Interesting exchange on the use of AI coding tools:
curious how much did you write the code by hand of it?
Karpathy: Good question, it's basically entirely hand-written (with tab autocomplete). I tried to use claude/codex agents a few times but they just didn't work well enough at all and net unhelpful, possibly the repo is too far off the data distribution.
Muon was invented by Keller Jordan (and then optimized by others) for the sake of this speedrunning competition. Even though it was invented less than a year ago, it has already been widely adopted as SOTA for model training
This is the common belief but not quite correct! The Muon update was proposed by Bernstein as the result of a theoretical paper suggesting concrete realizations of the theory, and Keller implemented it and added practical things to get it to work well (input/output AdamW, aggressive coefficients, post-Nesterov, etc).
Both share equal credit I feel (also, his co-authors!), both put in a lot of hard work for it, though I tend to bring up Bernstein since he tends to be pretty quiet about it himself.
(Source: am experienced speedrunner who's been in these circles for a decent amount of time)
>Our main measure of progress. Bits per byte is, per Karpathy, "a much better measure than just the typical cross-entropy loss, because it further normalizes the loss on each token by the number of bytes of that token, making the metric tokenizer-invariant".
Is so blindingly obvious, that I'm ashamed to think that I didn't think do it when trialing my own tokenizer approach on tinystories. I might go back and have a look at how well my tokenizer compared to how well I imagined it compared.
Cool. Is there a simple "howto" on running this repo with training on W&B for a programmer like me who has never done model training flows? Maybe you could share the steps you took?
There's not much to it... it took longer to spin up the cloud machine than it did to kick off the training run. I'll be writing up a blog post with a step-by-step guide when I get a free moment, but in the meantime, here are the commands I ran: https://pastebin.com/sdKVy0NR
Nice! His Shakespeare generator was one of the first projects I tried after ollama. The goal was to understand what LLMs were about.
I have been on an LLM binge this last week or so trying to build a from-scratch training and inference system with two back ends:
- CPU (backed by JAX)
- GPU (backed by wgpu-py). This is critical for me as I am unwilling to deal with the nonsense that is rocm/pytorch. Vulkan works for me. That is what I use with llama-cpp.
I got both back ends working last week, but the GPU back end was buggy. So the week has been about fixing bugs, refactoring the WGSL code, making things more efficient.
I am using LLMs extensively in this process and they have been a revelation. Use a nice refactoring prompt and they are able to fix things one by one resulting in something fully functional and type-checked by astral ty.
This weekend I just cracked into nanoGPT (https://github.com/karpathy/nanoGPT), an older but fabulous learning exercise where you build and train a crappy shakespeare GPT with ~0.8M parameters on a cpu. Results are about what you'd expect from that, they suck, but you can start to feel the magic, especially if you're not a deep learning professional and you just want to poke around and hack on it.
I started writing up a blog post on my weekend with nanoGPT but it's not done yet... Would have been great to link to here lol oh well
So could I in practice train it on all my psychology books, materials, reports, case study and research papers and then run it on demand on a 1xH100 node - https://getdeploying.com/reference/cloud-gpu/nvidia-h100 whenever I have a specialised question?
You could do that indeed, but the performance would be abysmal. For this kind of use-case, it would be a LOT better to use a small pre-trained model and either fine-tune it on your materials, or use some kind of RAG workflow (possibly both).
> it would be a LOT better to use a small pre-trained model and either fine-tune it on your materials, or use some kind of RAG workflow (possibly both).
I noticed NewRelic has a chat feature that does this sort of thing, it's scoped very narrowly down to their website and analytics DSL language, and generates charts/data from their db. I've always wondered how they did that (specifically in terms of set up the training/RAG + guardrails). It's super useful.
You might be able to figure that out just by asking it - see if you can get it to spit out a copy of the system prompt or tell you what tools it has access to.
The most likely way of building that would be to equip it with a "search_docs" tool that lets it look up relevant information for your query. No need to train an extra model at all if you do that.
