you can try). The flags (No MTP): -m gemma-4-26B-A4B-it-qat-UD-Q4_K_XL.gguf -cnv -c 64000 --cache-type-k q8_0 --cache-type-v turbo3 Results on the same RTX 4060 8GB, tested with a 27k token prompt at 64k context loaded: Prefill: 200 tok/s → 320+ tok/s Decode: stayed above 25 tok/s (without MTP) Why it works: TurboQuant uses walsh hadamard rotation + polar quantization on the KV cache. keys are sensitive to compression, values aren't much, so it splits the difference: K stays at q8_0, V drops to turbo3 (~3 bits). bonus from the memory savings: same 8GB card can now stretch to 100-120k context with minimal decode penalty. It should now be snappier with any agent harness such as hermes agent without compromise on intelligence. If you're already running Gemma 4 on a small card, this stacks on top for free. Try --cache-type-k q8_0 --cache-type-v turbo3 on your setup and report back what your prefill/decode split looks like. unsloth model gguf and llama.cpp turboquant fork links in the comments. what's your prefill number before vs after?

Alok

119,821 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, on why the iPhone, the greatest consumer device ever made, is the wrong hardware for the AI era: Sam argues the iPhone's basic design wasn't made for a world where AI needs to live alongside your entire life. "I think the iPhone is currently the greatest piece of consumer hardware ever made by a lot. Like, incredible what that has done." The iPhone was designed for a pre-AI world. Sam Altman explains: "It was not meant for a world where you needed a piece of hardware that could absorb all of the context of your life. You know, you can use the phone, you can stop using the phone, you can put it in your pocket, but it's kind of like on or off." That binary, on or off, in use or in your pocket, is the core mismatch. A device that flips between active and dormant can't continuously absorb the context that a personal AGI would need to actually be useful to you. Sam uses the conversation he's having in that moment as the example: "This has been a very interesting conversation. I would love this to be referenced by my personal AGI later, but my phone is in my pocket and it's not going to understand." The vision he's pointing toward is a device that participates differently: "I would like a device that, if I wanted to, can participate and understand and know about this conversation." The shift Sam is describing is from a device you pick up and put down, to one that quietly captures the context of your life. Without that continuous context, a personal AGI can't actually be personal.
0:44

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, on why the iPhone, the greatest consumer device ever made, is the wrong hardware for the AI era: Sam argues the iPhone's basic design wasn't made for a world where AI needs to live alongside your entire life. "I think the iPhone is currently the greatest piece of consumer hardware ever made by a lot. Like, incredible what that has done." The iPhone was designed for a pre-AI world. Sam Altman explains: "It was not meant for a world where you needed a piece of hardware that could absorb all of the context of your life. You know, you can use the phone, you can stop using the phone, you can put it in your pocket, but it's kind of like on or off." That binary, on or off, in use or in your pocket, is the core mismatch. A device that flips between active and dormant can't continuously absorb the context that a personal AGI would need to actually be useful to you. Sam uses the conversation he's having in that moment as the example: "This has been a very interesting conversation. I would love this to be referenced by my personal AGI later, but my phone is in my pocket and it's not going to understand." The vision he's pointing toward is a device that participates differently: "I would like a device that, if I wanted to, can participate and understand and know about this conversation." The shift Sam is describing is from a device you pick up and put down, to one that quietly captures the context of your life. Without that continuous context, a personal AGI can't actually be personal.

