VibeBuilders.ai Logo
VibeBuilders.ai

All Resources

[D] We're the Meta AI research team behind CICERO, the first AI agent to achieve human-level performance in the game Diplomacy. We’ll be answering your questions on December 8th starting at 10am PT. Ask us anything!
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
AIatMetaThis week

[D] We're the Meta AI research team behind CICERO, the first AI agent to achieve human-level performance in the game Diplomacy. We’ll be answering your questions on December 8th starting at 10am PT. Ask us anything!

EDIT 11:58am PT: Thanks for all the great questions, we stayed an almost an hour longer than originally planned to try to get through as many as possible — but we’re signing off now! We had a great time and thanks for all thoughtful questions! PROOF: https://i.redd.it/8skvttie6j4a1.png We’re part of the research team behind CICERO, Meta AI’s latest research in cooperative AI. CICERO is the first AI agent to achieve human-level performance in the game Diplomacy. Diplomacy is a complex strategy game involving both cooperation and competition that emphasizes natural language negotiation between seven players.   Over the course of 40 two-hour games with 82 human players, CICERO achieved more than double the average score of other players, ranked in the top 10% of players who played more than one game, and placed 2nd out of 19 participants who played at least 5 games.   Here are some highlights from our recent announcement: NLP x RL/Planning: CICERO combines techniques in NLP and RL/planning, by coupling a controllable dialogue module with a strategic reasoning engine.  Controlling dialogue via plans: In addition to being grounded in the game state and dialogue history, CICERO’s dialogue model was trained to be controllable via a set of intents or plans in the game. This allows CICERO to use language intentionally and to move beyond imitation learning by conditioning on plans selected by the strategic reasoning engine. Selecting plans: CICERO uses a strategic reasoning module to make plans (and select intents) in the game. This module runs a planning algorithm which takes into account the game state, the dialogue, and the strength/likelihood of various actions. Plans are recomputed every time CICERO sends/receives a message. Filtering messages: We built an ensemble of classifiers to detect low quality messages, like messages contradicting the game state/dialogue history or messages which have low strategic value. We used this ensemble to aggressively filter CICERO’s messages.  Human-like play: Over the course of 72 hours of play – which involved sending 5,277 messages – CICERO was not detected as an AI agent. You can check out some of our materials and open-sourced artifacts here:  Research paper Project overview Diplomacy gameplay page Github repo Our latest blog post Joining us today for the AMA are: Andrew Goff (AG), 3x Diplomacy World Champion Alexander Miller (AM), Research Engineering Manager Noam Brown (NB), Research Scientist (u/NoamBrown) Mike Lewis (ML), Research Scientist (u/mikelewis0) David Wu (DW), Research Engineer (u/icosaplex) Emily Dinan (ED), Research Engineer Anton Bakhtin (AB), Research Engineer Adam Lerer (AL), Research Engineer Jonathan Gray (JG), Research Engineer Colin Flaherty (CF), Research Engineer (u/c-flaherty) We’ll be here on December 8, 2022 @ 10:00AM PT - 11:00AM PT.

[R] Tiny LVLM-eHub: Early Multimodal Experiments with Bard - OpenGVLab, Shanghai AI Laboratory 2023 - Encourages innovative strategies aimed at advancing multimodal techniques!
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0
Singularian2501This week

[R] Tiny LVLM-eHub: Early Multimodal Experiments with Bard - OpenGVLab, Shanghai AI Laboratory 2023 - Encourages innovative strategies aimed at advancing multimodal techniques!

Paper: https://github.com/OpenGVLab/Multi-Modality-Arena Github: https://github.com/OpenGVLab/Multi-Modality-Arena Abstract: Recent advancements in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have demonstrated significant progress in tackling complex multimodal tasks. Among these cutting-edge developments, Google's Bard stands out for its remarkable multimodal capabilities, promoting comprehensive comprehension and reasoning across various domains. This work presents an early and holistic evaluation of LVLMs' multimodal abilities, with a particular focus on Bard, by proposing a lightweight variant of LVLM-eHub, named Tiny LVLM-eHub. In comparison to the vanilla version, Tiny LVLM-eHub possesses several appealing properties. Firstly, it provides a systematic assessment of six categories of multimodal capabilities, including visual perception, visual knowledge acquisition, visual reasoning, visual commonsense, object hallucination, and embodied intelligence, through quantitative evaluation of 42 standard text-related visual benchmarks. Secondly, it conducts an in-depth analysis of LVLMs' predictions using the ChatGPT Ensemble Evaluation (CEE), which leads to a robust and accurate evaluation and exhibits improved alignment with human evaluation compared to the word matching approach. Thirdly, it comprises a mere 2.1K image-text pairs, facilitating ease of use for practitioners to evaluate their own offline LVLMs. Through extensive experimental analysis, this study demonstrates that Bard outperforms previous LVLMs in most multimodal capabilities except object hallucination, to which Bard is still susceptible. Tiny LVLM-eHub serves as a baseline evaluation for various LVLMs and encourages innovative strategies aimed at advancing multimodal techniques. https://preview.redd.it/i6x6p5bloihb1.jpg?width=1485&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7e91fe184844278b0a7e14090ae9aaef54b29f37 ​ ​

[D] What is your honest experience with reinforcement learning?
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
Starks-TechnologyThis week

[D] What is your honest experience with reinforcement learning?

In my personal experience, SOTA RL algorithms simply don't work. I've tried working with reinforcement learning for over 5 years. I remember when Alpha Go defeated the world famous Go player, Lee Sedol, and everybody thought RL would take the ML community by storm. Yet, outside of toy problems, I've personally never found a practical use-case of RL. What is your experience with it? Aside from Ad recommendation systems and RLHF, are there legitimate use-cases of RL? Or, was it all hype? Edit: I know a lot about AI. I built NexusTrade, an AI-Powered automated investing tool that lets non-technical users create, update, and deploy their trading strategies. I’m not an idiot nor a noob; RL is just ridiculously hard. Edit 2: Since my comments are being downvoted, here is a link to my article that better describes my position. It's not that I don't understand RL. I released my open-source code and wrote a paper on it. It's the fact that it's EXTREMELY difficult to understand. Other deep learning algorithms like CNNs (including ResNets), RNNs (including GRUs and LSTMs), Transformers, and GANs are not hard to understand. These algorithms work and have practical use-cases outside of the lab. Traditional SOTA RL algorithms like PPO, DDPG, and TD3 are just very hard. You need to do a bunch of research to even implement a toy problem. In contrast, the decision transformer is something anybody can implement, and it seems to match or surpass the SOTA. You don't need two networks battling each other. You don't have to go through hell to debug your network. It just naturally learns the best set of actions in an auto-regressive manner. I also didn't mean to come off as arrogant or imply that RL is not worth learning. I just haven't seen any real-world, practical use-cases of it. I simply wanted to start a discussion, not claim that I know everything. Edit 3: There's a shockingly number of people calling me an idiot for not fully understanding RL. You guys are wayyy too comfortable calling people you disagree with names. News-flash, not everybody has a PhD in ML. My undergraduate degree is in biology. I self-taught myself the high-level maths to understand ML. I'm very passionate about the field; I just have VERY disappointing experiences with RL. Funny enough, there are very few people refuting my actual points. To summarize: Lack of real-world applications Extremely complex and inaccessible to 99% of the population Much harder than traditional DL algorithms like CNNs, RNNs, and GANs Sample inefficiency and instability Difficult to debug Better alternatives, such as the Decision Transformer Are these not legitimate criticisms? Is the purpose of this sub not to have discussions related to Machine Learning? To the few commenters that aren't calling me an idiot...thank you! Remember, it costs you nothing to be nice! Edit 4: Lots of people seem to agree that RL is over-hyped. Unfortunately those comments are downvoted. To clear up some things: We've invested HEAVILY into reinforcement learning. All we got from this investment is a robot that can be super-human at (some) video games. AlphaFold did not use any reinforcement learning. SpaceX doesn't either. I concede that it can be useful for robotics, but still argue that it's use-cases outside the lab are extremely limited. If you're stumbling on this thread and curious about an RL alternative, check out the Decision Transformer. It can be used in any situation that a traditional RL algorithm can be used. Final Edit: To those who contributed more recently, thank you for the thoughtful discussion! From what I learned, model-based models like Dreamer and IRIS MIGHT have a future. But everybody who has actually used model-free models like DDPG unanimously agree that they suck and don’t work.

