google-research VS txtai

People on here will be happy to say that I do a similar thing, however my sequence length is dynamic because I also use a 2nd data structure - I'll use pretentious academic speak: I use a simple bigram LM (2-gram) for single next-word likeliness and separately a trie that models all words and phrases (so, n-gram). Not sure how many total nodes because sentence lengths vary in training data, but there are about 200,000 entry points (keys) so probably about 2-10 million total nodes in the default setup.

"Constructing 7-gram LM": They likely started with bigrams (what I use) which only tells you the next word based on 1 word given, and thought to increase accuracy by modeling out more words in a sequence, and eventually let the user (developer) pass in any amount they want to model (https://github.com/google-research/google-research/blob/5c87...). I thought of this too at first, but I actually got more accuracy (and speed) out of just keeping them as bigrams and making a totally separate structure that models out an n-gram of all phrases (e.g. could be a 24-token long sequence or 100+ tokens etc. I model it all) and if that phrase is found, then I just get the bigram assumption of the last token of the phrase. This works better when the training data is more diverse (for a very generic model), but theirs would probably outperform mine on accuracy when the training data has a lot of nearly identical sentences that only change wildly toward the end - I don't find this pattern in typical data though, maybe for certain coding and other tasks there are those patterns though. But because it's not dynamic and they make you provide that number, even a low number (any phrase longer than 2 words) - theirs will always have to do more lookup work than with simple bigrams and they're also limited by that fixed number as far as accuracy. I wonder how scalable that is - if I need to train on occasional ~100-word long sentences but also (and mostly) just ~3-word long sentences, I guess I set this to 100 and have a mostly "undefined" trie.

I also thought of the name "LMJS", theirs is "jslm" :) but I went with simply "next-token-prediction" because that's what it ultimately does as a library. I don't know what theirs is really designed for other than proving a concept. Most of their code files are actually comments and hypothetical scenarios.

I recently added a browser example showing simple autocomplete using my library: https://github.com/bennyschmidt/next-token-prediction/tree/m... (video)

And next I'm implementing 8-dimensional embeddings that are converted to normalized vectors between 0-1 to see if doing math on them does anything useful beyond similarity, right now they look like this:

  [nextFrequency, prevalence, specificity, length, firstLetter, lastLetter, firstVowel, lastVowel]

The change was literally just made: https://github.com/google-research/google-research/commit/4a...

It appears this was in response to Hacker News comments.

There are options such as Google's ScaNN that may let you go farther before needing to consider specialized databases.

https://github.com/google-research/google-research/blob/mast...

I feel it was unnecesary to create this because https://research.google/ already exists? It just seems like they want to take another URL with a "pure" domain name instead of psubdirectories, etc parts.

https://github.com/google-research/google-research/blob/mast...

You could also try some dedicated translation models like https://huggingface.co/facebook/nllb-moe-54b (or https://github.com/google-research/google-research/tree/master/madlad_400 for something smaller) and see how they do.

Google released T5X checkpoints for MADLAD-400 a couple of months ago, but nobody could figure out how to run them. Turns out the vocabulary was wrong, but they uploaded the correct one last week.

I tend to agree with this sentiment. Many junior devs and/or those in college want to contribute. Then they feel entitled to merge a PR that they worked hard on often without guidance. I'm all for working with people but projects have standards and not all ideas make sense. In many cases, especially with commercial open source, the project is the base of a companies identity. So it's not just for drive-by ideas to pad a resume or finish a school project.

For those who do want to do this, I'd recommend writing an issue and/or reaching out to the developers to engage in a dialogue. This takes work but it will increase the likelihood of a PR being merged.

Disclaimer: I'm the primary developer of txtai (https://github.com/neuml/txtai), an open-source vector database + RAG framework

txtai is an all-in-one embeddings database for semantic search, LLM orchestration and language model workflows.

Bootstrapping only works if you have the runway to do it and you don't feel the need to grow fast.

With NeuML (https://neuml.com), I've went the bootstrapping route. I've been able to build a fairly successful open source project (txtai 6K stars https://github.com/neuml/txtai) and a revenue positive company. It's a "live within your means" strategy.

VC funding can have a snowball effect where you need more and more. Then you're in the loop of needing funding rounds to survive. The hope is someday you're acquired or start turning a profit.

I would say both have their pros and cons. Not all ideas have the luxury of time.

I agree that in many cases people are puffing their feathers to try to be something they're not (at least not yet). Some believe in the fake it until you make it mentality.

With NeuML (https://neuml.com), the website is a simple HTML page. On social media, I'm honest about what NeuML is, that I'm in my 40s with a family and not striving to be the next Steve Jobs. I've been able to build a fairly successful open source project (txtai 6K stars https://github.com/neuml/txtai) and a revenue positive company. For me, authenticity and being genuine is most important. I would say that being genuine has been way more of an asset than liability.

I'll add txtai (https://github.com/neuml/txtai) to the list.

There is still plenty of room for innovation in this space. Just need to focus on the right projects that are innovating and not the ones (re)working on problems solved in 2020/2021.

txtai is an all-in-one embeddings database for semantic search, LLM orchestration and language model workflows.

Nice project! I've long used Tika for document parsing given it's maturity and wide number of formats supported. The XHTML output helps with chunking documents for RAG.

Here's a couple examples:

- https://neuml.hashnode.dev/build-rag-pipelines-with-txtai

- https://neuml.hashnode.dev/extract-text-from-documents

Disclaimer: I'm the primary author of txtai (https://github.com/neuml/txtai).