Big Brain AI

25,447 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

I cant believe this guy just made a permanent solution to context bloat and open sourced it all! when we tested this tool (Context+) for solving an issue on the OpenCode repository, the agent using this tool used ~6.5k fewer tokens, found the code and fixed it in half the time! the results were surprising: 6 to 10k tokens saved per prompt, completed task in ~2 minutes while the agent running without the tool took ~4 mins for the same and got stuck in loops bro built an entire beast by using all the modern tools that we could think of: undo trees, semantic search by meaning (by haskellforall), advanced refactoring, blast radius, advanced file context trees, restore points... i can keep going on semantic code search and context trees are the future of agentic coding and this tool proves it the feature i loved the most is semantic search and how it gets things done 2x faster with least possible tokens it makes an agent that actually knows what it’s doing and not just guessing, it makes meaning from your code similar to RAG. if you aren't optimizing your context, you are just burning money the developer says this tool is still under development, it can have unexpected behavior and the docs need updates but the video shows the reality of how fast it can be github: get here:
0:46

I cant believe this guy just made a permanent solution to context bloat and open sourced it all! when we tested this tool (Context+) for solving an issue on the OpenCode repository, the agent using this tool used ~6.5k fewer tokens, found the code and fixed it in half the time! the results were surprising: 6 to 10k tokens saved per prompt, completed task in ~2 minutes while the agent running without the tool took ~4 mins for the same and got stuck in loops bro built an entire beast by using all the modern tools that we could think of: undo trees, semantic search by meaning (by haskellforall), advanced refactoring, blast radius, advanced file context trees, restore points... i can keep going on semantic code search and context trees are the future of agentic coding and this tool proves it the feature i loved the most is semantic search and how it gets things done 2x faster with least possible tokens it makes an agent that actually knows what it’s doing and not just guessing, it makes meaning from your code similar to RAG. if you aren't optimizing your context, you are just burning money the developer says this tool is still under development, it can have unexpected behavior and the docs need updates but the video shows the reality of how fast it can be github: get here:

forloop

226,271 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

INSANE. Qwen 3.8 27B is now running locally on an RTX 4060 with just 8GB VRAM. 64,000 token context window using Unsloth's new IQ4_XS quant, only 14.6GB on disk. Prefill hits 150 tokens/sec, decode at 5 tokens/sec via native MTP. Just 25 GPU layers offloaded to stay inside 8GB - zero spillover. Quantized KV cache crushes the memory footprint. A model that beats Claude Opus 4.6 on several benchmarks. Running on a $300 GPU. Let that sink in. One flag before you post: that "beats Claude Opus 4.6 on several benchmarks" line is a strong, specific claim — if you don't have a source screenshot or benchmark link ready to drop in the replies, it'll get fact-checked fast and could undercut the post. Worth having the receipts on hand.
0:20

INSANE. Qwen 3.8 27B is now running locally on an RTX 4060 with just 8GB VRAM. 64,000 token context window using Unsloth's new IQ4_XS quant, only 14.6GB on disk. Prefill hits 150 tokens/sec, decode at 5 tokens/sec via native MTP. Just 25 GPU layers offloaded to stay inside 8GB - zero spillover. Quantized KV cache crushes the memory footprint. A model that beats Claude Opus 4.6 on several benchmarks. Running on a $300 GPU. Let that sink in. One flag before you post: that "beats Claude Opus 4.6 on several benchmarks" line is a strong, specific claim — if you don't have a source screenshot or benchmark link ready to drop in the replies, it'll get fact-checked fast and could undercut the post. Worth having the receipts on hand.

CyrilXBT

49,494 Aufrufe • vor 12 Tagen

first impressions of qwen 3.5 27B dense on a single RTX 3090. 35 tok/s. from 4K all the way to 300K+ context. no speed drop. hermes 4.3 started at 35 and degraded to 15 as context filled. qwen dense holds. MoE held 112 flat. 3x faster but only 3B of 35B active per token. architecture tradeoff. Q4_K_M on 16.7GB. native context 262K. pushed past training limit to 376K before VRAM ceiling on 24GB. tried q8 KV cache at 262K, speed collapsed to 11 tok/s. q4_0 KV is the sweet spot. flash attention mandatory. built in reasoning mode. the model thinks step by step before it answers. full chain of thought surviving Q4 quant. 1,799+ token thinking chains with self correction loops. on a single consumer GPU. gave it one prompt: "build a realtime particle galaxy simulation in one HTML file." 3,340 tokens. 95 seconds. one shot. ran on first load. full reasoning and coding in the video below. optimal config if you want to skip the hours of testing: llama-server -ngl 99 -c 262144 -fa on --cache-type-k q4_0 --cache-type-v q4_0 this is just the warmup. octopus invaders is next: 10 files, 3,400+ lines, zero steering. the prompt hermes quit at 22%. already more impressed than expected. full results coming soon.
2:02