Yes, though it's possible a more-general core model, further enhanced with some other ways to bring those texts-of-interest into the working context, might perform better.
Those other ways to integrate the texts might be some form of RAG or other ideas like Apple's recent 'hierarchical memories' (https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.02375).
You could but it would be significantly worse than fine-tuning or RAG with a pre-trained model, or using a smaller model since your dataset would be so small.
I've always thought about the best way to contribute to humanity: number of people you help x how much you help them. I think what Karpathy is doing is one of the highest leverage ways to achieve that.
Our current world is build on top of open source projects. This is possible because there are a lot of free resources to learn to code so anyone from anywhere in the world can learn and make a great piece of software.
I just hope the same will happen with the AI/LLM wave.
This free tradition in software is I think one of the things that I love so much, but I don't see how it can continue with LLMs due to the extremely high training costs and the powerful hardware required for inference. It just seems like writing software will necessarily require paying rent to the LLM hosts to keep up. I guess it's possible that we'll figure out a way to do local inference in a way that is accessible to everyone in the way that most other modern software tools are, but the high training costs make that seem unlikely to me.
I also worry that as we rely on LLMs more and more, we will stop producing the kind of tutorials and other content aimed at beginners that makes it so easy to pick up programming the manual way.
There's a Stephen Boyd quote that's something like "if your optimization problem is too computationally expensive, just go on vacation to Greece for a few weeks and by the time you get back, computers might be fast enough to solve it." With LLMs there's sort of an equivalent situation with cost: how mindblowing would it be able to train this kind of LLM at all even just 4 years ago? And today you can get a kindergartener level chat model for about $100. Not hard to imagine the same model costing $10 of compute in a few years.
There's also a reasonable way to "leapfrog" the training cost with a pre-trained model. So if you were doing nanochat as a learning exercise and had no money, the idea would be to code it up, run one or two very slow gradient descent iterations on your slow machine to make sure it is working, then download a pre-trained version from someone who could spare the compute.
> today you can get a kindergartener level chat model for about $100. Not hard to imagine the same model costing $10 of compute in a few years.
No, it's extremely hard to imagine since I used one of Karpathy's own models to have a basic chat bot like six years ago. Yes, it spoke nonsense; so did my GPT-2 fine tune four years ago and so does this.
And so does ChatGPT
Improvement is linear at best. I still think it's actually a log curve and GPT3 was the peak of the "fun" part of the curve. The only evidence I've seen otherwise is bullshit benchmarks, "agents" that increase performance 2x by increasing token usage 100x, and excited salesmen proclaiming the imminence of AGI
1. According to who? Open AI?
2. Its current state is "basically free and containing no ads". I don't think this will remain true given that, as far as I know, the product is very much not making money.
Yes, that number is according to OpenAI. They released that 800m number at DevDay last week.
The most recent leaked annualized revenue rate was $12bn/year. They're spending a lot more than that but convincing customers to hand over $12bn is still a very strong indicator of demand. https://www.theinformation.com/articles/openai-hits-12-billi...
This. It looks like one of the keys to maintaining open source is to ensure OSS developers have access to capable models. In the best of worlds, LLM vendors would recognize that open source software is the commons that feeds their models and ensure it flourishes.
(This is a bit ranty, but due to a sincere desire for a better world, and being the recipient of personal attacks for believing a better world is achievable by a different path to others)
I feel like this point of view is an ideal not shared by one of the main branches of anti-AI sentiment.
The idea of intellectual property works against this. Rather than contributing to humanity directly, ownership of information is accumulated by individuals and then rented to humanity.
At the same time I agree that people should be able to have a livelihood that affords them the ability to create new intellectual contributions.
The service Karpathy is providing is also being provided by thousands of YouTube creators in a huge variety of topics. It's a little sad that so many must support their efforts with support their efforts with sponsorships from sources with varying degrees of ethical behaviour. Patreon is better but still not ideal. I sincerely believe this _is_ one of the best ways to contribute to society.
A recent Daily Show had Jon Stewart describe training AI as strip mining human knowledge. Training AI is regularly described as theft as if this position is a given without any counter argument possible. It is opinion masquerading as fact. This saddens me because it suggests to me that the war to control the narrative is being won by people who want to entrench a hypercapitalistic vision of ownership where not only is a particular expression of an idea ownable but also stakes a claim to own some of any ideas that come from viewing that expression.
I cannot see any way that this viewpoint would aid humanity as a whole, but instead assign benefits to a collection of individuals. The ability to trade intellectual property means that ownership inevitably gets passed to a smaller and smaller pool of individuals over time.
I think we really do need a new way to consider these issues in light of the modern world. When mentioning these thoughts to others a common refrain is that it doesn't matter because the powers that be (and their lobbyists) will prevent any fix from happening. I have never been fond of that particular fatalism, especially when it inhibits discussion of what would be better.
I recommend his ANN/LLM from scratch videos to people a lot because not only is he a clear instructor, but his code tends to be very Pythonic and just the right balance of terse but readable (not counting the Pytorch vectorization stuff, but that's not his fault, it's just complex). So I think people benefit just from watching and imitating his code style.
While documenting a build path is nice, IMHO renting hardware nobody can afford from VC-backed cloud providers using cold hard cash to produce clones of legacy tech using toy datasets under the guise of education is propping up the AI bubble and primarily helping institutional shareholders in those AI bubble companies, particularly their hardware supplier NVidia. Personally I do not see this as helping people or humanity.
This would sit better with me if the repo included a first tier use case for local execution, non-NVidia hardware reference, etc.
"This would sit better with me if the repo included a first tier use case for local execution, non-NVidia hardware reference, etc."
This is a pretty disheartening way to respond to something like this. Someone puts a great deal of effort into giving something interesting away for free, and is told "you should have also done THIS work for free as well in order for me to value your contribution".
It is an objective and transparent response based on free software world norms. Feel free to interpret differently and to be disheartened. Hell, many of us are disheartened by the AI VC political theater we are seeing right now: experienced programmers, artists, lawyers, perhaps much of humanity. Let's stick to objective elements of the discussion, not emotional opine.
It is amusing to note the dichotomy between the clearly compassionate, empathetic and altruistic perspective displayed here and the comically overstated framing of helping humanity.
I think you got your proportions slightly wrong there. This will be contributing as much to an AI bubble as a kid tinkering around with combustion is contribution to global warming.
Not really. Anything that guy does sets the tone for an extended cacophony of fans and followers. It would be a sad day when nobody critically assesses the motivations, effects and framing of those moves. I question the claim this move helps humanity and stand by the assessment it's just more feeding an unfree ecosystem which equates to propping up the bubble.
Software is just a tool. Much like a hammer, a knife, or ammonium nitrate, it can be used for both good or bad.
I say this as someone who has spent almost 15 years writing software in my free time and publishing it as open source: building software and allowing anyone to use it does not automatically make other people's lives better.
A lot of my work has been used for bad purposes or what some people would consider bad purposes - cheating on tests, cheating in games, accessing personal information without permission, and in one case my work contributed to someone's doxxing. That's because as soon as you publish it, you lose control over it.
But at least with open source software, every person can use it to the same extent so if the majority of people are good, the result is likely to be more positive than negative.
With what is called AI today, only the largest corporations can afford to train the models which means they are controlled by people who have entirely different incentives from the general working population and many of whom have quite obvious antisocial personality traits.
At least 2 billion people live in dictatorships. AI has the potential to become a tool of mass surveillance and total oppression from which those countries will never recover because just like the models can detect a woman is pregnant before she knows it, it will detect a dissenter long before dissent turns into resistance.
I don't have high hopes for AI to be a force for good and teaching people how toy models work, as fun as it is, is not gonna change it.
"With what is called AI today, only the largest corporations can afford to train the models"
I take it you're very positive about Andrej's new project which allows anyone to train a model for a few hundred dollars which is comparable to the state-of-the-art from just 5 years ago then.
> At least 2 billion people live in dictatorships. AI has the potential to become a tool of mass surveillance and total oppression from which those countries will never recover because just like the models can detect a woman is pregnant before she knows it, it will detect a dissenter long before dissent turns into resistance.
It already works like this in your precious western democracies and they didn't need AI to be authoritarian total surveillance states in spirit, with quite a lot of support from a propagandized populace that begged for or pretended to agree with the infringement of their civil rights because of terrorism, drugs, covid or protecting the poor poor children.
You can combat tech with legislation and culture but the legislation and culture were way beyond the tech in being extremely authoritian in the first place.
Yeah it feels similar to inventing the nuke. Or it’s even more insidious because the harmful effects of the tech are not nearly as obvious or immediate as the good effects, so less restraint is applied. But also, similar to the nuke, once the knowledge on how to do it is out there, someone’s going to use it, which obligates everyone else to use it to keep up.
number of people you help x how much you help them x number of people you harm x how much you harm them
For example - harming a little bit all content creators of the world, by stealing their work without compensation or permission. How much does that cost globally every year after year? How do we even quantify long term consequences of that? Stuff like that.
Still under development, remaining work includes tuning nanochat (current state being solid v0.1) and finalizing the in-between projects so that students can "unlock" all complexity that hides underneath: `torch.Tensor`, `torch.dist`, `.backward()`, '.compile()`, etc. And then the more ops heavy aspects.
I would love to take an existing open-weight model and fine-tune it with specific training data along these lines. Can I do that with Qwen or GLM? Is there a ~simple recipe for doing that?
Curios to try it someday on a set of specialized documents. Though as I understand the cost of running this is whatever GPU you can rent with 80GB of VRAM. Which kind of leaves hobbyists and students out. Unless some cloud is donating gpu compute capacity.
A GPU with 80GB VRAM costs around $1-3 USD an hour on commodity clouds (i.e. the non-Big 3 bare metal providers e.g. https://getdeploying.com/reference/cloud-gpu/nvidia-h100). I think it's accessible to most middle class users in first world countries.
The 80 GB are for training with a batch size of 32 times 2048 tokens each. Since the model has only about 560M parameters, you could probably run it on CPU, if a bit slow.
It will work great with 40GB GPU, probably a bit less than twice slower. These are micro models of a few B param at most and fit easily during both training and inference.
I don't think so. Training on documents is not a great way of building a search engine for those for the information in those documents, because the training process mixes all of that information together in ways that detach the individual words from the source documents they came from.
As usual, if you want an LLM to be able to help search a corpus of text the best way to achieve that is to teach it how to use a search tool against that text.
>If your GPU(s) have less than 80GB, you'll have to tune some of the hyperparameters or you will OOM / run out of VRAM. Look for --device_batch_size in the scripts and reduce it until things fit. E.g. from 32 (default) to 16, 8, 4, 2, or even 1.
That sounds like it could run on a 24gb GPU. Batch size of 8 would imply 20gb mem, no?
Yes, you can always stream data when training or doing inference on models when vram is lacking but the slow down is extremely noticeable. This is the case for CPU code too and is why optimising for bandwidth is so critical in high-performance computing. Your ability to compute is almost always substantially larger than your bandwidth. An Avx512 capable CPU with a suitable amount of cores is easily capable of doing multiple terabytes of fp64 operations per second, but is typically limited by memory bandwidth, GPUs with LLMs have just broadened this knowledge to more people.
A fun consequence of the fact that CPUs got faster at a rate quicker than memory is look up tables of pre-computed values used to be common optimisations in code, but now it is almost always quicker to re-compute them than to retrieve a pre-computed value from memory for common use-cases.
That was the point. That example is meant to demonstrate that the model that trained for 4 hours can imitate a conversation but isn't actually anywhere close to being useful.
