metaseq VS GLM-130B

This is a super important issue that affects the pace and breadth of iteration of AI almost as much as the raw hardware improvements do. The blog is fun but somewhat shallow and not technical or very surprising if you’ve worked with clusters of GPUs in any capacity over the years. (I liked the perspective of a former googler, but I’m not sure why past colleagues would recommend Jax over pytorch for LLMs outside of Google.) I hope this newco eventually releases a more technical report about their training adventures, like the PDF file here: https://github.com/facebookresearch/metaseq/tree/main/projec...

The number of people who can actually pre-train a true LLM is very small.

It remains a major feat with many tweaks and tricks. Case in point: the 114 pages of OPT175B logbook [1]

[1] https://github.com/facebookresearch/metaseq/blob/main/projec...

Reliability at scale: take a look at the OPT training log book for their 175B model run. It needed a lot of babysitting. In my experience, that scale of TPU training run requires a restart about once every 1-2 weeks—and they provide the middleware to monitor the health of the cluster and pick up on hardware failures.

I really appreciated this log of Facebook training a large language model of how troublesome AI development can be: https://github.com/facebookresearch/metaseq/tree/main/projects/OPT/chronicles

Stable Diffusion will run on any decent gaming GPU or a modern MacBook, meanwhile LLMs comparable to GPT-3/ChatGPT have had pretty insane memory requirements - e.g., <https://github.com/facebookresearch/metaseq/issues/146>

It seems so, check this log book from Meta: https://github.com/facebookresearch/metaseq/blob/main/projec...

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