first impressions of qwen 3.5 27B dense on a single RTX 3090. 35 tok/s. from 4K all the way to 300K+ context. no speed drop. hermes 4.3 started at 35 and degraded to 15 as context filled. qwen dense holds. MoE held 112 flat. 3x faster but only 3B of 35B active per token. architecture tradeoff. Q4_K_M on 16.7GB. native context 262K. pushed past training limit to 376K before VRAM ceiling on 24GB. tried q8 KV cache at 262K, speed collapsed to 11 tok/s. q4_0 KV is the sweet spot. flash attention mandatory. built in reasoning mode. the model thinks step by step before it answers. full chain of thought surviving Q4 quant. 1,799+ token thinking chains with self correction loops. on a single consumer GPU. gave it one prompt: "build a realtime particle galaxy simulation in one HTML file." 3,340 tokens. 95 seconds. one shot. ran on first load. full reasoning and coding in the video below. optimal config if you want to skip the hours of testing: llama-server -ngl 99 -c 262144 -fa on --cache-type-k q4_0 --cache-type-v q4_0 this is just the warmup. octopus invaders is next: 10 files, 3,400+ lines, zero steering. the prompt hermes quit at 22%. already more impressed than expected. full results coming soon.

Sudo su

122,051 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Leopold explains his approach to not blowing up (2024) "Obviously, not blowing up is task number one and two or whatever. I think this investment firm is going to just be betting on AGI and superintelligence before the decade is out, making the bets you would make if you took that seriously." "I think if that's wrong, the firm is not going to do that well." "The thing you have to be able to resist is, you know, one or a couple or a few individual calls. It's like AI stagnates for a year because of the data wall, or you got the call wrong on when revenue would go up." "You have to get timing right. I do think in general that the sequence of bets on the way to AGI is actually pretty critical, and something people underrate."
0:42

Leopold explains his approach to not blowing up (2024) "Obviously, not blowing up is task number one and two or whatever. I think this investment firm is going to just be betting on AGI and superintelligence before the decade is out, making the bets you would make if you took that seriously." "I think if that's wrong, the firm is not going to do that well." "The thing you have to be able to resist is, you know, one or a couple or a few individual calls. It's like AI stagnates for a year because of the data wall, or you got the call wrong on when revenue would go up." "You have to get timing right. I do think in general that the sequence of bets on the way to AGI is actually pretty critical, and something people underrate."

dnap

2,331,558 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

When Mudith Jayasekara and I met Gabe Pereyra, we were expecting just another vanilla intro call and instead had the best yarn about research, the state of LLMs, and where intelligence is actually heading. It's rare to meet a founder this deep in the weeds who's also building for one of the most important verticals in this new age of intelligence So it was awesome to sit down with Gabe for an extended discussion on what it take to build agents that can reliably complete work over hours, days, or even longer? We talked about why agents today struggle with search and long context windows and how techniques like KV-cache compaction, synthetic data, and continual learning could help. 0:00 Introduction 0:36 Getting legal agents to review the whole data room 2:08 Data rooms larger than any context window 5:28 How far open-source models can go 7:58 Where specialist models fit in legal AI 10:59 Training legal models when client data is off-limits 13:06 Teaching a model how a law firm works 13:59 What belongs in context vs. model weights 15:36 From firm-wide AI to a model for every lawyer 18:37 What training adds beyond retrieving the right cases 20:26 Why context windows have plateaued 24:01 How models could learn continuously on the job 26:12 Can AI recursively improve AI research? 27:07 Research agents can run experiments but not choose them 30:00 Why open-ended research is hard to train 33:47 Why deployment, not intelligence, is the bottleneck 35:08 The cost of frontier intelligence 36:59 Different neolabs, different paths to intelligence 39:26 Using open datasets to compare research methods 41:13 Conclusion
41:50

