LoRA VS text-generation-webui

This seems to be an order of magnitude better than LoRa (https://lora-alliance.org/ not https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685). LoRa doesn't have all the features this one does like OFDM, TDM, FDM, and HARQ. I didn't know there's spectrum dedicated for DECT use.

So to solve this, we tried researching into some optimization techniques and we found LoRA, Which stands for Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models.

> Anyone have any ideas / knowledge on how they deploy little incremental fixes to exploited jailbreaks, etc?

LoRa[1] would be my guess.

For detailed explanation I recommend the paper. But the short explanation is that it is a trick which lets you train a smaller, lower dimensional model which when you add to the original model it gets you the result you want.

1: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685

LoRA was initially developed for large language models, https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685 (2021). It was later that people discovered that it worked REALLY well for diffusion models.

Curious if we'll see a Civitai-style LoRA[1] marketplace for text-to-speech models.

1 = https://github.com/microsoft/LoRA

From https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685:

> LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models

> An important paradigm of natural language processing consists of large-scale pre-training on general domain data and adaptation to particular tasks or domains. As we pre-train larger models, full fine-tuning, which retrains all model parameters, becomes less feasible. Using GPT-3 175B as an example -- deploying independent instances of fine-tuned models, each with 175B parameters, is prohibitively expensive. We propose Low-Rank Adaptation, or LoRA, which freezes the pre-trained model weights and injects trainable rank decomposition matrices into each layer of the Transformer architecture, greatly reducing the number of trainable parameters for downstream tasks. Compared to GPT-3 175B fine-tuned with Adam, LoRA can reduce the number of trainable parameters by 10,000 times and the GPU memory requirement by 3 times. LoRA performs on-par or better than fine-tuning in model quality on RoBERTa, DeBERTa, GPT-2, and GPT-3, despite having fewer trainable parameters, a higher training throughput, and, unlike adapters, no additional inference latency.

Yes, your understanding is correct. However, instead of adding a head on top of the network, most fine-tuning is currently done with LoRA (https://github.com/microsoft/LoRA). This introduces low-rank matrices between different layers of your models, those are then trained using your training data while the rest of the models' weights are frozen.

Somewhat yes. See "LoRA": https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685

They're not composable in the sense that you can take these adaptation layers and arbitrarily combine them, but training different models while sharing a common base of weights is a solved problem.

With all the naive AI zealotry on HN can you really fault me?

They're referring to this:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685

It's possible to fine-tune all parameters (called "full fine-tune"), but recently PEFT methods became popular. PEFT stands for Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning. There are several methods available, the most popular so far is LoRA (2106.09685) that can train less than 1% of the original weights. LoRA has one important parameter -- tensor size, called lora_r. It defines how much information LoRA can add to the network. If your codebase is small, the fine-tuning process will see the same data over and over again, many times in a loop. We found that for a smaller codebase small LoRA tensors work best because it won't overfit as much -- the tensors just don't have the capacity to fit the limited training set exactly. As the codebase gets bigger, tensors should become bigger as well. We also unfreeze token embeddings at a certain codebase size. To pick all the parameters automatically, we have developed a heuristic that calculates a score based on the source files it sees. This score is then used to determine the appropriate LoRA size, number of finetuning steps, and other parameters. We have tested this heuristic on several beta test clients, small codebases of several files, and large codebases like the Linux kernel (consisting of about 50,000 useful source files). If the heuristic doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can set all the parameters yourself.

Some of the tools offer a path to doing tool use (fetching URLs and doing things with them) or RAG (searching your documents). I think Oobabooga https://github.com/oobabooga/text-generation-webui offers the latter through plugins.

Our tool, https://github.com/transformerlab/transformerlab-app also supports the latter (document search) using local llms.

You can use webui https://github.com/oobabooga/text-generation-webui

Once you get a version up and running I make a copy before I update it as several times updates have broken my working version and caused headaches.

a decent explanation of parameters outside of reading archive papers: https://github.com/oobabooga/text-generation-webui/wiki/03-%...

a news ai website:

The other answers are recommending paths which give you #1. less control and #2. projects with smaller eco-systems.

If you want a truly general purpose front-end for LLMs, the only good solution right now is oobabooga: https://github.com/oobabooga/text-generation-webui

All other alternatives have only small fractions of the features that oobabooga supports. All other alternatives only support a fraction of the LLM backends that oobabooga supports, etc.

The example waifu in text-generation-webui is good enough for me.

https://github.com/oobabooga/text-generation-webui/blob/main...

> Downloading text-generation-webui takes a minute, let's you use any model and get going.

What you're missing here is you're already in this area deep enough to know what ooogoababagababa text-generation-webui is. Let's back out to the "average Windows desktop user" level. Assuming they even know how to find it:

1) Go to https://github.com/oobabooga/text-generation-webui?tab=readm...

2) See a bunch of instructions opening a terminal window and running random batch/powershell scripts. Powershell, etc will likely prompt you with a scary warning. Then you start wondering who ooobabagagagaba is...

3) Assuming you get this far (many users won't even get to step 1) you're greeted with a web interface[0] FILLED to the brim with technical jargon and extremely overwhelming options just to get a model loaded, which is another mind warp because you get to try to select between a bunch of random models with no clear meaning and non-sensical/joke sounding names from someone called "TheBloke". Ok...

Let's say you somehow braved this gauntlet and get this far now you get to chat with it. Ok, what about my local documents? text-generation-webui itself has nothing for that. Repeat this process over the 10 random open source projects from a bunch of names you've never heard of in an attempt to accomplish that.

This is "I saw this thing from Nvidia explode all over media, twitter, youtube, etc. I downloaded it from Nvidia, double-clicked, pointed it at a folder with documents, and it works".

That's the difference and it's very significant.

[0] - https://raw.githubusercontent.com/oobabooga/screenshots/main...

Maybe a copout answer, but setting up a local LLM on my development machine has been invaluable. I use Deep Seek Coder 6.7 [0] and Oobabooga's UI [1]. It helps me solve simple problems and find bugs, while still leaving the larger architecture decisions to me.

[0] https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai/deepseek-coder-6.7b-instr...

[1] https://github.com/oobabooga/text-generation-webui

You can download it and run it with [this](https://github.com/oobabooga/text-generation-webui). There's an API mode that you could leverage from your VS Code extension.

Same question here. Ollama is fantastic as it makes it very easy to run models locally, But if you already have a lot of code that processes OpenAI API responses (with retry, streaming, async, caching etc), it would be nice to be able to simply switch the API client to Ollama, without having to have a whole other branch of code that handles Alama API responses. One way to do an easy switch is using the litellm library as a go-between but it’s not ideal (and I also recently found issues with their chat formatting for mistral models).

For an OpenAI compatible API my current favorite method is to spin up models using oobabooga TGW. Your OpenAI API code then works seamlessly by simply switching out the api_base to the ooba endpoint. Regarding chat formatting, even ooba’s Mistral formatting has issues[1] so I am doing my own in Langroid using HuggingFace tokenizer.apply_chat_template [2]

[1] https://github.com/oobabooga/text-generation-webui/issues/53...

[2] https://github.com/langroid/langroid/blob/main/langroid/lang...

Related question - I assume ollama auto detects and applies the right chat formatting template for a model?