hands-on-train-and-deploy-ml VS llama

There are 3 courses that I usually recommend to folks looking to get into MLE/MLOps that already have a technical background. The first is a higher-level look at the MLOps processes, common challenges and solutions, and other important project considerations. It's one of Andrew Ng's courses from Deep Learning AI but you can audit it for free if you don't need the certificate: - Machine Learning in Production For a more hands-on, in-depth tutorial, I'd recommend this course from NYU (free on GitHub), including slides, scripts, full-code homework: - Machine Learning Systems And the title basically says it all, but this is also a really good one: - Hands-on Train and Deploy ML Pau Labarta, who made that last course, actually has a series of good (free) hands-on courses on GitHub. If you're interested in getting started with LLMs (since every company in the world seems to be clamoring for them right now), this course just came out from Pau and Paul Iusztin: - Hands-on LLMs For LLMs I also like this DLAI course (that includes Prompt Engineering too): - Generative AI with LLMs It can also be helpful to start learning how to use MLOps tools and platforms. I'll suggest Comet because I work there and am most familiar with it (and also because it's a great tool). Cloud and DevOps skills are also helpful. Make sure you're comfortable with git. Make sure you're learning how to actually deploy your projects. Good luck! :)

And a new (but very promising-looking), free GitHub course from Pau Labarta: - Hands-on Train and Deploy ML

For a higher-level, more conceptual overview, Andrew Ng always has great courses on DeepLearning.ai (and they're free to audit if you don't officially need the certificate): - Machine Learning for Production For a more hands-on, in-depth tutorial, I'd recommend this course from NYU (free on GitHub), including slides, scripts, full-code homework: - Machine Learning Systems And a new (but very promising-looking), free GitHub course from Pau Labarta (looks like he's still filming some of the lecture videos, but the rest of the course is all there): - Hands-on Train and Deploy ML

- Hands-on Train and Deploy ML

This is also a pretty promising-looking new course that focuses on deployment and automation. It looks like some of the video lectures are still under construction (like I said it's super new), but the code and notebooks are all there.

derivative works thereof).”

https://github.com/meta-llama/llama/blob/b8348da38fde8644ef0...

Also even if you did use Llama for something, they could unilaterally pull the rug on you when you got 700 million years, AND anyone who thinks Meta broke their copyright loses their license. (Checking if you are still getting screwed is against the rules)

Therefore, Zuckerberg is accountable for explicitly anticompetitive conduct, I assumed an MMA fighter would appreciate the value of competition, go figure.

One thing I wanted to add and call attention to is the importance of licensing in open models. This is often overlooked when we blindly accept the vague branding of models as “open”, but I am noticing that many open weight models are actually using encumbered proprietary licenses rather than standard open source licenses that are OSI approved (https://opensource.org/licenses). As an example, Databricks’s DBRX model has a proprietary license that forces adherence to their highly restrictive Acceptable Use Policy by referencing a live website hosting their AUP (https://github.com/databricks/dbrx/blob/main/LICENSE), which means as they change their AUP, you may be further restricted in the future. Meta’s Llama is similar (https://github.com/meta-llama/llama/blob/main/LICENSE ). I’m not sure who can depend on these models given this flaw.

It looks like Llama 2 7B took 184,320 A100-80GB GPU-hours to train[1]. This one says it used a 96×H100 GPU cluster for 2 weeks, for 32,256 hours. That's 17.5% of the number of hours, but H100s are faster than A100s [2] and FP16/bfloat16 performance is ~3x better.

If they had tried to replicate Llama 2 identically with their hardware setup, it'd cost a little bit less than twice their MoE model.

[1] https://github.com/meta-llama/llama/blob/main/MODEL_CARD.md#...

Ironically, the LLaMA license text [1] this is lifted verbatim from is itself copyrighted [2] and doesn't grant you the permission to copy it or make changes like s/meta/dbrx/g lol.

[1] https://github.com/meta-llama/llama/blob/main/LICENSE#L65

This is kind of an epistemological debate at this level, and I make an effort to link to some source code [1] any time it seems contentious.

LLMs (of the decoder-only, generative-pretrained family everyone means) are next token predictors in a literal implementation sense (there are some caveats around batching and what not, but none that really matter to the philosophy of the thing).

But, they have some emergent behaviors that are a trickier beast. Probably the best way to think about a typical Instruct-inspired “chat bot” session is of them sampling from a distribution with a KL-style adjacency to the training corpus (sidebar: this is why shops that do and don’t train/tune on MMLU get ranked so differently than e.g. the arena rankings) at a response granularity, the same way a diffuser/U-net/de-noising model samples at the image batch (NCHW/NHWC) level.

The corpus is stocked with everything from sci-fi novels with computers arguing their own sentience to tutorials on how to do a tricky anti-derivative step-by-step.

This mental model has adequate explanatory power for anything a public LLM has ever been shown to do, but that only heavily implies it’s what they’re doing.

There is active research into whether there is more going on that is thus far not conclusive to the satisfaction of an unbiased consensus. I personally think that research will eventually show it’s just sampling, but that’s a prediction not consensus science.

They might be doing more, there is some research that represents circumstantial evidence they are doing more.

[1] https://github.com/meta-llama/llama/blob/54c22c0d63a3f3c9e77...

Predicting subsequent text is pretty much exactly what they do. Lots of very cool engineering that’s a real feat, but at its core it’s argmax(P(token|token,corpus)):

https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/main/llama/ge...

The engineering feats are up there with anything, but it’s a next token predictor.

https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/pull/947/

> Instead, it turns out a few hundred lines of Python is genuinely enough to train a basic version!

actually its not just a basic version. Llama 1/2's model.py is 500 lines: https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama/blob/main/llama/mo...

Mistral (is rumored to have) forked llama and is 369 lines: https://github.com/mistralai/mistral-src/blob/main/mistral/m...

and both of these are SOTA open source models.

In transformers, they tried really hard to have a single function or method to deal with both self and cross attention mechanisms, masking, positional and relative encodings, interpolation etc. While it allows a user to use the same function/method for any model, it has led to severe parameter bloat. Just compare the original implementation of llama by FAIR with the implementation by HF to get an idea.