ArrayFire VS Pytorch

Loads of people have stated why easy GPU interfaces are difficult to create, but we solve many difficult things all the time.

Ultimately I think CPUs are just satisfactory for the vast vast majority of workloads. Servers rarely come with any GPUs to speak of. The ecosystem around GPUs is unattractive. CPUs have SIMD instructions that can help. There are so many reasons not to use GPUs. By the time anyone seriously considers using GPUs they're, in my imagination, typically seriously starved for performance, and looking to control as much of the execution details as possible. GPU programmers don't want an automagic solution.

So I think the demand for easy GPU interfaces is just very weak, and therefore no effort has taken off. The amount of work needed to make it as easy to use as CPUs is massive, and the only reason anyone would even attempt to take this on is to lock you in to expensive hardware (see CUDA).

For a practical suggestion, have you taken a look at https://arrayfire.com/ ? It can run on both CUDA and OpenCL, and it has C++, Rust and Python bindings.

What about Arrayfire. https://github.com/arrayfire/arrayfire

Low-overhead — not our goal, but Flashlight is on par with or outperforming most other ML/DL frameworks with its ArrayFire reference tensor implementation, especially on nonstandard setups where framework overhead matters

Looking for frameworks with Julia + OpenCL I found array fire. It seems quite good, bonus points for rust bindings. I will keep looking for more, Julia completely fell off my radar.

Your Problem may be the lazy evaluation, see this issue: https://github.com/arrayfire/arrayfire/issues/1709

TensorFlow, developed by Google, and PyTorch, developed by Facebook, are two of the most popular frameworks for building and training complex machine learning models. TensorFlow is known for its flexibility and robust scalability, making it suitable for both research prototypes and production deployments. PyTorch is praised for its ease of use, simplicity, and dynamic computational graph that allows for more intuitive coding of complex AI models. Both frameworks support a wide range of AI models, from simple linear regression to complex deep neural networks.

> does PyTorch have a similar concept

of course https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/blob/main/torch/utils/_py...

fyi should work on most 40xx[1]

[1] https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/issues/119638#issuecommen...

Sure, right here: https://github.com/pytorch/pytorch/blob/main/torch/autograd/...

Here's the documentation: https://pytorch.org/tutorials/intermediate/forward_ad_usage....

> When an input, which we call “primal”, is associated with a “direction” tensor, which we call “tangent”, the resultant new tensor object is called a “dual tensor” for its connection to dual numbers[0].

*My post explains Dot, Matrix and Element-wise multiplication in PyTorch.

In PyTorch with @, dot() or matmul():

import torch # we use PyTorch: https://pytorch.org data = torch.tensor(encode(text), dtype=torch.long) print(data.shape, data.dtype) print(data[:1000]) # the 1000 characters we looked at earlier will to the GPT look like this

AI's Open Embrace Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are increasingly leveraging open-source frameworks like TensorFlow [https://www.tensorflow.org/] and PyTorch [https://pytorch.org/]. This democratization of AI tools is driving innovation and lowering entry barriers across industries.

Which label applies to a tool sometimes depends on what you do with it. For example, PyTorch or TensorFlow can be called a library, a toolkit, or a machine-learning framework.

In PyTorch with * or mul(). ` or mul()` can multiply 0D or more D tensors by element-wise multiplication: