与「finedining」相关的搜索结果

jimin sharing his struggles eating at fine dining restaurants where portions are measly and courses take forever to be served all while looking like an angel who never starves i love him

LLM Knowledge Bases Something I'm finding very useful recently: using LLMs to build personal knowledge bases for various topics of research interest. In this way, a large fraction of my recent token throughput is going less into manipulating code, and more into manipulating knowledge (stored as markdown and images). The latest LLMs are quite good at it. So: Data ingest: I index source documents (articles, papers, repos, datasets, images, etc.) into a raw/ directory, then I use an LLM to incrementally "compile" a wiki, which is just a collection of .md files in a directory structure. The wiki includes summaries of all the data in raw/, backlinks, and then it categorizes data into concepts, writes articles for them, and links them all. To convert web articles into .md files I like to use the Obsidian Web Clipper extension, and then I also use a hotkey to download all the related images to local so that my LLM can easily reference them. IDE: I use Obsidian as the IDE "frontend" where I can view the raw data, the the compiled wiki, and the derived visualizations. Important to note that the LLM writes and maintains all of the data of the wiki, I rarely touch it directly. I've played with a few Obsidian plugins to render and view data in other ways (e.g. Marp for slides). Q&A: Where things get interesting is that once your wiki is big enough (e.g. mine on some recent research is ~100 articles and ~400K words), you can ask your LLM agent all kinds of complex questions against the wiki, and it will go off, research the answers, etc. I thought I had to reach for fancy RAG, but the LLM has been pretty good about auto-maintaining index files and brief summaries of all the documents and it reads all the important related data fairly easily at this ~small scale. Output: Instead of getting answers in text/terminal, I like to have it render markdown files for me, or slide shows (Marp format), or matplotlib images, all of which I then view again in Obsidian. You can imagine many other visual output formats depending on the query. Often, I end up "filing" the outputs back into the wiki to enhance it for further queries. So my own explorations and queries always "add up" in the knowledge base. Linting: I've run some LLM "health checks" over the wiki to e.g. find inconsistent data, impute missing data (with web searchers), find interesting connections for new article candidates, etc., to incrementally clean up the wiki and enhance its overall data integrity. The LLMs are quite good at suggesting further questions to ask and look into. Extra tools: I find myself developing additional tools to process the data, e.g. I vibe coded a small and naive search engine over the wiki, which I both use directly (in a web ui), but more often I want to hand it off to an LLM via CLI as a tool for larger queries. Further explorations: As the repo grows, the natural desire is to also think about synthetic data generation + finetuning to have your LLM "know" the data in its weights instead of just context windows. TLDR: raw data from a given number of sources is collected, then compiled by an LLM into a .md wiki, then operated on by various CLIs by the LLM to do Q&A and to incrementally enhance the wiki, and all of it viewable in Obsidian. You rarely ever write or edit the wiki manually, it's the domain of the LLM. I think there is room here for an incredible new product instead of a hacky collection of scripts.

Don't think of LLMs as entities but as simulators. For example, when exploring a topic, don't ask: "What do you think about xyz"? There is no "you". Next time try: "What would be a good group of people to explore xyz? What would they say?" The LLM can channel/simulate many perspectives but it hasn't "thought about" xyz for a while and over time and formed its own opinions in the way we're used to. If you force it via the use of "you", it will give you something by adopting a personality embedding vector implied by the statistics of its finetuning data and then simulate that. It's fine to do, but there is a lot less mystique to it than I find people naively attribute to "asking an AI".

New 3h31m video on YouTube: "Deep Dive into LLMs like ChatGPT" This is a general audience deep dive into the Large Language Model (LLM) AI technology that powers ChatGPT and related products. It is covers the full training stack of how the models are developed, along with mental models of how to think about their "psychology", and how to get the best use them in practical applications. We cover all the major stages: 1. pretraining: data, tokenization, Transformer neural network I/O and internals, inference, GPT-2 training example, Llama 3.1 base inference examples 2. supervised finetuning: conversations data, "LLM Psychology": hallucinations, tool use, knowledge/working memory, knowledge of self, models need tokens to think, spelling, jagged intelligence 3. reinforcement learning: practice makes perfect, DeepSeek-R1, AlphaGo, RLHF. I designed this video for the "general audience" track of my videos, which I believe are accessible to most people, even without technical background. It should give you an intuitive understanding of the full training pipeline of LLMs like ChatGPT, with many examples along the way, and maybe some ways of thinking around current capabilities, where we are, and what's coming. (Also, I have one "Intro to LLMs" video already from ~year ago, but that is just a re-recording of a random talk, so I wanted to loop around and do a lot more comprehensive version of this topic. They can still be combined, as the talk goes a lot deeper into other topics, e.g. LLM OS and LLM Security) Hope it's fun & useful!

