can-ai-code VS llama.cpp

You can run a Q4 quant of a 70B model in about 40GB of RAM (+context). You're single user (batch size 1, bs=1) inference speed will be basically memory bottlenecked, so on a dual channel dedicated box you'd expect somewhere about 1 token/s. That's inference, prefill/prompt generation will take even longer (as your chat history grows) on CPU. So falls into the realm of technically possible, but not for real world use.

If you're looking specifically for CodeLlama 70B, Artificial Analysis https://artificialanalysis.ai/models/codellama-instruct-70b/... lists Perplexity, Together.ai, Deep Infra, and Fireworks as potential hosts, with Together.ai and Deepinfra at about $0.9/1M tokens, with about 30 tokens/s and about 300ms latency (time to first token).

For those looking for local coding models in specifically. I keep a list of LLM coding evals here: https://llm-tracker.info/evals/Code-Evaluation

On the EvalPlus Leaderboard, there about about 10 open models that rank higher than CodeLlama 70B, all smaller models: https://evalplus.github.io/leaderboard.html

A few other evals (worth cross-referencing to counter contamination, overfitting):

* CRUXEval Leaderboard https://crux-eval.github.io/leaderboard.html

* CanAiCode Leaderboard https://huggingface.co/spaces/mike-ravkine/can-ai-code-resul...

* Big Code Models Leaderboard https://huggingface.co/spaces/bigcode/bigcode-models-leaderb...

From the various leaderboards, deepseek-ai/deepseek-coder-33b-instruct still looks like the best performing open model (it has a very liberal ethical license), followed by ise-uiuc/Magicoder-S-DS-6.7B (a deepseek-coder-6.7b-base fine tune). The former can be run as a Q4 quant on a single 24GB GPU (a used 3090 should run you about $700 atm), and the latter, if it works for you will run 4X faster and fit on even cheaper/weaker GPUs.

There's always recent developments, but two worth pointing out:

OpenCodeInterpreter - a new system that uses execution feedback and outperforms ChatGPT4 Code Interpreter that is fine-tuned off of the DeepSeek code models: https://opencodeinterpreter.github.io/

StarCoder2-15B just dropped and also looks competitive. Announcement and relevant links: https://huggingface.co/blog/starcoder2

This is a completely fair, but open question. Not to be a typical HN user, but when you say SOTA local, the question is really what benchmarks do you really care about in order to evaluate. Size, operability, complexity, explainability etc.

Working out what copilot models perform best has been a deep exercise for myself and has really made me evaluate my own coding style on what I find important and things I look out for when investigating models and evaluating interview candidates.

I think three benchmarks & leaderboards most go to are:

https://huggingface.co/spaces/bigcode/bigcode-models-leaderb... - which is the most understood, broad language capability leaderboad that relies on well understood evaluations and benchmarks.

https://huggingface.co/spaces/mike-ravkine/can-ai-code-resul... - Also comprehensive, but primarily assesses Python and JavaScript.

https://evalplus.github.io/leaderboard.html - which I think is a better take on comparing models you intend to run locally as you can evaluate performance, operability and size in one visualisation.

Best of luck and I would love to know which models & benchmarks you choose and why.

Here is a leader board of some models

https://huggingface.co/spaces/mike-ravkine/can-ai-code-resul...

Don't know how biased this leaderboard is, but I guess you could just give some of them a try and see for yourself.

- Can AI Code? - https://huggingface.co/spaces/mike-ravkine/can-ai-code-results

Check out https://github.com/the-crypt-keeper/can-ai-code for some ideas. I'd love to see more shootouts like this. Especially if they were spread out among a few different languages.

Very cool, this looks like a combination of chatbot-ui and llama-cpp-python? A similar project I've been using is https://github.com/serge-chat/serge. Nous-Hermes-Llama2-13b is my daily driver and scores high on coding evaluations (https://huggingface.co/spaces/mike-ravkine/can-ai-code-resul...).

I have several sets of quant comparisons posted on my HF spaces, the caveat is my prompts are all "English to code": https://huggingface.co/spaces/mike-ravkine/can-ai-code-compa...