[N] How Stability AI’s Founder Tanked His Billion-Dollar Startup
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0.667
milaworldThis week

[N] How Stability AI’s Founder Tanked His Billion-Dollar Startup

forbes article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrickcai/2024/03/29/how-stability-ais-founder-tanked-his-billion-dollar-startup/ archive no paywall: https://archive.is/snbeV How Stability AI’s Founder Tanked His Billion-Dollar Startup Mar 29, 2024 Stability AI founder Emad Mostaque took the stage last week at the Terranea Resort in Palos Verdes, California to roaring applause and an introduction from an AI-generated Aristotle who announced him as “a modern Prometheus” with “the astuteness of Athena and the vision of Daedalus.” “Under his stewardship, AI becomes the Herculean force poised to vanquish the twin serpents of illness and ailment and extend the olive branch of longevity,” the faux Aristotle proclaimed. “I think that’s the best intro I’ve ever had,” Mostaque said. But behind Mostaque's hagiographic introduction lay a grim and fast metastasizing truth. Stability, once one of AI’s buzziest startups, was floundering. It had been running out of money for months and Mostaque had been unable to secure enough additional funding. It had defaulted on payments to Amazon whose cloud service undergirded Stability’s core offerings. The star research team behind its flagship text-to-image generator Stable Diffusion had tendered their resignations just three days before — as Forbes would first report — and other senior leaders had issued him an ultimatum: resign, or we walk too. Still, onstage before a massive audience of peers and acolytes, Mostaque talked a big game. “AI is jet planes for the mind,” he opined. “AI is our collective intelligence. It's the human Colossus.” He claimed a new, faster version of the Stable Diffusion image generator released earlier this month could generate “200 cats with hats per second.” But later, when he was asked about Stability’s financial model, Mostaque fumbled. “I can’t say that publicly,” he replied. “But it’s going well. We’re ahead of forecast.” Four days later, Mostaque stepped down as CEO of Stability, as Forbes first reported. In a post to X, the service formerly known as Twitter, he claimed he’d voluntarily abdicated his role to decentralize “the concentration of power in AI.” But sources told Forbes that was hardly the case. Behind the scenes, Mostaque had fought to maintain his position and control despite mounting pressure externally and internally to step down. Company documents and interviews with 32 current and former employees, investors, collaborators and industry observers suggest his abrupt exit was the result of poor business judgment and wild overspending that undermined confidence in his vision and leadership, and ultimately kneecapped the company. Mostaque, through his attorneys, declined to comment on record on a detailed list of questions about the reporting in this story. But in an email to Forbes earlier this week he broadly disputed the allegations. “Nobody tells you how hard it is to be a CEO and there are better CEOs than me to scale a business,” he said in a statement. “I am not sure anyone else would have been able to build and grow the research team to build the best and most widely used models out there and I’m very proud of the team there. I look forward to moving onto the next problem to handle and hopefully move the needle.” In an emailed statement, Christian Laforte and Shan Shan Wong, the interim co-CEOs who replaced Mostaque, said, "the company remains focused on commercializing its world leading technology” and providing it “to partners across the creative industries." After starting Stability in 2019, Mostaque built the company into an early AI juggernaut by seizing upon a promising research project that would become Stable Diffusion and funding it into a business reality. The ease with which the software generated detailed images from the simplest text prompts immediately captivated the public: 10 million people used it on any given day, the company told Forbes in early 2023. For some true believers, Mostaque was a crucial advocate for open-source AI development in a space dominated by the closed systems of OpenAI, Google and Anthropic. But his startup’s rise to one of the buzziest in generative AI was in part built on a series of exaggerations and misleading claims, as Forbes first reported last year (Mostaque disputed some points at the time). And they continued after he raised $100 million at a $1 billion valuation just days after launching Stable Diffusion in 2022. His failure to deliver on an array of grand promises, like building bespoke AI models for nation states, and his decision to pour tens of millions into research without a sustainable business plan, eroded Stability’s foundations and jeopardized its future. "He was just giving shit away,” one former employee told Forbes. “That man legitimately wanted to transform the world. He actually wanted to train AI models for kids in Malawi. Was it practical? Absolutely not." By October 2023, Stability would have less than $4 million left in the bank, according to an internal memo prepared for a board meeting and reviewed by Forbes. And mounting debt, including months of overdue Amazon Web Services payments, had already left it in the red. To avoid legal penalties for skipping Americans staff’s payroll, the document explained, the London-based startup was considering delaying tax payments to the U.K. government. It was Stability’s armada of GPUs, the wildly powerful and equally expensive chips undergirding AI, that were so taxing the company’s finances. Hosted by AWS, they had long been one of Mostaque’s bragging points; he often touted them as one of the world’s 10 largest supercomputers. They were responsible for helping Stability’s researchers build and maintain one of the top AI image generators, as well as break important new ground on generative audio, video and 3D models. “Undeniably, Stability has continued to ship a lot of models,” said one former employee. “They may not have profited off of it, but the broader ecosystem benefitted in a huge, huge way.” But the costs associated with so much compute were now threatening to sink the company. According to an internal October financial forecast seen by Forbes, Stability was on track to spend $99 million on compute in 2023. It noted as well that Stability was “underpaying AWS bills for July (by $1M)” and “not planning to pay AWS at the end of October for August usage ($7M).” Then there were the September and October bills, plus $1 million owed to Google Cloud and $600,000 to GPU cloud data center CoreWeave. (Amazon, Google and CoreWeave declined to comment.) With an additional $54 million allocated to wages and operating expenses, Stability’s total projected costs for 2023 were $153 million. But according to its October financial report, its projected revenue for the calendar year was just $11 million. Stability was on track to lose more money per month than it made in an entire year. The company’s dire financial position had thoroughly soured Stability’s current investors, including Coatue, which had invested tens of millions in the company during its $101 million funding round in 2022. In the middle of 2023, Mostaque agreed to an independent audit after Coatue raised a series of concerns, according to a source with direct knowledge of the matter. The outcome of the investigation is unclear. Coatue declined to comment. Within a week of an early October board meeting where Mostaque shared that financial forecast, Lightspeed Venture Partners, another major investor, sent a letter to the board urging them to sell the company. The distressing numbers had “severely undermined” the firm’s confidence in Mostaque’s ability to lead the company. “In particular, we are surprised and deeply concerned by a cash position just now disclosed to us that is inconsistent with prior discussions on this topic,” Lightspeed’s general counsel Brett Nissenberg wrote in the letter, a copy of which was viewed by Forbes. “Lightspeed believes that the company is not likely financeable on terms that would assure the company’s long term sound financial position.” (Lightspeed declined a request for comment.) The calls for a sale led Stability to quietly begin looking for a buyer. Bloomberg reported in November that Stability approached AI startups Cohere and Jasper to gauge their interest. Stability denied this, and Jasper CEO Timothy Young did the same when reached for comment by Forbes. A Cohere representative declined to comment. But one prominent AI company confirmed that Mostaque’s representatives had reached out to them to test the waters. Those talks did not advance because “the numbers didn’t add up,” this person, who declined to be named due to the confidential nature of the talks, told Forbes. Stability also tried to court Samsung as a buyer, going so far as to redecorate its office in advance of a planned meeting with the Korean electronics giant. (Samsung said that it invested in Stability in 2023 and that it does not comment on M&A discussions.) Coatue had been calling for Mostaque’s resignation for months, according to a source with direct knowledge. But it and other investors were unable to oust him because he was the company’s majority shareholder. When they tried a different tact by rallying other investors to offer him a juicy equity package to resign, Mostaque refused, said two sources. By October, Coatue and Lightspeed had had enough. Coatue left the board and Lightspeed resigned its observer seat. “Emad infuriated our initial investors so much it’s just making it impossible for us to raise more money under acceptable terms,” one current Stability executive told Forbes. The early months of 2024 saw Stability’s already precarious position eroding further still. Employees were quietly laid off. Three people in a position to know estimated that at least 10% of staff were cut. And cash reserves continued to dwindle. Mostaque mentioned a lifeline at the October board meeting: $95 million in tentative funding from new investors, pending due diligence. But in the end, only a fraction of it was wired, two sources say, much of it from Intel, which Forbes has learned invested $20 million, a fraction of what was reported. (Intel did not return a request for comment by publication time.) Two hours after Forbes broke the news of Mostaque’s plans to step down as CEO, Stability issued a press release confirming his resignation. Chief operating officer Wong and chief technology officer Laforte have taken over in the interim. Mostaque, who said on X that he still owns a majority of the company, also stepped down from the board, which has now initiated a search for a permanent CEO. There is a lot of work to be done to turn things around, and very little time in which to do it. Said the current Stability executive, “There’s still a possibility of a turnaround story, but the odds drop by the day.” In July of 2023, Mostaque still thought he could pull it off. Halfway through the month, he shared a fundraising plan with his lieutenants. It was wildly optimistic, detailing the raise of $500 million in cash and another $750 million in computing facilities from marquee investors like Nvidia, Google, Intel and the World Bank (Nvidia and Google declined comment. Intel did not respond. The World Bank said it did not invest in Stability). In a Slack message reviewed by Forbes, Mostaque said Google was “willing to move fast” and the round was “likely to be oversubscribed.” It wasn’t. Three people with direct knowledge of these fundraising efforts told Forbes that while there was some interest in Stability, talks often stalled when it came time to disclose financials. Two of them noted that earlier in the year, Mostaque had simply stopped engaging with VCs who asked for numbers. Only one firm invested around that time: actor Ashton Kutcher’s Sound Ventures, which invested $35 million in the form of a convertible SAFE note during the second quarter, according to an internal document. (Sound Ventures did not respond to a request for comment.) And though he’d managed to score a meeting with Nvidia and its CEO Jensen Huang, it ended in disaster, according to two sources. “Under