exllama VS llama

not using exllama seems like the tremendous waste

> We serve Llama on 2 80-GB A100 GPUs, as that is the minumum required to fit Llama in memory (with 16-bit precision)

Well there is your problem.

LLaMA quantized to 4 bits fits in 40GB. And it gets similar throughput split between dual consumer GPUs, which likely means better throughput on a single 40GB A100 (or a cheaper 48GB Pro GPU)

https://github.com/turboderp/exllama#dual-gpu-results

Also, I'm not sure which model was tested, but Llama 70B chat should have better performance than the base model if the prompting syntax is right. That was only reverse engineered from the Meta demo implementation recently.

For those getting started, the easiest one click installer I've used is Nomic.ai's gpt4all: https://gpt4all.io/

This runs with a simple GUI on Windows/Mac/Linux, leverages a fork of llama.cpp on the backend and supports GPU acceleration, and LLaMA, Falcon, MPT, and GPT-J models. It also has API/CLI bindings.

I just saw a slick new tool https://ollama.ai/ that will let you install a llama2-7b with a single `ollama run llama2` command that has a very simple 1-click installer for Apple Silicon Mac (but need to build from source for anything else atm). It looks like it only supports llamas OOTB but it also seems to use llama.cpp (via Go adapter) on the backend - it seemed to be CPU-only on my MBA, but I didn't poke too much and it's brand new, so we'll see.

For anyone on HN, they should probably be looking at https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp and https://github.com/ggerganov/ggml directly. If you have a high-end Nvidia consumer card (3090/4090) I'd highly recommend looking into https://github.com/turboderp/exllama

For those generally confused, the r/LocalLLaMA wiki is a good place to start: https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/wiki/guide/

I've also been porting my own notes into a single location that tracks models, evals, and has guides focused on local models: https://llm-tracker.info/

Deploying the 60B version is a challenge though and you might need to apply 4-bit quantization with something like https://github.com/PanQiWei/AutoGPTQ or https://github.com/qwopqwop200/GPTQ-for-LLaMa . Then you can improve the inference speed by using https://github.com/turboderp/exllama .

If you prefer to use an "instruct" model à la ChatGPT (i.e. that does not need few-shot learning to output good results) you can use something like this: https://huggingface.co/TheBloke/Wizard-Vicuna-30B-Uncensored...

Exllama for example uses buffers on each card that reduce the amount of VRAM available for model and context, see here. https://github.com/turboderp/exllama/issues/121

For inference step, this repo can help you to use ExLlama to perform inference on an evaluation dataset for the best throughput.

In terms of speed, we're talking about 140t/s for 7B models, and 40t/s for 33B models on a 3090/4090 now.[1] (1 token ~= 0.75 word) It's quite zippy. llama.cpp performs close on Nvidia GPUs now (but they don't have a handy chart) and you can get decent performance on 13B models on M1/M2 Macs.

You can take a look at a list of evals here: https://llm-tracker.info/books/evals/page/list-of-evals - for general usage, I think home-rolled evals like llm-jeopardy [2] and local-llm-comparison [3] by hobbyists are more useful than most of the benchmark rankings.

That being said, personally I mostly use GPT-4 for code assistance to that's what I'm most interested in, and the latest code assistants are scoring quite well: https://github.com/abacaj/code-eval - a recent replit-3b fine tune the human-eval results for open models (as a point of reference, GPT-3.5 gets 60.4 on pass@1 and 68.9 on pass@10 [4]) - I've only just started playing around with it since replit model tooling is not as good as llamas (doc here: https://llm-tracker.info/books/howto-guides/page/replit-mode...).

I'm interested in potentially applying reflexion or some of the other techniques that have been tried to even further increase coding abilities. (InterCode in particular has caught my eye https://intercode-benchmark.github.io/)

[1] https://github.com/turboderp/exllama#results-so-far

[2] https://github.com/aigoopy/llm-jeopardy

[3] https://github.com/Troyanovsky/Local-LLM-comparison/tree/mai...

[4] https://github.com/nlpxucan/WizardLM/tree/main/WizardCoder

That's a 16GB GPU, you should be able to fit 13B at 4bit: https://github.com/turboderp/exllama

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.