The dropdown at the top selects which comparison: Falcon compares GGML, Vicuna compares bits and bytes. I have some more comparisons planned, feel free to open an issue if you'd like to see something specific: https://github.com/the-crypt-keeper/can-ai-code

Yeah it seemed suspiciously high for HumanEval and it only ranks 14th for JS and 7th for Python on other benchmarks now: https://huggingface.co/spaces/mike-ravkine/can-ai-code-resul...

WizardCoder is a bit of a problem since it's not llama 1/2 based but is its own 15B model and as such the support for it in anything practical is near nonexistent. WizardLM v1.2 looks like it may be worth checking out.

There are at least 4 different types of quants floating around HF (bitsandbytes, GGML, GPTQ and AWQ) so I dont know if a "GGML" column makes sense vs a more abstract way of linking quants to their base models. I am doing this and its fucking awful: https://github.com/the-crypt-keeper/can-ai-code/blob/main/models/models.yaml

Ah I meant this one but I see now it's WIP.

Sorry it's taking so long to review and for the radio silence on the PR.

We have been trying to figure out how to support more structured output formats without some of the side effects of grammars. With JSON mode (which uses grammars under the hood) there were originally quite a few issue reports namely around lower performance and cases where the model would infinitely generate whitespace causing requests to hang. This is an issue with OpenAI's JSON mode as well which requires the caller to "instruct the model to produce JSON" [1]. While it's possible to handle edge cases for a single grammar such as JSON (i.e. check for 'JSON' in the prompt), it's hard to generalize this to any format.

Supporting more structured output formats is definitely important. Fine-tuning for output formats is promising, and this thread [2] also has some great ideas and links.

[1] https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/text-generation/json...

[2] https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp/issues/4218

> Doing everything on-device would result in a horrible user experience. They might as well not participate in this generative AI rush at all if they hoped to keep it on-device.

On the contrary, I'm shocked over the last few months how "on device" on a Macbook Pro or Mac Studio competes plausibly with last year's early GPT-4, leveraging Llama 3 70b or Qwen2 72b.

There are surprisingly few things you "need" 128GB of so-called "unified RAM" for, but with M-series processors and the memory bandwidth, this is a use case that shines.

From this thread covering performance of llama.cpp on Apple Silicon M-series …

https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp/discussions/4167

… "Buy as much memory as you can afford would be my bottom line!"

I'd love to use local models, but seems like most of the easy to use software out there (LM Studio, Backyard AI, koboldcpp) doesn't really play all that nicely with my Intel Arc GPU and it's painfully slow on my Ryzen 5 4500. Even my M1 MacBook isn't that fast at generating text with even 7B models.

I wonder if llama.cpp with SYCL could help, will have to try it out: https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp/blob/master/README-sy...

But even if that worked, I'd still have the problem that IDEs and whatever else I have open already eats most of the 32 GB of RAM my desktop PC has. Whereas if I ran a small code model on the MacBook and connected to it through my PC, it'd still probably be too slow for autocomplete, when compared to GitHub Copilot and less accurate than ChatGPT or Phind for most stuff.

You're correct if you're focused exclusively on the work surrounding building foundation models to begin with. But if you take a broader view, having open models that we can legally fine tune and hack with locally has created a large and ever-growing community of builders and innovators that could not exist without these open models. Just take a look at projects like InvokeAI [0] in the image space or especially llama.cpp [1] in the text generation space. These projects are large, have lots of contributors, move very fast, and drive a lot of innovation and collaboration in applying AI to various domains in a way that simply wouldn't be possible without the open models.

[0] https://github.com/invoke-ai/InvokeAI

[1] https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp

The first example will build an Embeddings database backed by llama.cpp vectorization.

and at some point (https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp/issues/7444)

git clone https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp.git cd llama.cpp LLAMA_CUDA=1 make -j

I focused on supporting Ollama, GPT4All, and LMStudio, all of which run smoothly on a Mac computer. Many of these tools are user-friendly wrappers around Llama.cpp, allowing easy model downloads and providing a REST interface to query the available models. Last week, I also added "👋🏼 Jan" support because HuggingFace has endorsed this provider out-of-the-box.

The output of the LLM is not just one token, but a statistical distribution across all possible output tokens. The tool you use to generate output will sample from this distribution with various techniques, and you can put constraints on it like not being too repetitive. Some of them support getting very specific about the allowed output format, e.g. https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp/blob/master/grammars/... So even if the LLM says that an invalid token is the most likely next token, the tool will never select it for output. It will only sample from valid tokens.