Jensen's microscopic questions, Emad just fell apart,” a source in position to know told Forbes. Huang quickly concluded Stability wasn’t ready for an investment from Nvidia, the sources said. Mostaque told Forbes in an email that he had not met with Huang since 2022, except to say “hello and what’s up a few times after.” His July 2023 message references a plan to raise $150 million from Nvidia. (Nvidia declined to comment.) After a June Forbes investigation citing more than 30 sources revealed Mostaque’s history of misleading claims, Mostaque struggled to raise funding, a Stability investor told Forbes. (Mostaque disputed the story at the time and called it "coordinated lies" in his email this week to Forbes). Increasingly, investors scrutinized his assertions and pressed for data. And Young, now the CEO of Jasper, turned down a verbal offer to be Stability’s president after reading the article, according to a source with direct knowledge of the matter. The collapse of the talks aggravated the board and other executives, who had hoped Young would compensate for the sales and business management skills that Mostaque lacked, according to four people in a position to know. (Young declined to comment.) When Stability’s senior leadership convened in London for the CogX conference in September, the financing had still not closed. There, a group of executives confronted Mostaque asking questions about the company’s cash position and runway, according to three people with direct knowledge of the incident. They did not get the clarity they’d hoped for. By October, Mostaque had reduced his fundraising target by more than 80%. The months that followed saw a steady drumbeat of departures — general counsel Adam Avrunin, vice presidents Mike Melnicki, Ed Newton-Rex and Joe Penna, chief people officer Ozden Onder — culminating in the demoralizing March exit of Stable Diffusion’s primary developers Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Patrick Esser and Dominik Lorenz. Rombach, who led the team, had been angling to leave for months, two sources said, first threatening to resign last summer because of the fundraising failures. Others left over concerns about cash flow, as well as liabilities — including what four people described as Mostaque’s lax approach to ensuring that Stability products could not be used to produce child sexual abuse imagery. “Stability AI is committed to preventing the misuse of AI and prohibits the use of our image models and services for unlawful activity, including attempts to edit or create CSAM,” Ella Irwin, senior vice president of integrity, said in a statement. Newton-Rex told Forbes he resigned because he disagreed with Stability’s position that training AI on copyrighted work without consent is fair use. Melnicki and Penna declined to comment. Avrunin and Onder could not be reached for comment. None of the researchers responded to requests for comment. The Stable Diffusion researchers’ departure as a cohort says a lot about the state of Stability AI. The company’s researchers were widely viewed as its crown jewels, their work subsidized with a firehose of pricey compute power that was even extended to people outside the company. Martino Russi, an artificial intelligence researcher, told Forbes that though he was never formally employed by Stability, the company provided him a “staggering” amount of compute between January and April 2023 to play around with developing an AI video generator that Stability might someday use. “It was Candy Land or Coney Island,” said Russi, who estimates that his experiment, which was ultimately shelved, cost the company $2.5 million. Stable Diffusion was simultaneously Stability’s marquee product and its existential cash crisis. One current employee described it to Forbes as “a giant vacuum that absorbed everything: money, compute, people.” While the software was widely used, with Mostaque claiming downloads reaching into the hundreds of millions, Stability struggled to translate that wild success into revenue. Mostaque knew it could be done — peers at Databricks, Elastic and MongoDB had all turned a free product into a lucrative business — he just couldn’t figure out how. His first attempt was Stability’s API, which allowed paying customers to integrate Stable Diffusion into their own products. In early 2023, a handful of small companies, like art generator app NightCafe and presentation software startup Tome, signed on, according to four people with knowledge of the deals. But Stability’s poor account management services soured many, and in a matter of months NightCafe and Tome canceled their contracts, three people said. NightCafe founder Angus Russell told Forbes that his company switched to a competitor which “offered much cheaper inference costs and a broader service.” Tome did not respond to a request for comment. Meanwhile, Mostaque’s efforts to court larger companies like Samsung and Snapchat were failing, according to five people familiar with the effort. Canva, which was already one of the heaviest users of open-sourced Stable Diffusion, had multiple discussions with Stability, which was angling for a contract it hoped would generate several millions in annual revenue. But the deal never materialized, four sources said. “These three companies wanted and needed us,” one former employee told Forbes. “They would have been the perfect customers.” (Samsung, Snap and Canva declined to comment.) “It’s not that there was not an appetite to pay Stability — there were tons of companies that would have that wanted to,” the former employee said. “There was a huge opportunity and demand, but just a resistance to execution.” Mostaque’s other big idea was to provide governments with bespoke national AI models that would invigorate their economies and citizenry. “Emad envisions a world where AI through 100 national models serves not as a tool of the few, but as a benefactor to all promising to confront great adversaries, cancer, autism, and the sands of time itself,” the AI avatar of Aristotle said in his intro at the conference. Mostaque told several prospective customers that he could deliver such models within 60 days — an untenable timeline, according to two people in position to know. Stability attempted to develop a model for the Singaporean government over the protestation of employees who questioned its technical feasibility, three sources familiar with the effort told Forbes. But it couldn’t pull it off and Singapore never became a customer. (The government of Singapore confirmed it did not enter into a deal with Stability, but declined to answer additional questions.) As Stability careened from one new business idea to another, resources were abruptly reallocated and researchers reassigned. The whiplash shifts in a largely siloed organization demoralized and infuriated employees. “There were ‘urgent’ things, ‘urgent urgent’ things and ‘most urgent,’” one former employee complained. “None of these things seem important if everything is important.” Another former Stability executive was far more pointed in their assessment. “Emad is the most disorganized leader I have ever worked with in my career,” this person told Forbes. “He has no vision, and changes directions every week, often based on what he sees on Twitter.” In a video interview posted shortly before this story was published, Mostaque explained his leadership style: “I'm particularly great at taking creatives, developers, researchers, others, and achieving their full potential in designing systems. But I should not be dealing with, you know, HR and operations and business development and other elements. There are far better people than me to do that.” By December 2023, Stability had partially abandoned its open-source roots and announced that any commercial use of Stable Diffusion would cost customers at least $20 per month (non-commercial and research use of Stable Diffusion would remain free). But privately, Stability was considering a potentially more lucrative source of revenue: reselling the compute it was leasing from providers like AWS, according to six people familiar with the effort. Though it was essentially GPU arbitrage, Stability framed the strategy to investors as a “managed services” offering. Its damning October financial report projected optimistically that such an offering would bring in $139 million in 2024 — 98% of its revenue. Multiple employees at the time told Forbes they feared reselling compute, even if the company called it “managed services,” would violate the terms of Stability’s contract with AWS. Amazon declined to comment. “The line internally was that we are not reselling compute,” one former employee said. “This was some of the dirtiest feeling stuff.” Stability also discussed reselling a cluster of Nvidia A100 chips, leased via CoreWeave, to the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, three sources said. “It was under the guise of managed services, but there wasn’t any management happening,” one of these people told Forbes. Andreessen Horowitz and CoreWeave declined to comment. Stability did not respond to questions about if it plans to continue this strategy now that Mostaque is out of the picture. Regardless, interim co-CEOs Wong and Laforte are on a tight timeline to clean up his mess. Board chairman Jim O’Shaughnessy said in a statement that he was confident the pair “will adeptly steer the company forward in developing and commercializing industry-leading generative AI products.” But burn continues to far outpace revenue. The Financial Times reported Friday that the company made $5.4 million of revenue in February, against $8 million in costs. Several sources said there are ongoing concerns about making payroll for the roughly 150 remaining employees. Leadership roles have gone vacant for months amid the disarray, leaving the company increasingly directionless. Meanwhile, a potentially catastrophic legal threat looms over the company: A trio of copyright infringement lawsuits brought by Getty Images and a group of artists in the U.S. and U.K., who claim Stability illegally used their art and photography to train the AI models powering Stable Diffusion. A London-based court has already rejected the company’s bid to throw out one of the lawsuits on the basis that none of its researchers were based in the U.K. And Stability’s claim that Getty’s Delaware lawsuit should be blocked because it's a U.K.-based company was rejected. (Stability did not respond to questions about the litigation.) AI-related copyright litigation “could go on for years,” according to Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University. He told Forbes that though plaintiffs suing AI firms face an uphill battle overcoming the existing legal precedent on copyright infringement, the quantity of arguments available to make are virtually inexhaustible. “Like in military theory, if there’s a gap in your lines, that’s where the enemy pours through — if any one of those arguments succeeds, it could completely change the generative AI environment,” he said. “In some sense, generative AI as an industry has to win everything.” Stability, which had more than $100 million in the bank just a year and a half ago, is in a deep hole. Not only does it need more funding, it needs a viable business model — or a buyer with the vision and chops to make it successful in a fast-moving and highly competitive sector. At an all hands meeting this past Monday, Stability’s new leaders detailed a path forward. One point of emphasis: a plan to better manage resources and expenses, according to one person in attendance. It’s a start, but Mostaque’s meddling has left them with little runway to execute. His resignation, though, has given some employees hope. “A few people are 100% going to reconsider leaving after today,” said one current employee. “And the weird gloomy aura of hearing Emad talking nonsense for an hour is gone.” Shortly before Mostaque resigned, one current Stability executive told Forbes that they were optimistic his departure could make Stability appealing enough to receive a small investment or sale to a friendly party. “There are companies that have raised hundreds of millions of dollars that have much less intrinsic value than Stability,” the person said. “A white knight may still appear.”