I believe you that you just meant this as an interesting example, and in that sense were engaged in curious conversation (generally what we want here). But the amount of provocation in the comment is so high, and the amount of information so little, that it ends up on the wrong side of "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). In other words: not gonna end well.
not a particularly ethical guy and I wouldn't hold him up as a example of morality but the guy hasn't actually been found guilty YET. Multiple courts have tried. You'd think that for a guy under as much scrutiny as him that they would have SOMETHING to pin him on by now.
Innocent until PROVEN guilty is a foundational legal precedent for a reason.
He is definitely guilty of being a waste of human life, a massive asshole and a general detriment to society worldwide.
Don’t need a court to prove that.
There are 6 criminal cases against him in several countries, let’s see how they pan out - but regardless he is not an innocent person.
not derailing, just pointing out effective ways of producing good which is what i was responding to. i think its good for people to be aware of this. those people are all examples of people who have influenced culture for bad. you can do it for good: bryan johnson, civil rights leaders, leftist streamers. andrew tate was just the most effective, recent, and obvious one which is why I pointed him out.
This is absolutely fantastic. I really can't wait for the final course to be live. It's in the "shut up and take my money" category. I had so much fun with the nanoGPT videos.
ah, this explains why these models have been useless to me this whole time. everything i do is just too far off the data distribution!
Nice synergy here, the lineage is: Karpathy's nano-GPT -> Keller Jordan's modded-nanoGPT (a speedrun of training nanoGPT) -> NanoChat
modded-nanoGPT [1] is a great project, well worth checking out, it's all about massively speeding up the training of a small GPT model.
Notably it uses the author's Muon optimizer [2], rather than AdamW, (for the linear layers).
[1] https://github.com/KellerJordan/modded-nanogpt
[2] https://kellerjordan.github.io/posts/muon/
Both share equal credit I feel (also, his co-authors!), both put in a lot of hard work for it, though I tend to bring up Bernstein since he tends to be pretty quiet about it himself.
(Source: am experienced speedrunner who's been in these circles for a decent amount of time)
- https://x.com/leloykun/status/1846842883967692926
- https://www.yacinemahdid.com/p/muon-optimizer-explained-to-a...
Is this what production frontier LLMs are running inference with, or do they consume even more VRAM/compute?
At ~$8/hr, assuming a request takes 5 seconds to fulfill, you can service roughly 700ish requests. About $0.01 per request.
Is my math wrong?
Will share the resulting model once ready (4 hours from now) for anyone to test inference.
>Our main measure of progress. Bits per byte is, per Karpathy, "a much better measure than just the typical cross-entropy loss, because it further normalizes the loss on each token by the number of bytes of that token, making the metric tokenizer-invariant".
Is so blindingly obvious, that I'm ashamed to think that I didn't think do it when trialing my own tokenizer approach on tinystories. I might go back and have a look at how well my tokenizer compared to how well I imagined it compared.
I have been on an LLM binge this last week or so trying to build a from-scratch training and inference system with two back ends:
- CPU (backed by JAX)
- GPU (backed by wgpu-py). This is critical for me as I am unwilling to deal with the nonsense that is rocm/pytorch. Vulkan works for me. That is what I use with llama-cpp.
I got both back ends working last week, but the GPU back end was buggy. So the week has been about fixing bugs, refactoring the WGSL code, making things more efficient.
I am using LLMs extensively in this process and they have been a revelation. Use a nice refactoring prompt and they are able to fix things one by one resulting in something fully functional and type-checked by astral ty.
My use case is different. I want something that I can run quickly on one GPU without worrying about whether it is supported or not.
I am interested in convenience, not in squeezing out the last bit of performance from a card.
I started writing up a blog post on my weekend with nanoGPT but it's not done yet... Would have been great to link to here lol oh well
And this new example goes even further - adds instruction following and tool use SFT, as well as RLVR. Makes for a more useful baseline.
oh man an Alec x Andrej podcast would BREAK THE INTERNET... just saying... going from glory days of GPT1 to now building GPT3? in 4 hours
What a prolific person Andrej is. It's been more than amazing to follow along!
I was really excited, too, until I looked through the readme files and the code.