We have to take the LLMs to school. When you open any textbook, you'll see three major types of information: 1. Background information / exposition. The meat of the textbook that explains concepts. As you attend over it, your brain is training on that data. This is equivalent to pretraining, where the model is reading the internet and accumulating background knowledge. 2. Worked problems with solutions. These are concrete examples of how an expert solves problems. They are demonstrations to be imitated. This is equivalent to supervised finetuning, where the model is finetuning on "ideal responses" for an Assistant, written by humans. 3. Practice problems. These are prompts to the student, usually without the solution, but always with the final answer. There are usually many, many of these at the end of each chapter. They are prompting the student to learn by trial & error - they have to try a bunch of stuff to get to the right answer. This is equivalent to reinforcement learning. We've subjected LLMs to a ton of 1 and 2, but 3 is a nascent, emerging frontier. When we're creating datasets for LLMs, it's no different from writing textbooks for them, with these 3 types of data. They have to read, and they have to practice.

Not fully sure why all the LLMs sound about the same - over-using lists, delving into “multifaceted” issues, over-offering to assist further, about same length responses, etc. Not something I had predicted at first because of many independent companies doing the finetuning.

# RLHF is just barely RL Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) is the third (and last) major stage of training an LLM, after pretraining and supervised finetuning (SFT). My rant on RLHF is that it is just barely RL, in a way that I think is not too widely appreciated. RL is powerful. RLHF is not. Let's take a look at the example of AlphaGo. AlphaGo was trained with actual RL. The computer played games of Go and trained on rollouts that maximized the reward function (winning the game), eventually surpassing the best human players at Go. AlphaGo was not trained with RLHF. If it were, it would not have worked nearly as well. What would it look like to train AlphaGo with RLHF? Well first, you'd give human labelers two board states from Go, and ask them which one they like better: Then you'd collect say 100,000 comparisons like this, and you'd train a "Reward Model" (RM) neural network to imitate this human "vibe check" of the board state. You'd train it to agree with the human judgement on average. Once we have a Reward Model vibe check, you run RL with respect to it, learning to play the moves that lead to good vibes. Clearly, this would not have led anywhere too interesting in Go. There are two fundamental, separate reasons for this: 1. The vibes could be misleading - this is not the actual reward (winning the game). This is a crappy proxy objective. But much worse, 2. You'd find that your RL optimization goes off rails as it quickly discovers board states that are adversarial examples to the Reward Model. Remember the RM is a massive neural net with billions of parameters imitating the vibe. There are board states are "out of distribution" to its training data, which are not actually good states, yet by chance they get a very high reward from the RM. For the exact same reasons, sometimes I'm a bit surprised RLHF works for LLMs at all. The RM we train for LLMs is just a vibe check in the exact same way. It gives high scores to the kinds of assistant responses that human raters statistically seem to like. It's not the "actual" objective of correctly solving problems, it's a proxy objective of what looks good to humans. Second, you can't even run RLHF for too long because your model quickly learns to respond in ways that game the reward model. These predictions can look really weird, e.g. you'll see that your LLM Assistant starts to respond with something non-sensical like "The the the the the the" to many prompts. Which looks ridiculous to you but then you look at the RM vibe check and see that for some reason the RM thinks these look excellent. Your LLM found an adversarial example. It's out of domain w.r.t. the RM's training data, in an undefined territory. Yes you can mitigate this by repeatedly adding these specific examples into the training set, but you'll find other adversarial examples next time around. For this reason, you can't even run RLHF for too many steps of optimization. You do a few hundred/thousand steps and then you have to call it because your optimization will start to game the RM. This is not RL like AlphaGo was. And yet, RLHF is a net helpful step of building an LLM Assistant. I think there's a few subtle reasons but my favorite one to point to is that through it, the LLM Assistant benefits from the generator-discriminator gap. That is, for many problem types, it is a significantly easier task for a human labeler to select the best of few candidate answers, instead of writing the ideal answer from scratch. A good example is a prompt like "Generate a poem about paperclips" or something like that. An average human labeler will struggle to write a good poem from scratch as an SFT example, but they could select a good looking poem given a few candidates. So RLHF is a kind of way to benefit from this gap of "easiness" of human supervision. There's a few other reasons, e.g. RLHF is also helpful in mitigating hallucinations because if the RM is a strong enough model to catch the LLM making stuff up during training, it can learn to penalize this with a low reward, teaching the model an aversion to risking factual knowledge when it's not sure. But a satisfying treatment of hallucinations and their mitigations is a whole different post so I digress. All to say that RLHF *is* net useful, but it's not RL. No production-grade *actual* RL on an LLM has so far been convincingly achieved and demonstrated in an open domain, at scale. And intuitively, this is because getting actual rewards (i.e. the equivalent of win the game) is really difficult in the open-ended problem solving tasks. It's all fun and games in a closed, game-like environment like Go where the dynamics are constrained and the reward function is cheap to evaluate and impossible to game. But how do you give an objective reward for summarizing an article? Or answering a slightly ambiguous question about some pip install issue? Or telling a joke? Or re-writing some Java code to Python? Going towards this is not in principle impossible but it's also not trivial and it requires some creative thinking. But whoever convincingly cracks this problem will be able to run actual RL. The kind of RL that led to AlphaGo beating humans in Go. Except this LLM would have a real shot of beating humans in open-domain problem solving.