[Discussion]: Mark Zuckerberg on Meta's Strategy on Open Source and AI during the earnings call
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
noiseinvacuumThis week

[Discussion]: Mark Zuckerberg on Meta's Strategy on Open Source and AI during the earnings call

During the recent earnings call, Mark Zuckerberg answered a question from Eric Sheridan of Goldman Sachs on Meta's AI strategy, opportunities to integrate into products, and why they open source models and how it would benefit their business. I found the reasoning to be very sound and promising for the OSS and AI community. The biggest risk from AI, in my opinion, is not the doomsday scenarios that intuitively come to mind but rather that the most powerful AI systems will only be accessible to the most powerful and resourceful corporations. Quote copied from Ben Thompson's write up on Meta's earning in his Stratechery blog post which goes beyond AI. It's behind a paywall but I highly recommend it personally. Some noteworthy quotes that signal the thought process at Meta FAIR and more broadly We’re just playing a different game on the infrastructure than companies like Google or Microsoft or Amazon We would aspire to and hope to make even more open than that. So, we’ll need to figure out a way to do that. ...lead us to do more work in terms of open sourcing, some of the lower level models and tools Open sourcing low level tools make the way we run all this infrastructure more efficient over time. On PyTorch: It’s generally been very valuable for us to provide that because now all of the best developers across the industry are using tools that we’re also using internally. I would expect us to be pushing and helping to build out an open ecosystem. For all the negative that comes out of the popular discourse on Meta, I think their work to open source key tech tools over the last 10 years has been exceptional, here's hoping it continues into this decade of AI and pushes other tech giants to also realize the benefits of Open Source. Full Transcript: Right now most of the companies that are training large language models have business models that lead them to a closed approach to development. I think there’s an important opportunity to help create an open ecosystem. If we can help be a part of this, then much of the industry will standardize on using these open tools and help improve them further. So this will make it easier for other companies to integrate with our products and platforms as we enable more integrations, and that will help our products stay at the leading edge as well. Our approach to AI and our infrastructure has always been fairly open. We open source many of our state of the art models so people can experiment and build with them. This quarter we released our LLaMa LLM to researchers. It has 65 billion parameters but outperforms larger models and has proven quite popular. We’ve also open-sourced three other groundbreaking visual models along with their training data and model weights — Segment Anything, DinoV2, and our Animated Drawings tool — and we’ve gotten positive feedback on all of those as well. I think that there’s an important distinction between the products we offer and a lot of the technical infrastructure, especially the software that we write to support that. And historically, whether it’s the Open Compute project that we’ve done or just open sourcing a lot of the infrastructure that we’ve built, we’ve historically open sourced a lot of that infrastructure, even though we haven’t open sourced the code for our core products or anything like that. And the reason why I think why we do this is that unlike some of the other companies in the space, we’re not selling a cloud computing service where we try to keep the different software infrastructure that we’re building proprietary. For us, it’s way better if the industry standardizes on the basic tools that we’re using and therefore we can benefit from the improvements that others make and others’ use of those tools can, in some cases like Open Compute, drive down the costs of those things which make our business more efficient too. So I think to some degree we’re just playing a different game on the infrastructure than companies like Google or Microsoft or Amazon, and that creates different incentives for us. So overall, I think that that’s going to lead us to do more work in terms of open sourcing, some of the lower level models and tools. But of course, a lot of the product work itself is going to be specific and integrated with the things that we do. So it’s not that everything we do is going to be open. Obviously, a bunch of this needs to be developed in a way that creates unique value for our products, but I think in terms of the basic models, I would expect us to be pushing and helping to build out an open ecosystem here, which I think is something that’s going to be important. On the AI tools, and we have a bunch of history here, right? So if you if you look at what we’ve done with PyTorch, for example, which has generally become the standard in the industry as a tool that a lot of folks who are building AI models and different things in that space use, it’s generally been very valuable for us to provide that because now all of the best developers across the industry are using tools that we’re also using internally. So the tool chain is the same. So when they create some innovation, we can easily integrate it into the things that we’re doing. When we improve something, it improves other products too. Because it’s integrated with our technology stack, when there are opportunities to make integrations with products, it’s much easier to make sure that developers and other folks are compatible with the things that we need in the way that our systems work. So there are a lot of advantages, but I view this more as a kind of back end infrastructure advantage with potential integrations on the product side, but one that should hopefully enable us to stay at the leading edge and integrate more broadly with the community and also make the way we run all this infrastructure more efficient over time. There are a number of models. I just gave PyTorch as an example. Open Compute is another model that has worked really well for us in this way, both to incorporate both innovation and scale efficiency into our own infrastructure. So I think that there’s, our incentives I think are basically aligned towards moving in this direction. Now that said, there’s a lot to figure out, right? So when you asked if there are going to be other opportunities, I hope so. I can’t speak to what all those things might be now. This is all quite early in getting developed. The better we do at the foundational work, the more opportunities I think that will come and present themselves. So I think that that’s all stuff that we need to figure out. But at least at the base level, I think we’re generally incentivized to move in this direction. And we also need to figure out how to go in that direction over time. I mean, I mentioned LLaMA before and I also want to be clear that while I’m talking about helping contribute to an open ecosystem, LLaMA is a model that we only really made available to researchers and there’s a lot of really good stuff that’s happening there. But a lot of the work that we’re doing, I think, we would aspire to and hope to make even more open than that. So, we’ll need to figure out a way to do that.