I noticed NewRelic has a chat feature that does this sort of thing, it's scoped very narrowly down to their website and analytics DSL language, and generates charts/data from their db. I've always wondered how they did that (specifically in terms of set up the training/RAG + guardrails). It's super useful.
The most likely way of building that would be to equip it with a "search_docs" tool that lets it look up relevant information for your query. No need to train an extra model at all if you do that.
Those other ways to integrate the texts might be some form of RAG or other ideas like Apple's recent 'hierarchical memories' (https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.02375).
Our current world is build on top of open source projects. This is possible because there are a lot of free resources to learn to code so anyone from anywhere in the world can learn and make a great piece of software.
I just hope the same will happen with the AI/LLM wave.
I also worry that as we rely on LLMs more and more, we will stop producing the kind of tutorials and other content aimed at beginners that makes it so easy to pick up programming the manual way.
There's also a reasonable way to "leapfrog" the training cost with a pre-trained model. So if you were doing nanochat as a learning exercise and had no money, the idea would be to code it up, run one or two very slow gradient descent iterations on your slow machine to make sure it is working, then download a pre-trained version from someone who could spare the compute.
No, it's extremely hard to imagine since I used one of Karpathy's own models to have a basic chat bot like six years ago. Yes, it spoke nonsense; so did my GPT-2 fine tune four years ago and so does this.
And so does ChatGPT
Improvement is linear at best. I still think it's actually a log curve and GPT3 was the peak of the "fun" part of the curve. The only evidence I've seen otherwise is bullshit benchmarks, "agents" that increase performance 2x by increasing token usage 100x, and excited salesmen proclaiming the imminence of AGI
The most recent leaked annualized revenue rate was $12bn/year. They're spending a lot more than that but convincing customers to hand over $12bn is still a very strong indicator of demand. https://www.theinformation.com/articles/openai-hits-12-billi...
https://zero.sjeng.org/
https://katagotraining.org/
In the real world...
I feel like this point of view is an ideal not shared by one of the main branches of anti-AI sentiment.
The idea of intellectual property works against this. Rather than contributing to humanity directly, ownership of information is accumulated by individuals and then rented to humanity.
At the same time I agree that people should be able to have a livelihood that affords them the ability to create new intellectual contributions.
The service Karpathy is providing is also being provided by thousands of YouTube creators in a huge variety of topics. It's a little sad that so many must support their efforts with support their efforts with sponsorships from sources with varying degrees of ethical behaviour. Patreon is better but still not ideal. I sincerely believe this _is_ one of the best ways to contribute to society.
A recent Daily Show had Jon Stewart describe training AI as strip mining human knowledge. Training AI is regularly described as theft as if this position is a given without any counter argument possible. It is opinion masquerading as fact. This saddens me because it suggests to me that the war to control the narrative is being won by people who want to entrench a hypercapitalistic vision of ownership where not only is a particular expression of an idea ownable but also stakes a claim to own some of any ideas that come from viewing that expression.
I cannot see any way that this viewpoint would aid humanity as a whole, but instead assign benefits to a collection of individuals. The ability to trade intellectual property means that ownership inevitably gets passed to a smaller and smaller pool of individuals over time.
I think we really do need a new way to consider these issues in light of the modern world. When mentioning these thoughts to others a common refrain is that it doesn't matter because the powers that be (and their lobbyists) will prevent any fix from happening. I have never been fond of that particular fatalism, especially when it inhibits discussion of what would be better.
I'm all for abolishing IP if all AIs are owned communally. I.e. ideally they're utilities or flat out coops like some Spanish businesses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
Consum (supermarket).
Thru don't get to use everything communally and then capitalist their way forward.
This would sit better with me if the repo included a first tier use case for local execution, non-NVidia hardware reference, etc.
This is a pretty disheartening way to respond to something like this. Someone puts a great deal of effort into giving something interesting away for free, and is told "you should have also done THIS work for free as well in order for me to value your contribution".
Software is just a tool. Much like a hammer, a knife, or ammonium nitrate, it can be used for both good or bad.
I say this as someone who has spent almost 15 years writing software in my free time and publishing it as open source: building software and allowing anyone to use it does not automatically make other people's lives better.
A lot of my work has been used for bad purposes or what some people would consider bad purposes - cheating on tests, cheating in games, accessing personal information without permission, and in one case my work contributed to someone's doxxing. That's because as soon as you publish it, you lose control over it.
But at least with open source software, every person can use it to the same extent so if the majority of people are good, the result is likely to be more positive than negative.
With what is called AI today, only the largest corporations can afford to train the models which means they are controlled by people who have entirely different incentives from the general working population and many of whom have quite obvious antisocial personality traits.
At least 2 billion people live in dictatorships. AI has the potential to become a tool of mass surveillance and total oppression from which those countries will never recover because just like the models can detect a woman is pregnant before she knows it, it will detect a dissenter long before dissent turns into resistance.
I don't have high hopes for AI to be a force for good and teaching people how toy models work, as fun as it is, is not gonna change it.
I take it you're very positive about Andrej's new project which allows anyone to train a model for a few hundred dollars which is comparable to the state-of-the-art from just 5 years ago then.
It already works like this in your precious western democracies and they didn't need AI to be authoritarian total surveillance states in spirit, with quite a lot of support from a propagandized populace that begged for or pretended to agree with the infringement of their civil rights because of terrorism, drugs, covid or protecting the poor poor children.
You can combat tech with legislation and culture but the legislation and culture were way beyond the tech in being extremely authoritian in the first place.
number of people you help x how much you help them x number of people you harm x how much you harm them
For example - harming a little bit all content creators of the world, by stealing their work without compensation or permission. How much does that cost globally every year after year? How do we even quantify long term consequences of that? Stuff like that.
I guess it’s still a work in progress? Couldn’t find any other information elsewhere.
[0] https://x.com/karpathy/status/1977755427569111362
Curios to try it someday on a set of specialized documents. Though as I understand the cost of running this is whatever GPU you can rent with 80GB of VRAM. Which kind of leaves hobbyists and students out. Unless some cloud is donating gpu compute capacity.
This is a learning tool. If you want a local model you are almost certainly better using something trained on far more compute. (Deepseek, Qwen, etc)
The param count is small enough that even cheap (<$500) GPUs would work too.
As usual, if you want an LLM to be able to help search a corpus of text the best way to achieve that is to teach it how to use a search tool against that text.
Which is derived from HuggingFaceFW/fineweb-edu: https://huggingface.co/datasets/HuggingFaceFW/fineweb-edu
HuggingFaceTB/smol-smoltalk: https://huggingface.co/datasets/HuggingFaceTB/smol-smoltalk
And extra fine-tuning on portions of:
cais/mmlu: https://huggingface.co/datasets/cais/mmlu
openai/gsm8k: https://huggingface.co/datasets/openai/gsm8k
allenai/ai2_arc: https://huggingface.co/datasets/allenai/ai2_arc
That sounds like it could run on a 24gb GPU. Batch size of 8 would imply 20gb mem, no?
...presumably just takes forever
A fun consequence of the fact that CPUs got faster at a rate quicker than memory is look up tables of pre-computed values used to be common optimisations in code, but now it is almost always quicker to re-compute them than to retrieve a pre-computed value from memory for common use-cases.
>> Why is the sky blue? > The sky is blue due to an optical illusion called the Rayleigh Scattering
Rayleigh Scattering is not an illusion but an effect.
> […] particles are made up of tiny blue and violet particles that cause the light to bend in a particular way.
ugh. no, there are no "tiny blue" particles in the sky.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45569878.
Innocent until PROVEN guilty is a foundational legal precedent for a reason.
There are 6 criminal cases against him in several countries, let’s see how they pan out - but regardless he is not an innocent person.
Way to derail the conversation. Focus on the positive people and their legacy of time, sharing, positive energy and contributions to society