mistral-src VS sharegpt

A French startup, Mistral AI has released two impressive large language models (LLMs) - Mistral 7B and Mixtral 8x7B. These models push the boundaries of performance and introduce a better architectural innovation aimed at optimizing inference speed and computational efficiency.

However, some models are publicly available. It’s the case for Mistral, a fast, and efficient French model which seems to outperform GPT4 on some tasks. And it is under Apache 2.0 license 😊.

I recommend starting either with llama2 or Mistral. You need to download the pretrained weights and convert them into GGUF format before they can be used with llama.cpp.

> 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.

MistralAI, a French startup, developed a 7.3 billion parameter LLM named Mistral for various applications. Committed to open-sourcing its technology under Apache 2.0, the training dataset details for Mistral remain undisclosed. The Mistral Instruct model was fine-tuned using publicly available instruction datasets from the Hugging Face repository, though specifics about the licenses and potential constraints are not detailed. Recently, MistralAI released Mixtral 8x7B, a model based on the sparse mixture of experts (SMoE) architecture, consisting of several specialized models (likely eight, as suggested by its name) activated as needed.

I was getting into LLM and I pick up some projects. I tried to dive into the code to see what is secret sauce.

But the code is so short to the point there is nothing to really read.

https://github.com/facebookresearch/llama

I then proceed to check https://github.com/mistralai/mistral-src and suprsingly it's same.

What is exactly those codebases? It feels like just download the models.

Vicuna is another instruction-focused LLM rooted in LLaMA, developed by researchers from UC Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon University, Stanford, and UC San Diego. They adapted Alpaca’s training code and incorporated 70,000 examples from ShareGPT, a platform for sharing ChatGPT interactions.

We can say that a 13B model per language is reasonable. Then it means we need to create a democratic way for teaching coding by examples and solutions and algorithms, that we create, curate and use open-source. Much like sharegpt.com but for coding tasks, solutions ways of thinking. We should be wary of 'enforcing' principles rather showing different approaches, as all approaches can have advantages and disadvantages.

You can see the url in the comment, https://sharegpt.com and if you go there it gives you the option for installing the chrome extension, after that it shouldn’t be hard to use it

ShareGPT - Share your prompts and your entire conversations

Or used https://sharegpt.com

you can gets lots of ideas here > https://sharegpt.com/ (180,000+ prompts)

I would love to read the whole conversation: Check out this cool little GPT sharing extension: https://sharegpt.com - that way the code snippets can be copied easily

> Cool, that’s really the only point I’m making.

To be clear, I'm saying that I don't know if they are, not that we know that it's not the same.

It's not at all clear that humans do much more than "that basic token sequence prediction" for our reasoning itself. There are glaringly obvious auxiliary differences, such as memory, but we just don't know how human reasoning works, so writing off a predictive mechanism like this is just as unjustified as assuming it's the same. It's highly likely there are differences, but whether they are significant remains to be seen.

> Not necessarily scaling limitations fundamental to the architecture as such, but limitations in our ability to develop sufficiently well developed training texts and strategies across so many problem domains.

I think there are several big issues with that thinking. One is that this constraint is an issue now in large part because GPT doesn't have "memory" or an ability to continue learning. Those two need to be overcome to let it truly scale, but once they are, the game fundamentally changes.

The second is that we're already at a stage where using LLMs to generate and validate training data works well for a whole lot of domains, and that will accelerate, especially when coupled with "plugins" and the ability to capture interactions with real-life users [1]

E.g. a large part of human ability to do maths with any kind of efficiency comes down to rote repetition and generating large sets of simple quizzes for such areas is near trivial if you combine an LLM at tools for it to validate its answers. And unlike with humans where we have to do this effort for billions of humans, once you have an ability to let these models continue learning you make this investment in training once (or once per major LLM effort).

A third is that GPT hasn't even scratched the surface in what is available in digital collections alone. E.g. GPT3 was trained on "only" about 200 million Norwegian words (I don't have data for GPT4). Norwegian is a tiny language - this was 0.1% of GPT3's total corpus. But the Norwegian National Library has 8.5m items, which includes something like 10-20 billion words in books alone, and many tens of billions more in newspapers, magazines and other data. That's one tiny language. We're many generations of LLM's away from even approaching exhausting the already available digital collections alone, and that's before we look at having the models trained on that data generate and judge training data.

[1] https://sharegpt.com/

of that conversation. Perhaps something like shareGPT[1] can help?

[1] https://sharegpt.com