I’m impressed, if that’s true! In general, an LLM’s training cost vs. an LSTM, RNN, or some other more appropriate DNN algorithm suitable for the ruleset is laughably high.
I’m impressed, if that’s true! In general, an LLM’s training cost vs. an LSTM, RNN, or some other more appropriate DNN algorithm suitable for the ruleset is laughably high.
Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Oh yes, cost of training are ofc a great loss here, it’s not optimized at all, and it’s stuck at an average level.
Interestingly, i believe some people did research on it and found some parameters in the model that seemed to represent the state of the chess board (as in, they seem to reflect the current state of the board, and when artificially modified, the model takes modification into account in its playing). It was used by a french youtuber to show how LLMs can somehow have a kinda representation of the world. I can try to get the sources back if you’re interested.
NeilBru@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Absolutely interested. Thank you if you’re willing to share that.
My career path in neural networks began as a researcher for cancerous tissue object detection medical diagnostic imaging. Now it is switched to generative models for CAD (architecture, product design, game assets, etc.). I don’t really mess about with fine-tuning LLMs.
However, I do self-host my own LLMs as code assistants. Thus, I’m only tangentially involved with the current LLM craze.
Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Here is the main blog post that i remembered : it has a follow up, a more scientific version, and uses two other articles as a basis, so you might want to dig around what they mention in the introduction.
It is indeed a quite technical discovery, and it still lacks complete and wider analysis, but it is very interesting for the fact that it kinda invalidates the common gut feeling that llms are pure lucky random.