In 2019, OpenAI announced GPT-2 with this post: Today (~5 years later) you can train your own for ~$672, running on one 8XH100 GPU node for 24 hours. Our latest llm.c post gives the walkthrough in some detail: Incredibly, the costs have come down dramatically over the last 5 years due to improvements in compute hardware (H100 GPUs), software (CUDA, cuBLAS, cuDNN, FlashAttention) and data quality (e.g. the FineWeb-Edu dataset). For this exercise, the algorithm was kept fixed and follows the GPT-2/3 papers. Because llm.c is a direct implementation of GPT training in C/CUDA, the requirements are minimal - there is no need for conda environments, Python interpreters, pip installs, etc. You spin up a cloud GPU node (e.g. on Lambda), optionally install NVIDIA cuDNN, NCCL/MPI, download the .bin data shards, compile and run, and you're stepping in minutes. You then wait 24 hours and enjoy samples about English-speaking Unicorns in the Andes. For me, this is a very nice checkpoint to get to because the entire llm.c project started with me thinking about reproducing GPT-2 for an educational video, getting stuck with some PyTorch things, then rage quitting to just write the whole thing from scratch in C/CUDA. That set me on a longer journey than I anticipated, but it was quite fun, I learned more CUDA, I made friends along the way, and llm.c is really nice now. It's ~5,000 lines of code, it compiles and steps very fast so there is very little waiting around, it has constant memory footprint, it trains in mixed precision, distributed across multi-node with NNCL, it is bitwise deterministic, and hovers around ~50% MFU. So it's quite cute. llm.c couldn't have gotten here without a great group of devs who assembled from the internet, and helped get things to this point, especially ademeure, ngc92, @gordic_aleksa, and rosslwheeler. And thank you to @LambdaAPI for the GPU cycles support. There's still a lot of work left to do. I'm still not 100% happy with the current runs - the evals should be better, the training should be more stable especially at larger model sizes for longer runs. There's a lot of interesting new directions too: fp8 (imminent!), inference, finetuning, multimodal (VQVAE etc.), more modern architectures (Llama/Gemma). The goal of llm.c remains to have a simple, minimal, clean training stack for a full-featured LLM agent, in direct C/CUDA, and companion educational materials to bring many people up to speed in this awesome field. Eye candy: my much longer 400B token GPT-2 run (up from 33B tokens), which went great until 330B (reaching 61% HellaSwag, way above GPT-2 and GPT-3 of this size) and then exploded shortly after this plot, which I am looking into now :)