Next-Concept Modeling: Fast, Parallel Coarse-to-Fine Text Generation
Posted by theanonymousone 16 hours ago
Comments
Comment by pinyen_cheng 14 hours ago
Comment by alansaber 11 hours ago
Comment by OOTY00TYOO 12 hours ago
Comment by Lerc 10 hours ago
The suggestion seems to have come from the claim that to maintain a priority queue, you have to be buying consistently. That might mean buying more than you need to ensure supply when you need it. The assumption that the excess goes into a warehouse seems to have come from someone's fevered imagination.
If there are GPUs built and not yet installed, and people who want to be using them now, money can be made getting the supply to find the demand. Most large scale companies know how to do that sort of thing. If someone has a data center and no GPUs arriving for six months, paying a few million to trade the GPUs that will exist in six months for the ones that exist now gets them an additional six months of operation, while ensuring the original buyer will have GPUs when they need them, plus a few million.
Comment by torginus 9 hours ago
Comment by bigbadfeline 1 hour ago
This doesn't add up. First, it's still hoarding, I'd call it lukewarm GPUs as opposed to dark GPUs. Second, nobody would do that because it needs more space and maintenance, more racks, along with the added wear, tear and power supply losses that come with them. How do you people come up with these genius ideas, justifying the documented hardware hoarding [1]?
Here's another fun case, where some GPU hoarders simply forgot about a truckload of GPU's and didn't notice it was missing for full two weeks after it was stolen. It doesn't look like they need GPU's for "urgent installation" [2].
[1] https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/microsoft-has-ai-...
[2] https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/gpus/six-pallets-...
Comment by rhdunn 11 hours ago
[1] https://tech.yahoo.com/gaming/articles/did-nvidia-manufactur...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1xdjbd1/multiple_rep...
[3] https://www.techradar.com/computing/gpu/is-the-gpu-stock-cri...
[4] https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-nvidia-ai-gpu-data-ce...
Comment by dsjoerg 11 hours ago
Comment by tomrod 6 hours ago
I suspect other influencers/popularizers are parrotting the same claims. Its not directly related IMHO.
Comment by IanCal 12 hours ago
Comment by alansaber 11 hours ago
Comment by owebmaster 9 hours ago
Comment by idiotsecant 11 hours ago
Comment by dormento 11 hours ago
Comment by swiftcoder 16 hours ago
Comment by LoganDark 14 hours ago
I feel like their GPU architecture is going to need a significant redesign. There are limits to this tile-based mobile architecture.
Comment by mycall 9 hours ago
Comment by LoganDark 9 hours ago
Not comparing price or efficiency or value or anything like that. Just the platforms as a whole.
Comment by swiftcoder 8 hours ago
The problem here is that they aren't equivalent platforms - no amount of money will buy you an RTX 5090 with 512 GB of RAM.
If you want to buy the 16x RTX 5090s you need to get to the same 512 GB of RAM, we're talking $100,000 just in GPUs, industrial levels of power/cooling/noise, and the interconnect bandwidth is still going to kill it for normal inferencing workloads.
Of course, that 16x cluster is an absolute beast in terms of raw compute - it's just not all that useful for the things people are trying to do with such machines today.
Comment by LoganDark 6 hours ago
I agree that Apple silicon is far better in terms of memory capacity, which is part of why I'm rooting for it. But an SoC like Apple silicon is roughly analogous to a CPU+GPU when it comes to compute, and the GPU side is quite lacking compared to today's "traditional" GPUs, even though the CPU is somewhat industry leading.
Mainly, I'm disappointed with the performance of dense LLMs on Apple silicon compared to Nvidia, due to the large disparity in both memory bandwidth and GPU compute. Apple's latest chips are starting to push into just over a terabyte per second of memory bandwidth, about two-thirds of what the 5090 achieved nearly two years ago now. They are catching up quick and I do hope they pass, but they haven't quite yet.
I also hear that Apple silicon is pretty bad at prefill compared to Nvidia even when memory bandwidth is not an issue, but haven't verified. It would make sense though due to the much greater compute.
Comment by siamaksalman 15 hours ago
Comment by cubefox 11 hours ago
However, they hardly compare against the conventional next-token-prediction objective, which suggests they don't beat it, except for highly non-linear tasks like sudoku. Unfortunately, machine learning papers often tend to focus exclusively on the positives without mentioning bad aspects.
Comment by johntb86 7 hours ago
Comment by cubefox 7 hours ago
Comment by johntb86 6 hours ago
Comment by nickhodge 15 hours ago
Comment by imtringued 15 hours ago
This makes me wonder what these people think an "LLM" even is. The name itself implies that it is large and about language. It does not imply that an "LLM" is inherently autoregressive or that it has any particular architecture even though most LLMs are transformers. Anything can be a large language model as long as it is large and models language.
NCM is basically a hierarchical diffusion transformer where the further layers take one big token and then generate two smaller tokens. So it is more like an evaluation strategy. You could apply this to any model architecture.
I personally think the name NCM itself is terrible because it contains the word "next" which inherently implies an ordering and somehow we are supposed to think that "LLM" which contains no mention of ordering, is constrained to ordered token production.
Comment by totetsu 14 hours ago
Comment by clilog_d 16 hours ago
Comment by logicalnerds 10 hours ago
Comment by shiandow 14 hours ago
Comment by spiderfarmer 13 hours ago
Comment by shiandow 13 hours ago
And I don't think I've ever used the Oxford comma.
There was probably some rule about not beginning sentences with Or and And but you probably know better than I.
Comment by wccrawford 11 hours ago
They didn't teach you that about English, though. It's quite common to write "21x" for "21 times" in English and is pretty much universally understood and accepted by native speakers.
Comment by sorenjan 9 hours ago
Comment by shiandow 11 hours ago
For what it's worth I've not seen "12x" in formal contexts, but if that is proper then the times symbol still shouldn't be styled as part of the maths formula imho.
Comment by jabron 13 hours ago
Comment by cubefox 13 hours ago
Comment by shiandow 11 hours ago
For one it simply looks like you forgot to finish the formula.
Comment by cubefox 6 hours ago