[HN Gopher] How to use Alpaca-LoRA to fine-tune a model like Cha...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       How to use Alpaca-LoRA to fine-tune a model like ChatGPT
        
       Author : bfirsh
       Score  : 112 points
       Date   : 2023-03-23 18:59 UTC (4 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (replicate.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (replicate.com)
        
       | tysam_and wrote:
       | LoRA has actually been around for a little while! I first saw it
       | when it became popular in fine-tuning models quantized down to
       | about 8 bits or so. I'm sure it's doing stuff in the 4bit range
       | now! :D
       | 
       | I believe it's a core toolbox piece of tech required to really
       | push the limits of LLMs either in original training or in
       | inference. Similar sort of to how batch norm was for
       | convolutional neural networks. I look forward to seeing how this
       | will be applied in the future.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | braingenious wrote:
       | I love these idea of LoRAs for LLMs.
       | 
       | Has anybody made a llama/alpaca erebus model? I read about them
       | in the oobabooga docs and a locally-run language model fine tuned
       | on literotica could be the funniest thing I've ever seen.
        
       | camdenlock wrote:
       | > The weights for LLaMA have not yet been released publicly. To
       | apply for access, fill out this Meta Research form.
       | 
       | Cute. ;)
        
         | k_eshav wrote:
         | iirc someone posted the weights to a torrent. you can look it
         | up. :)
        
           | isoprophlex wrote:
           | I grabbed it shortly after the leak and left it on for a
           | while. Never seeded that much data on a single torrent. This
           | is some screaming hot data.
        
       | rishsriv wrote:
       | This looks fantastic. Will try replacing our current fine-tuned
       | FLAN-UL2 model with this.
       | 
       | I wonder how the devtooling around this will evolve. Seems like a
       | matter of days until someone creates a GUI wrapper around this,
       | and obviates the need to use programmer time for fine-tuning
        
         | anymoonus wrote:
         | I'm curious, what are the differences between T5, Flan-T5, and
         | Flan-UL2 for fine-tuning? Does the instruction tuning matter at
         | all, once you're fine-tuning?
        
       | isoprophlex wrote:
       | _Low-rank adaptation (LoRA) ... has some advantages over previous
       | methods:_
       | 
       | - _It is faster and uses less memory, which means it can run on
       | consumer hardware._
       | 
       | - _The output is much smaller (megabytes, not gigabytes)._
       | 
       | - _You can combine multiple fine-tuned models together at
       | runtime._
       | 
       | This is great news for my dream of building a fine-tuned
       | interactive messenger, that can deliver a message on my behalf by
       | training it on my personality & the information I want to convey.
       | 
       | Now just add text to speech and a talking head, as discussed in
       | that other submission about cloning yourself with AI...
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35280418
        
         | TehCorwiz wrote:
         | I'm reminded of this scene from the "I, Robot" movie:
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKxr0wyIic4
        
         | elorant wrote:
         | And then you hook it up to hundreds of dating apps and it just
         | does the boring job of making introductory chat presenting you
         | at the end with only the women who are interested in a real
         | date.
        
           | speedgoose wrote:
           | The problem of this strategy is that your dates may realise
           | that you are not talking as well as a good dating LLM once
           | they meet you.
        
             | yieldcrv wrote:
             | > your dates
             | 
             | > meet you
             | 
             | Everything you said is a net positive for very many people
        
               | speedgoose wrote:
               | Disappointing many people in person isn't very positive
               | from my point of view.
        
         | cal5k wrote:
         | What if you died but your chatbot didn't know?
        
           | BoorishBears wrote:
           | This is an idea I've been mulling over.
           | 
           | Maybe software running on your PC to capture everything you
           | type, a voice transcriber that filters out your voice
           | specifically and records that, and you've got a dataset that
           | covers a lot of who you are.
           | 
           | Fine tune a model on that and boom, you're "immortal", and as
           | LLMs get better and better, the fidelity of "you" gets better
           | and better.
        
             | cloudking wrote:
             | https://www.rewind.ai/
        
             | waboremo wrote:
             | All the downsides of immortality without any of the fun. As
             | expected from this timeline.
        
               | BoorishBears wrote:
               | No downsides or fun for yourself, the main use I could
               | see for it would be for something like being able to
               | "talk" to your great great great grandpa one day.
               | 
               | It's like home video on steroids
        
               | waboremo wrote:
               | I suppose that is the one retaining upside for the other
               | person when it comes to immortality. But for the
               | individual, none of the immortality fun remains. You
               | aren't meeting or talking to them as you would in
               | "normal" immortality, you are still dead and don't know
               | if they even exist, you don't even get to ensure the
               | right things are passed down.
        
       | credit_guy wrote:
       | I guess this LoRA is the missing piece.
       | 
       | NVIDIA stated recently that GPT bots will become one million
       | times more powerful in ten years. Many people doubted that.
       | 
       | With LoRA, I see a much higher improvement. These guys claim a
       | 10000 times reduction in parameter size. A different way to look
       | at it, is that with the current hardware you can train a model
       | that has 10000 times more parameters. If you add a 100x
       | improvement in hardware in 10 years (not at all unrealistic),
       | that's the million. But we will have significant improvements in
       | training methods too.
        
         | flangola7 wrote:
         | Where do you find 10,000 more data?
        
       | slicktux wrote:
       | Anyone else click on this thinking it was about the wireless
       | protocol?
        
         | y3sar wrote:
         | Both are fascinating tech
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-03-23 23:01 UTC)