When Mudith Jayasekara and I met Gabe Pereyra, we were expecting just another vanilla intro call and instead had the best yarn about research, the state of LLMs, and where intelligence is actually heading. It's rare to meet a founder this deep in the weeds who's also building for one of the most important verticals in this new age of intelligence So it was awesome to sit down with Gabe for an extended discussion on what it take to build agents that can reliably complete work over hours, days, or even longer? We talked about why agents today struggle with search and long context windows and how techniques like KV-cache compaction, synthetic data, and continual learning could help. 0:00 Introduction 0:36 Getting legal agents to review the whole data room 2:08 Data rooms larger than any context window 5:28 How far open-source models can go 7:58 Where specialist models fit in legal AI 10:59 Training legal models when client data is off-limits 13:06 Teaching a model how a law firm works 13:59 What belongs in context vs. model weights 15:36 From firm-wide AI to a model for every lawyer 18:37 What training adds beyond retrieving the right cases 20:26 Why context windows have plateaued 24:01 How models could learn continuously on the job 26:12 Can AI recursively improve AI research? 27:07 Research agents can run experiments but not choose them 30:00 Why open-ended research is hard to train 33:47 Why deployment, not intelligence, is the bottleneck 35:08 The cost of frontier intelligence 36:59 Different neolabs, different paths to intelligence 39:26 Using open datasets to compare research methods 41:13 Conclusion

Charlie O'Neill

91,088 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A SETUP WHERE 6 FILES CUT TOKENS BY 84% AND RAISE ACCURACY BY 39% engineers at Google and Microsoft have been running this for a while - they pay $3 where you pay $20. decisions → contracts → dead ends → state → sources → open questions memory moves outside the window - what enters the context is a pointer to a file, not the history. raw history refills the window to 200k every single turn - six pointers take 8k and leave 96% free. same work, same five turns: 1,000,000 tokens against 40,000. decisions written to a file kill the endless "wait, why did we do it this way". written dead ends kill the second lap around the same circle - the agent never walks in there twice. a stable prefix keeps the cache warm - a cache read costs 0.1x of normal input. that's why 20 turns cost 3.15x instead of 20x - one write and nineteen reads. save this and paste it into Claude Code - and your agent stops paying for what it already knew ↓
0:51

ANTHROPIC LEAKED A SETUP WHERE 6 FILES CUT TOKENS BY 84% AND RAISE ACCURACY BY 39% engineers at Google and Microsoft have been running this for a while - they pay $3 where you pay $20. decisions → contracts → dead ends → state → sources → open questions memory moves outside the window - what enters the context is a pointer to a file, not the history. raw history refills the window to 200k every single turn - six pointers take 8k and leave 96% free. same work, same five turns: 1,000,000 tokens against 40,000. decisions written to a file kill the endless "wait, why did we do it this way". written dead ends kill the second lap around the same circle - the agent never walks in there twice. a stable prefix keeps the cache warm - a cache read costs 0.1x of normal input. that's why 20 turns cost 3.15x instead of 20x - one write and nineteen reads. save this and paste it into Claude Code - and your agent stops paying for what it already knew ↓

