stanford_alpaca VS LoRA

Alpaca is an instruction-oriented LLM derived from LLaMA, enhanced by Stanford researchers with a dataset of 52,000 examples of following instructions, sourced from OpenAI’s InstructGPT through the self-instruct method. The extensive self-instruct dataset, details of data generation, and the model refinement code were publicly disclosed. This model complies with the licensing requirements of its base model. Due to the utilization of InstructGPT for data generation, it also adheres to OpenAI’s usage terms, which prohibit the creation of models competing with OpenAI. This illustrates how dataset restrictions can indirectly affect the resulting fine-tuned model.

In this article, we're going to experiment with LoRA and fine-tune Llama Alpaca using commercial hardware.

Most papers I did read showed at least a thousand, even 10000 at several cases, so I assumed that to be the trend in the case of Low rank adapter(PEFT) training.(source: [2305.14314] QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMs (arxiv.org) , Stanford CRFM (Alpaca) and the minimum being openchat/openchat · Hugging Face ; There are a lot more examples)

I think there's a new approach for “How do you get the data?” that wasn't available when this article was written in 2015. The new text and image generative models can now be used to synthesize training datasets.

I was working on an typing autocorrect project and needed a corpus of "text messages". Most of the traditional NLP corpuses like those available through NLTK [0] aren't suitable. But it was easy to script ChatGPT to generate thousands of believable text messages by throwing random topics at it.

Similarly, you can synthesize a training dataset by giving GPT the outputs/labels and asking it to generate a variety of inputs. For sentiment analysis... "Give me 1000 negative movie reviews" and "Now give me 1000 positive movie reviews".

The Alpaca folks used GPT-3 to generate high-quality instruction-following datasets [1] based on a small set of human samples.

Etc.

[0] https://www.nltk.org/nltk_data/

[1] https://crfm.stanford.edu/2023/03/13/alpaca.html

Alpaca [GitHub]

Now if only this could be used offline, eg. with alpaca https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca

If you have a strong enough computer, there is Alpaca and llama.cpp which are both open-source. They also have the best privacy feature of all: to be able to be ran locally offline on your computer. I believe there are more foss LLMs out there too but idr.

Are you aware that you can run a pretrained LLM on just 8gb of ram with a single x86 cpu?

LoRA was initially developed for large language models, https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685 (2021). It was later that people discovered that it worked REALLY well for diffusion models.

Curious if we'll see a Civitai-style LoRA[1] marketplace for text-to-speech models.

1 = https://github.com/microsoft/LoRA

Yes, your understanding is correct. However, instead of adding a head on top of the network, most fine-tuning is currently done with LoRA (https://github.com/microsoft/LoRA). This introduces low-rank matrices between different layers of your models, those are then trained using your training data while the rest of the models' weights are frozen.

Somewhat yes. See "LoRA": https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685

They're not composable in the sense that you can take these adaptation layers and arbitrarily combine them, but training different models while sharing a common base of weights is a solved problem.

It's possible to fine-tune all parameters (called "full fine-tune"), but recently PEFT methods became popular. PEFT stands for Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning. There are several methods available, the most popular so far is LoRA (2106.09685) that can train less than 1% of the original weights. LoRA has one important parameter -- tensor size, called lora_r. It defines how much information LoRA can add to the network. If your codebase is small, the fine-tuning process will see the same data over and over again, many times in a loop. We found that for a smaller codebase small LoRA tensors work best because it won't overfit as much -- the tensors just don't have the capacity to fit the limited training set exactly. As the codebase gets bigger, tensors should become bigger as well. We also unfreeze token embeddings at a certain codebase size. To pick all the parameters automatically, we have developed a heuristic that calculates a score based on the source files it sees. This score is then used to determine the appropriate LoRA size, number of finetuning steps, and other parameters. We have tested this heuristic on several beta test clients, small codebases of several files, and large codebases like the Linux kernel (consisting of about 50,000 useful source files). If the heuristic doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can set all the parameters yourself.

For your first part of the comment, I can simply refer you to technologies like ControlNet, LoRA and prompt embedding: https://github.com/lllyasviel/ControlNet https://github.com/microsoft/LoRA

Today, we announce MediaPipe diffusion plugins, which enable controllable text-to-image generation to be run on-device. Expanding upon our prior work on GPU inference for on-device large generative models, we introduce new low-cost solutions for controllable text-to-image generation that can be plugged into existing diffusion models and their Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) variants.

Baize is an open-source chat model trained with LoRA. It uses 100k dialogs generated by letting ChatGPT chat with itself. We also use Alpaca's data to improve its performance. We have released 7B, 13B and 30B models. Please refer to the paper for more details.