hivemind VS GLM-130B

https://github.com/learning-at-home/hivemind is also relevant

I really hope you'll join me, for the Petals support, at least! A single docker-compose.yml file is all we need, for now. If we are able to find enough people willing to host some smaller models, perhaps we could expand into the Hivemind, and create our own, custom foundation model one day?

Decentralized deep learning: https://github.com/learning-at-home/hivemind

https://github.com/learning-at-home/hivemind - same people behind it, was made before petals I think.

not if we rise to meet that challenge. here's a few tools that facilitate AI research in the face of an advanced persistent threat: Hivemind- a distributed Pytorch framework

yeah, there's Hivemind. and there's research wrt how to chunk out training workload so it can be scaled up. not sure why there's commentary that latency issues would limit this sort of enterprise, the architecture typically isn't designed for liveness. other subfields of distributed training/inference include zero-knowledge machine learning. besides all of that, there's also adversarial computation like SafetyNets and refereed delegation of computation.

We already have the software for it. There are some projects, but the one I'm most familiar with is https://github.com/learning-at-home/hivemind for training and it's sister project https://petals.ml/ for running large models distributed.

I'm not entirely how the approach they're using works [0], but I study federated learning and one of the highly-cited survey papers has several chapters (5 and 6 in particular) addressing potential attacks, failure modes, and bias [1].

0: https://github.com/learning-at-home/hivemind

1: https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.04977

The Hivemind project is just that

https://github.com/learning-at-home/hivemind

The https://github.com/THUDM/GLM-130B model is trained on The Pile and can run on 4x3090 when quantized to INT4. I'm wondering if anyone knows if this model could (or has) been quantized using GPTQ, which gives some impressive performance gains over traditional quantization, and I'm also wondering if anyone has tried a 3-bit or 2-bit quantization of such a massive model (using GPTQ). Are there any inherent limitations in this? Is there anything about this model that prevents it from being run on text-generation-webui?

> GLM-130B, a model comparable with GPT-3, has 130 billion parameters in FP16 precision, a total of 260G of GPU memory is required to store model weights. The DGX-A100 server has 8 A100s and provides an amount of 320G of GPU memory (640G for 80G A100 version) so it suits GLM-130B well.

https://github.com/THUDM/GLM-130B/blob/main/docs/low-resourc...

GLM-130B[1] (a 130 billion parameter model vs GPT-3's 175 billion parameter model) is able to run optimally on consumer level high-end hardware, 4xRTX 3090 in particular. That's < $4k at current prices, and as hardware prices go one can only imagine what it'll be in a year or two. It also enables running with degraded performance on lesser systems.

It's a whole lot cheaper to run neural net style systems than to train them. "Somebody on Twitter"[2] got it setup, and broke down the costs, demonstrated some prompts, and what not. Cliff notes being a fraction of a penny per query, with each taking about 16s to generate. The output's pretty terrible, but it's unclear to me whether that's inherent or a result of priority. I expect OpenAI spent a lot of manpower on supervised training, whereas this system probably had minimal, especially in English (it's from a Chinese university).

[1] - https://github.com/THUDM/GLM-130B

[2] - https://twitter.com/alexjc/status/1617152800571416577

GLM-130B in 4 bit mode is better than GPT3 and can run on 4 RTX-3090s. Still expensive but it’s getting closer. https://github.com/THUDM/GLM-130B

https://github.com/THUDM/GLM-130B might be a useful place to look