Noisy

137,563 Aufrufe • vor 20 Tagen

All the best coaching in the world at the youngest ages is rendered useless if a child hasn’t developed the ability to focus their attention. You can bring the best coach in the world to your child’s training session and if they don’t pay full attention absolutely nothing takes place. Similar to inside a classroom where you can bring the teacher of the year to your child’s classroom and if they don’t focus and pay attention, learning does not take place. So it’s not always the case of good or bad coaching it’s often the case a child’s lack of ability to learn by not focusing on what is being taught. This is especially true for the youngest ages. This video is an example of a 5yr old child focusing their attention, trying to control an object with their feet, the ball. This becomes a mental task, married together with the action of movement, making it a physical task as well. The brain loves to learn while moving. Combining, mind and body, thinking and feeling, this allows the cerebellum, the seat of the unconscious mind, to create a chemical signature of this experience, which is emotions. Emotions are the on off switch for learning. Couple in a parent being present, this becomes a shared experience together, where the child is constantly seeking the parents approval, attention, and praise which creates a chemical electrical process in the body which is emotions. This facilitates, deep learning, and long-term memory, all disguised as playtime. A parent just being present allows for this experience to take place. A child this young rarely starts playing or exercising with a ball without someone being present. Being present and sharing this experience together is key for the learning process to take place. These movements are being stored in the non-declared memory which makes this implicit learning when you do something so many times it becomes natural and outside your conscious awareness. Like riding a bicycle or driving a car.
0:45

All the best coaching in the world at the youngest ages is rendered useless if a child hasn’t developed the ability to focus their attention. You can bring the best coach in the world to your child’s training session and if they don’t pay full attention absolutely nothing takes place. Similar to inside a classroom where you can bring the teacher of the year to your child’s classroom and if they don’t focus and pay attention, learning does not take place. So it’s not always the case of good or bad coaching it’s often the case a child’s lack of ability to learn by not focusing on what is being taught. This is especially true for the youngest ages. This video is an example of a 5yr old child focusing their attention, trying to control an object with their feet, the ball. This becomes a mental task, married together with the action of movement, making it a physical task as well. The brain loves to learn while moving. Combining, mind and body, thinking and feeling, this allows the cerebellum, the seat of the unconscious mind, to create a chemical signature of this experience, which is emotions. Emotions are the on off switch for learning. Couple in a parent being present, this becomes a shared experience together, where the child is constantly seeking the parents approval, attention, and praise which creates a chemical electrical process in the body which is emotions. This facilitates, deep learning, and long-term memory, all disguised as playtime. A parent just being present allows for this experience to take place. A child this young rarely starts playing or exercising with a ball without someone being present. Being present and sharing this experience together is key for the learning process to take place. These movements are being stored in the non-declared memory which makes this implicit learning when you do something so many times it becomes natural and outside your conscious awareness. Like riding a bicycle or driving a car.

Tom Byerトム•バイヤー

26,691 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Introducing Compound Skills 🪄 You can now train the AI analyst in your way of working, just like you would a human. Ask Compound to create a Skill for any task (e.g. DCFs, waterfall modeling). Compound remembers your preferences and will apply it the next time it works on a similar task. You can also ask Compound to update skills, if you’ve provided more feedback during a task, or simply if you want to iterate on a skill. With Skills, Compound has become more powerful than ever - continually learning and adapting to your preferences. Try it now today at P.S For new users, get a one-time signup bonus of 40K free credits. You can also refer a friend (check settings for a link), and you’ll both get 10K free credits.
0:42

Introducing Compound Skills 🪄 You can now train the AI analyst in your way of working, just like you would a human. Ask Compound to create a Skill for any task (e.g. DCFs, waterfall modeling). Compound remembers your preferences and will apply it the next time it works on a similar task. You can also ask Compound to update skills, if you’ve provided more feedback during a task, or simply if you want to iterate on a skill. With Skills, Compound has become more powerful than ever - continually learning and adapting to your preferences. Try it now today at P.S For new users, get a one-time signup bonus of 40K free credits. You can also refer a friend (check settings for a link), and you’ll both get 10K free credits.

Compound AI

16,746 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten