candle VS llama

Candle already exists[1], and it runs pretty well. Can use both CUDA and Metal backends (or just plain-old CPU).

[1] https://github.com/huggingface/candle

Check out Candle! It's a Deep Learning framework for Rust. You can run LLMs in binaries.

Kalosm is a meta-framework for AI written in Rust using candle. Kalosm supports local quantized large language models like Llama, Mistral, Phi-1.5, and Zephyr. It also supports other quantized models like Wuerstchen, Segment Anything, and Whisper. In addition to local models, Kalosm supports remote models like GPT-4 and ada embeddings.

I have been working on a machine learning library called candle-lora for Candle. It implementes a technique called LoRA (low rank adaptation), which allows you to reduce a model's trainable parameter count by wrapping and freezing old layers.

[2] https://github.com/huggingface/candle/issues/313

We provide full local inference in browser, by using libraries from Hugging Face like transformers.js or candle for WASM inference.

We've first announced Candle, a minimalist ML framework in Rust 6 weeks ago. Since then we've focused on adding various recent models and improved the framework so as to support the necessary features in an efficient way. You can checkout a gallery of the examples, supported models include:

How did you select those two as your options?

I'm just a hobbyist that enjoys programming, and I eventually wanted to expand beyond python. I looked at Haskell and read Learn You a Haskell and did some Exercism exercises but never got anywhere close to being able to use it for real projects. Have been trying to learn about Lisp lately and feel like I've come to a similar dead end.

On the other hand, both Go and Rust have felt fulfilling and practical, with static typing and solid tooling, cross compilations, static binaries, and dependency management that is just a huge breath of fresh air coming from python.

The ML / data science scene is nowhere near as developed as in Python, and I still lean on jupyter/polars/PyTorch here, but I think the candle project[0] seems very interesting. Compiling whisper down to a single CUDA-leveraging binary for fast local transcription is pretty cool!

[0]: https://github.com/huggingface/candle

derivative works thereof).”

https://github.com/meta-llama/llama/blob/b8348da38fde8644ef0...

Also even if you did use Llama for something, they could unilaterally pull the rug on you when you got 700 million years, AND anyone who thinks Meta broke their copyright loses their license. (Checking if you are still getting screwed is against the rules)

Therefore, Zuckerberg is accountable for explicitly anticompetitive conduct, I assumed an MMA fighter would appreciate the value of competition, go figure.

One thing I wanted to add and call attention to is the importance of licensing in open models. This is often overlooked when we blindly accept the vague branding of models as “open”, but I am noticing that many open weight models are actually using encumbered proprietary licenses rather than standard open source licenses that are OSI approved (https://opensource.org/licenses). As an example, Databricks’s DBRX model has a proprietary license that forces adherence to their highly restrictive Acceptable Use Policy by referencing a live website hosting their AUP (https://github.com/databricks/dbrx/blob/main/LICENSE), which means as they change their AUP, you may be further restricted in the future. Meta’s Llama is similar (https://github.com/meta-llama/llama/blob/main/LICENSE ). I’m not sure who can depend on these models given this flaw.

It looks like Llama 2 7B took 184,320 A100-80GB GPU-hours to train[1]. This one says it used a 96×H100 GPU cluster for 2 weeks, for 32,256 hours. That's 17.5% of the number of hours, but H100s are faster than A100s [2] and FP16/bfloat16 performance is ~3x better.

If they had tried to replicate Llama 2 identically with their hardware setup, it'd cost a little bit less than twice their MoE model.

[1] https://github.com/meta-llama/llama/blob/main/MODEL_CARD.md#...

Ironically, the LLaMA license text [1] this is lifted verbatim from is itself copyrighted [2] and doesn't grant you the permission to copy it or make changes like s/meta/dbrx/g lol.

[1] https://github.com/meta-llama/llama/blob/main/LICENSE#L65

This is kind of an epistemological debate at this level, and I make an effort to link to some source code [1] any time it seems contentious.

LLMs (of the decoder-only, generative-pretrained family everyone means) are next token predictors in a literal implementation sense (there are some caveats around batching and what not, but none that really matter to the philosophy of the thing).

But, they have some emergent behaviors that are a trickier beast. Probably the best way to think about a typical Instruct-inspired “chat bot” session is of them sampling from a distribution with a KL-style adjacency to the training corpus (sidebar: this is why shops that do and don’t train/tune on MMLU get ranked so differently than e.g. the arena rankings) at a response granularity, the same way a diffuser/U-net/de-noising model samples at the image batch (NCHW/NHWC) level.

The corpus is stocked with everything from sci-fi novels with computers arguing their own sentience to tutorials on how to do a tricky anti-derivative step-by-step.

This mental model has adequate explanatory power for anything a public LLM has ever been shown to do, but that only heavily implies it’s what they’re doing.

There is active research into whether there is more going on that is thus far not conclusive to the satisfaction of an unbiased consensus. I personally think that research will eventually show it’s just sampling, but that’s a prediction not consensus science.

They might be doing more, there is some research that represents circumstantial evidence they are doing more.

[1] https://github.com/meta-llama/llama/blob/54c22c0d63a3f3c9e77...

Predicting subsequent text is pretty much exactly what they do. Lots of very cool engineering that’s a real feat, but at its core it’s argmax(P(token|token,corpus)):

https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/main/llama/ge...

The engineering feats are up there with anything, but it’s a next token predictor.

https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/pull/947/

> Instead, it turns out a few hundred lines of Python is genuinely enough to train a basic version!

actually its not just a basic version. Llama 1/2's model.py is 500 lines: https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/main/llama/mo...

Mistral (is rumored to have) forked llama and is 369 lines: https://github.com/mistralai/mistral-src/blob/main/mistral/m...

and both of these are SOTA open source models.

In transformers, they tried really hard to have a single function or method to deal with both self and cross attention mechanisms, masking, positional and relative encodings, interpolation etc. While it allows a user to use the same function/method for any model, it has led to severe parameter bloat. Just compare the original implementation of llama by FAIR with the implementation by HF to get an idea.