[P] I Trained a Model to Generate Video Game Pages
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
pcvisionThis week

[P] I Trained a Model to Generate Video Game Pages

These past two months I've been working on a project I've called THIS GAME DOES NOT EXIST. I've always wanted to try building something with generative A.I. so this project scratched that itch for me. Here's a video with a few of my favourites read by voice actors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\mTWMLhpJoA ​ THIS GAME DOES NOT EXIST is an experiment in generative artificial intelligence. This site contains 130 video game pages that were generated using an implementation of OpenAI's Generative Pre-trained Transformer 2 (GPT-2) to generate text and a simple implementation of generative adversarial networks (GAN) to generate header images and "screenshots". To generate the names, descriptions, publishers, and developers of the games I finetuned the HuggingFace implementation of GPT-2. I used the Steam Store Games (Clean dataset) from Kaggle with slight modifications and preprocessing.Here is what one training sample looks like: Half-LifeValve ValveNamed Game of the Year by over 50 publications, Valve's debut title blends action and adventure with award-winning technology to create a frighteningly realistic world where players must think to survive. Also includes an exciting multiplayer mode that allows you to play against friends and enemies around the world. The model uses the tokens (e.g. and ) to prompt each class of data while keeping context during the entire generation. Image generation was done by training a custom GAN very similar to the architecture seen in the PyTorch DCGAN Tutorial which was built to generate faces. I created two models for this site: one for generating the header images and one for generating multiple screenshots for each game.To assemble the dataset I wrote a script that downloads the images from the URLs in the Steam Store Games (Clean dataset) dataset. Due to my lack of resources and time to put into this project, the image generation is less than ideal. You may notice though, that the header image model will generate artifacts in images that look like the titles of games, and the screenshot image model with generate what looks like levels of a 2D platformer.

[D] Playing big league at home on a budget?
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0.778
ballerburg9005This week

[D] Playing big league at home on a budget?

I am a hobbyist and my Nvidia 660 is 10 years old and only has 2GB. Obviously that isn't going to cut it nowadays anymore. I am thinking about options here. I don't have thousands and thousands of dollars. And I highly doubt that spending close to a thousand dollars on a brand new card is still viable in 2020-2022. I wanted to use Wavenet today and then found out about Melnet. I mean, maybe I could run Wavenet but nobody in their right mind wants to after hearing Melnet results. On Github this one guy complained he couldn't get his implementation to work due to OOM with 2x 2080 RTX, which he bought solely for this purpose. Then on the other repo the guy casually mentioned that tier XY doesn't fit with some 10 year old lowfi dataset, even with batch size 1, on a 16GB Tesla P100. The wisdom for OOM has always been "decrease batch size". But as far as I can tell, for most of any of the interesting stuff in the last 8 years or so you simply can't decrease batch size. Either because batch sizes are already so tiny, or because the code is written in a way that would require you to somehow turn it inside out, probably involving extreme knowledge of higher mathematics. I am a hobbyist, not a researcher. I am happy if I crudely can grasp what is going on. Most of anything in the field suffers from exactly the same issue: It simply won't run without utterly absurd amounts of VRAM. So what about buying shitty cheapo AMD GPUs with lots of VRAM? This seems to be the sensible choice if you want to be able to run anything noteworthy at all that comes up in the next 2 years and maybe beyond. People say, don't but AMD its slow and it sucks, but those are apparently the same people that buy a 16GB Titan GPU for $1500 three times on Ebay without hesitation, when there are also 16GB AMD GPUs for $300. How much slower are AMD GPUs really? Let's say they are 5 times cheaper so they could be just 5 times slower. So I have to train my model over night instead of seeing the result in the afternoon. That would be totally awesome!; given that the alternative is to buy a $300 Nvidia GPU, which has maybe 4 or 6GB and simply can't run the code without running out of memory. And say $300 is not enough, let's buy a $700 RTX 3080. It still only has 10GB of VRAM not even 16GB. Then its just as useless! What's the point of buying a fast GPU if it can't even run the code? I don't know how much slower AMD GPUs really are. Maybe they are not 5x but 50x slower. Then of course training a model that was developed on some 64GB Tesla might take month and years. But maybe speed is not the issue, only memory. I have seen some stuff even being optimized for CPU, apparently because there weren't any big enough GPUs around. I don't really know how viable that can be (it seems rarely if ever it is), I have no experience. And what about renting AWS? Let's say, I am a beginner and I want to toy around for a week and probably max out 4 Teslas like 80% of the time without really getting anywhere. How expensive is that? $25, $50, $100, $500? (Found the answer: fucking $2000 https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/p3/ ) Ok, so AWS is bullshit, here its 6x cheaper: https://vast.ai/console/create/ . They don't really have 4x 16GB V100 though, just one V100. $0.5 per hour 24 7 = $84 per month (there are more hidden cost like bandwidth, it doesn't seem to be huge but I never used this so don't take it at face value). On AWS the same is over $3 per hour. So a day is $12, this could be viable! (look at calculation below). There really isn't much info on the net about hardware requirements and performance for machine learning stuff. What bothers me the most is that people seem to be very ignorant of the VRAM issue. Either because they aren't looking ahead of what might come in 1-2 years. Or because they are simply so rich they have no issue spending thousands and thousands of dollars every year instead of just 500 every couple of years. Or maybe they are both. So, yeah, what are your thoughts? Here is what I found out just today: Until 2 years ago, tensorflow and pytorch wouldn't work with AMD cards, but this has changed. https://rocmdocs.amd.com/en/latest/Deep_learning/Deep-learning.html For older cards though, ROCm only works with certain CPUs: it needs PCIe 3.0 with atomics (see: https://github.com/RadeonOpenCompute/ROCm ). So you can't simply buy any 16GB card for $300 on Ebay like I suggested, even if it supports ROCm, because it will only work for "newer" PCs. The newer GFX9 AMD cards (like Radeon VII and Vega) don't suffer from this problem and work with PCIe 2.0 again... Although I have seen 16GB Vega cards for like $350 on Ebay, I think that is a pretty rare catch. However looking 1-2 years in the future, this is great because Radeon VII prices will be hugely inflated by Nvidia 3000 series hype (maybe down to $180 even) and maybe the next gen cards from AMD even have 24 or 32GB for $500-$1000 and can still run on old machines. According to this https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.06842.pdf Radeon VII 16GB performs only half as good as Tesla V100 16GB, whereas V100 should be roughly along the lines of 11GB RTX 2080 Ti. So you could say that you get half the RAM, double the speed, double the price. I am not sure though if that holds. I think they were putting 16GB in those cards trying to push it for ML with ROCm, clearly addressing the problem of the time, but no one really jumped on the train and now Resnet shrinks RAM but needs more processing power. So they released 8GB cards again with slightly better performance, and I guess we are lucky if the next generation even has 16GB because games probably don't need it at all. Still though with Revnets and everything said in the comments, I think on a budget you are better on the safe side buying the card with the most amount of VRAM, rather than the most performance. Tomorrow some paper might come out that uses another method, then you can't trick-shrink your network anymore and then everyone needs to buy big ass cards again like it used to be and can do nothing but throw their fancy faster cards in the dumpster. Also the huge bulk of ML currently focuses on image processing, while sound has only been gaining real momentum recently and this will be followed by video processing and eventually human-alike thought processes that sit atop of all that and have not even been tackled yet. Its a rapidly evolving field, hard to predict what will come and stay. Running out of VRAM means total hardware failure, running slower just means waiting longer. If you just buy the newest card every year, its probably save to buy the fast card because things won't change that fast after all. If you buy a new card every 4 years or longer then just try to get as much VRAM as possible. Check this out: https://www.techspot.com/news/86811-gigabyte-accidentally-reveals-rtx-3070-16gb-rtx-3080.html There will be a 3070 16GB version! Let's compare renting one V100 at $12/day vs. buying a 3070 Ti 16GB: The 2080 Ti was 1.42x the price of the regular 2080 and released the next summer. So let's assume the same will be true to the 3070 Ti so it will cost $700. That is $30/month & $1.88/day for two years - $15/month & $0.94/day in four years (by which time you can probably rent some 32GB Tesla card for the same price and nothing recent runs on less anymore). If you max out your setup 24/7 all year, then power cost obviously becomes a huge factor to that figure. In my country running at 500W cost $4.21/day, or $1.60 / 9hrs overnight. If you live elsewhere it might be as much as a quarter of that price. Of course your PC may run 10h a day anyway, so its maybe just 300W plus, and an older graphics card is inefficient for games it eats more Watts to do the same things so you save some there as well. There is a lot to take into account if comparing. Anyway, factoring in power cost, to break even with buying the card vs. renting within two years, you would have to use it for at least 4 days a month, or almost 2 weeks every 3 month. If you use it less than that, you maybe have a nice new graphics card and less hassle with pushing stuff back and forth onto servers all the time. But it would have been more economic to rent. So renting isn't that bad after all. Overall if you are thinking about having this as your hobby, you could say that it will cost you at least $30 per month, if not $50 or more (when keeping up to date with cards every 2 instead of 4 years + using it more cost more power). I think that is quite hefty. Personally I am not even invested enough into this even if it wasn't over my finances. I want a new card of course and also play some new games, but I don't really need to. There are a lot of other (more) important things I am interested in, that are totally free.

[P] Need advise on creating a conversational Chatbot for my University
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
Low-Proposal-3319This week

[P] Need advise on creating a conversational Chatbot for my University

Hey everyone! I need some advise on creating a conversational chatbot for my University as my Final Year Project (FYP). 2024 will be last year for my BSCS degree and we have to build an application or something in the last year. So, I thought of creating a chatbot (just like GPT) to help students (who have admission queries). Most of the time, students or parents will have to call University for various questions and then they have to wait to ACTUALLY talk to the admins office people. Now, talking in terms of coding/programming, I have created a basic PDFbot by using LLama2, Huggingface and Pinecone. Its very very easy and yes its fairly inaccurate too. The PDF that I am using rn will be replaced by the dataset that I gather in order to create the bot for my Uni, but it will also be inaccurate as this one. Also, the chatbot that I have made is just based on this one function called "similarity\_search()" and I am literally passing query of the user to this function which then tries to find the most relevant answer by the embeddings from knowledge base. How do I make this accurate? I know using the OpenAI model will make it accurate, but its paid as well, idk how will I manage to do that. Plus, i reckon there will be a simple function there too which doesn't make me a good programmer I think. I really want to do something good and unique for once. I have dreamt about leaving back something in my Uni that has my name over it. Can I do something where I get to make a mini-language model or something like that? Will it be too complex for me to handle? (I consider myself a beginner to this programming world) 1- I am planning to create a dynamic dataset which will also include any event that's going to happen in our University. 2- I am also planning to make the chatbot intelligent enough to consult confused students. 3- Chatbot will also include information about each and every faculty member. Their qualifications, research papers and other info in general. It would be a relief if any of the experts give me a roadmap on this, it will be genuinely a stress relief for me. I am trying to get done with at least 70% of the work before the start of the next year so that I don't have to work much in the next year.

[P] Open-source Neural Search framework to implement semantic search & multimedia search. Just released 2.0, seeking your feedback.
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score0
opensourcecolumbusThis week

[P] Open-source Neural Search framework to implement semantic search & multimedia search. Just released 2.0, seeking your feedback.

I heard your feedback on 1.0 release post on my project Jina, many people were keen to use Jina for multimedia search because that's where use of Neural Networks makes significant difference. So I focused on that part and I was able to transform it from 1.0 to 2.0 within 3 months. Last post on 1.0 release to give you some idea what this project is about Actually, I should say - "'we' made this", because there were more than 155 contributors who did it, not just me. The primary changes we made We saw MachineLearning beginners struggle in using Jina 1.0, so we separated the codebase where Machine Learning expertise is required(jina-hub) and the one which MachineLearning beginners can use(the jina core). Now ML beginners don't need to worry about jina-hub and can use jina hub packages directly to implement ML specific tasks without the need to understand advanced ML concepts. While advanced ML users can create their own jina-hub packages. We cut down a lots of abstractions to make it easy to use for beginners Made python APIs more intuitive to use Improved performance(3.6x faster on startup) Here's Jina 2.0 and here's Jina 1.0. I seek feedback from people who are looking at this project for the first time, as well as people who have tried their hands before but had some challenges in using it. Few questions, I'm seeking answers to Do you feel that we have reduced complexity by a lot of margin? How easy it is to use for a beginner now? What questions are still unanswered?

[P] An elegant and strong PyTorch Trainer
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
serend1p1ty-leeThis week

[P] An elegant and strong PyTorch Trainer

For lightweight use, pytorch-lightning is too heavy, and its source code will be very difficult for beginners to read, at least for me. As we know, for a deep learning engineer, a powerful trainer is a sharp weapon. When reproducing the SOTA papers, you don't have to write a lot of template code every time and can pay more attention to the model implementation itself. I opened source some works (AAAI 21 SeqNet, ICCV 21 MAED, etc) and earned more than 500 stars. After referring to some popular projects (detectron2, pytorch-image-models, and mmcv), based on my personal development experience, I developed a SIMPLE enough, GENERIC enough, and STRONG enough PyTorch Trainer: core-pytorch-utils, also named CPU. CPU covers most details in the process of training a deep neural network, including: Auto logging to console and tensorboard. Auto checkpointing. Argument parser which can load a YAML configuration file. Make ALL PyTorch LR scheduler supporting warmup. Support distributed training. Support Automatically Mixed Precision (AMP) training. I try to keep the project code as simple and readable as possible. So the code comments are very detailed and everyone can understand them. What's more, a good document is also available: CPU document For deep learning green hands, you can learn how to: write a standard and clean training loop. use AMP to speed up your training. save checkpoint, and resume from it. perform more smooth, and readable logging. use the popular visualization library: tensorboard. For old hands, we can talk about whether the structure of CPU is elegant and reasonable. I have thought a lot about this framework, combining the advantages of several popular frameworks and discarding their shortcomings. Welcome to use it!

[R] Reinforcement Learning for Sequential Decision and Optimal Control
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
isfjzzzThis week

[R] Reinforcement Learning for Sequential Decision and Optimal Control

Since early 21st century, artificial intelligence (AI) has been reshaping almost all areas of human society, which has high potential to spark the fourth industrial revolution. Notable examples can be found in the sector of road transportation, where AI has drastically changed automobile design and traffic management. Many new technologies, such as driver assistance, autonomous driving, and cloud-based cooperation, are emerging at an unbelievable speed. These new technologies have the potential to significantly improve driving ability, reduce traffic accidents, and relieve urban congestion. As one of the most important AI branches, reinforcement learning (RL) has attracted increasing attention in recent years. RL is an interdisciplinary field of trial-and-error learning and optimal control, which promises to provide optimal solutions for decision-making or control in large-scale and complex dynamic processes. One of its most conspicuous successes is AlphaGo from Google DeepMind, which has beaten the highest-level professional human player. The underlying key technology is the so-called deep reinforcement learning, which equips AlphaGo with amazing self-evolution ability and high playing intelligence. Despite a few successes, the application of RL is still in its infancy because most RL algorithms are rather difficult to comprehend and implement. RL connects deeply with statistical learning and convex optimization, and involves a wide range of new concepts and theories. As a beginner, one must undergo a long and tedious learning process to become an RL master. Without fully understanding those underlying principles, it is very difficult for new users to make proper adjustments to achieve the best application performance. ​ https://preview.redd.it/tggt6o3o481c1.jpg?width=248&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=75e2b58ac8da9273f2511a4fe37ef508d86a6e96 Reference: Shengbo Eben Li, Reinforcement Learning for Sequential Decision and Optimal Control. Springer Verlag, Singapore, 2023 Website of e-book: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-981-19-7784-8 ​ QR code to Springer Book contents This book aims to provide a systematic introduction to fundamental RL theories, mainstream RL algorithms and typical RL applications for researchers and engineers. The main topics include Markov decision processes, Monte Carlo learning, temporal difference learning, RL with function approximation, policy gradient method, approximate dynamic programming, deep reinforcement learning, etc. Chapter 1 provides an overview of RL, including its history, famous scholars, successful examples and up-to-date challenges. Chapter 2 discusses the basis of RL, including main concepts and terminologies, Bellman’s optimality condition, and general problem formulation. Chapter 3 introduces Monte Carlo learning methods for model-free RL, including on-policy/off-policy methods and importance sampling technique. Chapter 4 introduces temporal difference learning methods for model-free RL, including Sarsa, Q-learning, and expected Sarsa. Chapter 5 introduces stochastic dynamic programming (DP), i.e., model-based RL with tabular representation, including value iteration DP, policy iteration DP and their convergence mechanisms. Chapter 6 introduces how to approximate policy and value functions in indirect RL methods as well as the associated actor-critic architecture. Chapter 7 derives different kinds of direct policy gradients, including likelihood ratio gradient, natural policy gradient and a few advanced variants. Chapter 8 introduces infinite-horizon ADP, finite-horizon ADP and its connection with model predictive control. Chapter 9 discusses how to handle state constraints and its connection with feasibility and safety, as well as the newly proposed actor-critic-scenery learning architecture. Chapter 10 is devoted to deep reinforcement learning, including how to train artificial neural networks and typical deep RL algorithms such as DQN, DDPG, TD3, TRPO, PPO, SAC, and DSAC. Chapter 11 provides various RL topics,including robust RL, POMDP, multi-agent RL, meta-RL, inverse RL, offline RL, major RL libraries and platforms. Author information: Shengbo Eben Li is currently a professor at Tsinghua University in the interdisciplinary field of autonomous driving and artificial intelligence. Before joining Tsinghua University, he has worked at Stanford University, University of Michigan, and UC Berkeley. His active research interests include intelligent vehicles and driver assistance, deep reinforcement learning, optimal control and estimation, etc. He has published more than 130 peer-reviewed papers in top-tier international journals and conferences. He is the recipient of best paper awards (finalists) of IEEE ITSC, ICCAS, IEEE ICUS, IEEE IV, L4DC, etc. He has received a number of important academic honors, including National Award for Technological Invention of China (2013), National Award for Progress in Sci & Tech of China (2018), Distinguished Young Scholar of Beijing NSF (2018), Youth Sci & Tech Innovation Leader from MOST China (2020), etc. He also serves as Board of Governor of IEEE ITS Society, Senior AE of IEEE OJ ITS, and AEs of IEEE ITSM, IEEE Trans ITS, Automotive Innovation, etc.

[D] "Grokking" Deep Learning architectures and using them in practice
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
LightGreenSquashThis week

[D] "Grokking" Deep Learning architectures and using them in practice

Hi all, I'm on the first years of my PhD in Computer Vision and obviously the vast majority of research in it is nowadays using Deep Learning techniques. I like to think that I'm far from an absolute beginner in the sense that: I've trained neural networks and more "traditional" ML models in a couple of courses, as well as for my MSc thesis, albeit almost out-of-the-box stuff. I have a decent understanding of Linear Algebra, Calculus and Probability Theory (undergrad courses from CS degree). I say "decent" because I'm of the firm opinion that the more math one knows the more impressive the things they can do in AI, so I really don't consider myself a math whiz, but judging from the math knowledge an average "How to get started with Deep Learning" blog post assumes, I'd say I'm well ahead. I'm also devoting some time every day to a more rigorous study of these areas, eventually hoping to expand to other related ones. I can get through Deep Learning papers and usually* obtain at least a basic understanding of what they're about, as well as why it works, at least according to the authors and their experiments. I do still have some trouble with more state-of-the-art works, especially ones that also use things from NLP. However, I don't really feel confident that I can actually produce useful research that investigates and/or uses this sort of methods to do something new. During undergrad, in order to actually understand most -if not all- concepts taught to me in programming and math I'd actually do things with them: solve problems, prove statements, or just code with the goal of creating some system or seeing how an idea actually works (e.g. polymorphism). I realize, however, that this has not been the case with Deep Learning, at least for me: I've never tried to actually code a CNN or ResNet, much less a word2vec model, a Transformer, or any sort of generative model. Sure, I've read about how the first layers of a CNN learn edges etc. but I've never actually "seen it with my own eyes". Transformers in particular seem to really trouble me. Although I sort-of understand the idea behind attention etc., I struggle to see what sort of features they end up using (in contrast to CNNs, where the idea of learning convolutional filters is much more intuitive to me). Which brings me to the question of what's an efficient way to go from understanding a paper to actually feeling like you really, truly, "grok" the material and could build on it, or use it in some scenario? Do you think implementing research papers from scratch or almost from scratch can be useful? Or is it way too time consuming for someone already busy with a PhD? Is it even feasible or are most papers -sadly- unreproducible if you don't use authors' code? How do you manage to stay on track with such a rapidly evolving field, on any level beyond a completely surface understanding? How do you find a good balance between learning to use tools/frameworks, reading papers and gaining the deeper sort of understanding I mention?

[D] Here are 17 ways of making PyTorch training faster – what did I miss?
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
lorenzkuhnThis week

[D] Here are 17 ways of making PyTorch training faster – what did I miss?

I've been collecting methods to accelerate training in PyTorch – here's what I've found so far. What did I miss? What did I get wrong? The methods – roughly sorted from largest to smallest expected speed-up – are: Consider using a different learning rate schedule. Use multiple workers and pinned memory in DataLoader. Max out the batch size. Use Automatic Mixed Precision (AMP). Consider using a different optimizer. Turn on cudNN benchmarking. Beware of frequently transferring data between CPUs and GPUs. Use gradient/activation checkpointing. Use gradient accumulation. Use DistributedDataParallel for multi-GPU training. Set gradients to None rather than 0. Use .as\_tensor rather than .tensor() Turn off debugging APIs if not needed. Use gradient clipping. Turn off bias before BatchNorm. Turn off gradient computation during validation. Use input and batch normalization. Consider using another learning rate schedule The learning rate (schedule) you choose has a large impact on the speed of convergence as well as the generalization performance of your model. Cyclical Learning Rates and the 1Cycle learning rate schedule are both methods introduced by Leslie N. Smith (here and here), and then popularised by fast.ai's Jeremy Howard and Sylvain Gugger (here and here). Essentially, the 1Cycle learning rate schedule looks something like this: ​ https://preview.redd.it/sc37u5knmxa61.png?width=476&format=png&auto=webp&s=09b309b4dbd67eedb4ab5f86e03e0e83d7b072d1 Sylvain writes: \[1cycle consists of\]  two steps of equal lengths, one going from a lower learning rate to a higher one than go back to the minimum. The maximum should be the value picked with the Learning Rate Finder, and the lower one can be ten times lower. Then, the length of this cycle should be slightly less than the total number of epochs, and, in the last part of training, we should allow the learning rate to decrease more than the minimum, by several orders of magnitude. In the best case this schedule achieves a massive speed-up – what Smith calls Superconvergence – as compared to conventional learning rate schedules. Using the 1Cycle policy he needs \~10x fewer training iterations of a ResNet-56 on ImageNet to match the performance of the original paper, for instance). The schedule seems to perform robustly well across common architectures and optimizers. PyTorch implements both of these methods torch.optim.lrscheduler.CyclicLR and torch.optim.lrscheduler.OneCycleLR, see the documentation. One drawback of these schedulers is that they introduce a number of additional hyperparameters. This post and this repo, offer a nice overview and implementation of how good hyper-parameters can be found including the Learning Rate Finder mentioned above. Why does this work? It doesn't seem entirely clear but one possible explanation might be that regularly increasing the learning rate helps to traverse saddle points in the loss landscape more quickly. Use multiple workers and pinned memory in DataLoader When using torch.utils.data.DataLoader, set numworkers > 0, rather than the default value of 0, and pinmemory=True, rather than the default value of False. Details of this are explained here. Szymon Micacz achieves a 2x speed-up for a single training epoch by using four workers and pinned memory. A rule of thumb that people are using to choose the number of workers is to set it to four times the number of available GPUs with both a larger and smaller number of workers leading to a slow down. Note that increasing num\_workerswill increase your CPU memory consumption. Max out the batch size This is a somewhat contentious point. Generally, however, it seems like using the largest batch size your GPU memory permits will accelerate your training (see NVIDIA's Szymon Migacz, for instance). Note that you will also have to adjust other hyperparameters, such as the learning rate, if you modify the batch size. A rule of thumb here is to double the learning rate as you double the batch size. OpenAI has a nice empirical paper on the number of convergence steps needed for different batch sizes. Daniel Huynh runs some experiments with different batch sizes (also using the 1Cycle policy discussed above) where he achieves a 4x speed-up by going from batch size 64 to 512. One of the downsides of using large batch sizes, however, is that they might lead to solutions that generalize worse than those trained with smaller batches. Use Automatic Mixed Precision (AMP) The release of PyTorch 1.6 included a native implementation of Automatic Mixed Precision training to PyTorch. The main idea here is that certain operations can be run faster and without a loss of accuracy at semi-precision (FP16) rather than in the single-precision (FP32) used elsewhere. AMP, then, automatically decide which operation should be executed in which format. This allows both for faster training and a smaller memory footprint. In the best case, the usage of AMP would look something like this: import torch Creates once at the beginning of training scaler = torch.cuda.amp.GradScaler() for data, label in data_iter: optimizer.zero_grad() Casts operations to mixed precision with torch.cuda.amp.autocast(): loss = model(data) Scales the loss, and calls backward() to create scaled gradients scaler.scale(loss).backward() Unscales gradients and calls or skips optimizer.step() scaler.step(optimizer) Updates the scale for next iteration scaler.update() Benchmarking a number of common language and vision models on NVIDIA V100 GPUs, Huang and colleagues find that using AMP over regular FP32 training yields roughly 2x – but upto 5.5x – training speed-ups. Currently, only CUDA ops can be autocast in this way. See the documentation here for more details on this and other limitations. u/SVPERBlA points out that you can squeeze out some additional performance (\~ 20%) from AMP on NVIDIA Tensor Core GPUs if you convert your tensors to the Channels Last memory format. Refer to this section in the NVIDIA docs for an explanation of the speedup and more about NCHW versus NHWC tensor formats. Consider using another optimizer AdamW is Adam with weight decay (rather than L2-regularization) which was popularized by fast.ai and is now available natively in PyTorch as torch.optim.AdamW. AdamW seems to consistently outperform Adam in terms of both the error achieved and the training time. See this excellent blog post on why using weight decay instead of L2-regularization makes a difference for Adam. Both Adam and AdamW work well with the 1Cycle policy described above. There are also a few not-yet-native optimizers that have received a lot of attention recently, most notably LARS (pip installable implementation) and LAMB. NVIDA's APEX implements fused versions of a number of common optimizers such as Adam. This implementation avoid a number of passes to and from GPU memory as compared to the PyTorch implementation of Adam, yielding speed-ups in the range of 5%. Turn on cudNN benchmarking If your model architecture remains fixed and your input size stays constant, setting torch.backends.cudnn.benchmark = True might be beneficial (docs). This enables the cudNN autotuner which will benchmark a number of different ways of computing convolutions in cudNN and then use the fastest method from then on. For a rough reference on the type of speed-up you can expect from this, Szymon Migacz achieves a speed-up of 70% on a forward pass for a convolution and a 27% speed-up for a forward + backward pass of the same convolution. One caveat here is that this autotuning might become very slow if you max out the batch size as mentioned above. Beware of frequently transferring data between CPUs and GPUs Beware of frequently transferring tensors from a GPU to a CPU using tensor.cpu() and vice versa using tensor.cuda() as these are relatively expensive. The same applies for .item() and .numpy() – use .detach() instead. If you are creating a new tensor, you can also directly assign it to your GPU using the keyword argument device=torch.device('cuda:0'). If you do need to transfer data, using .to(non_blocking=True), might be useful as long as you don't have any synchronization points after the transfer. If you really have to, you might want to give Santosh Gupta's SpeedTorch a try, although it doesn't seem entirely clear when this actually does/doesn't provide speed-ups. Use gradient/activation checkpointing Quoting directly from the documentation: Checkpointing works by trading compute for memory. Rather than storing all intermediate activations of the entire computation graph for computing backward, the checkpointed part does not save intermediate activations, and instead recomputes them in backward pass. It can be applied on any part of a model. Specifically, in the forward pass, function will run in torch.no\grad() manner, i.e., not storing the intermediate activations. Instead, the forward pass saves the inputs tuple and the functionparameter. In the backwards pass, the saved inputs and function is retrieved, and the forward pass is computed on function again, now tracking the intermediate activations, and then the gradients are calculated using these activation values. So while this will might slightly increase your run time for a given batch size, you'll significantly reduce your memory footprint. This in turn will allow you to further increase the batch size you're using allowing for better GPU utilization. While checkpointing is implemented natively as torch.utils.checkpoint(docs), it does seem to take some thought and effort to implement properly. Priya Goyal has a good tutorial demonstrating some of the key aspects of checkpointing. Use gradient accumulation Another approach to increasing the batch size is to accumulate gradients across multiple .backward() passes before calling optimizer.step(). Following a post by Hugging Face's Thomas Wolf, gradient accumulation can be implemented as follows: model.zero_grad() Reset gradients tensors for i, (inputs, labels) in enumerate(training_set): predictions = model(inputs) Forward pass loss = loss_function(predictions, labels) Compute loss function loss = loss / accumulation_steps Normalize our loss (if averaged) loss.backward() Backward pass if (i+1) % accumulation_steps == 0: Wait for several backward steps optimizer.step() Now we can do an optimizer step model.zero_grad() Reset gradients tensors if (i+1) % evaluation_steps == 0: Evaluate the model when we... evaluate_model() ...have no gradients accumulate This method was developed mainly to circumvent GPU memory limitations and I'm not entirely clear on the trade-off between having additional .backward() loops. This discussion on the fastai forum seems to suggest that it can in fact accelerate training, so it's probably worth a try. Use Distributed Data Parallel for multi-GPU training Methods to accelerate distributed training probably warrant their own post but one simple one is to use torch.nn.DistributedDataParallel rather than torch.nn.DataParallel. By doing so, each GPU will be driven by a dedicated CPU core avoiding the GIL issues of DataParallel. In general, I can strongly recommend reading the documentation on distributed training. Set gradients to None rather than 0 Use .zerograd(settonone=True) rather than .zerograd(). Doing so will let the memory allocator handle the gradients rather than actively setting them to 0. This will lead to yield a modest speed-up as they say in the documentation, so don't expect any miracles. Watch out, doing this is not side-effect free! Check the docs for the details on this. Use .as_tensor() rather than .tensor() torch.tensor() always copies data. If you have a numpy array that you want to convert, use torch.astensor() or torch.fromnumpy() to avoid copying the data. Turn on debugging tools only when actually needed PyTorch offers a number of useful debugging tools like the autograd.profiler, autograd.grad\check, and autograd.anomaly\detection. Make sure to use them to better understand when needed but to also turn them off when you don't need them as they will slow down your training. Use gradient clipping Originally used to avoid exploding gradients in RNNs, there is both some empirical evidence as well as some theoretical support that clipping gradients (roughly speaking: gradient = min(gradient, threshold)) accelerates convergence. Hugging Face's Transformer implementation is a really clean example of how to use gradient clipping as well as some of the other methods such as AMP mentioned in this post. In PyTorch this can be done using torch.nn.utils.clipgradnorm(documentation). It's not entirely clear to me which models benefit how much from gradient clipping but it seems to be robustly useful for RNNs, Transformer-based and ResNets architectures and a range of different optimizers. Turn off bias before BatchNorm This is a very simple one: turn off the bias of layers before BatchNormalization layers. For a 2-D convolutional layer, this can be done by setting the bias keyword to False: torch.nn.Conv2d(..., bias=False, ...).  (Here's a reminder why this makes sense.) You will save some parameters, I would however expect the speed-up of this to be relatively small as compared to some of the other methods mentioned here. Turn off gradient computation during validation This one is straightforward: set torch.no_grad() during validation. Use input and batch normalization You're probably already doing this but you might want to double-check: Are you normalizing your input? Are you using batch-normalization? And here's a reminder of why you probably should. Bonus tip from the comments: Use JIT to fuse point-wise operations. If you have adjacent point-wise operations you can use PyTorch JIT to combine them into one FusionGroup which can then be launched on a single kernel rather than multiple kernels as would have been done per default. You'll also save some memory reads and writes. Szymon Migacz shows how you can use the @torch.jit.script decorator to fuse the operations in a GELU, for instance: @torch.jit.script def fused_gelu(x): return x 0.5 (1.0 + torch.erf(x / 1.41421)) In this case, fusing the operations leads to a 5x speed-up for the execution of fused_gelu as compared to the unfused version. See also this post for an example of how Torchscript can be used to accelerate an RNN. Hat tip to u/Patient_Atmosphere45 for the suggestion. Sources and additional resources Many of the tips listed above come from Szymon Migacz' talk and post in the PyTorch docs. PyTorch Lightning's William Falcon has two interesting posts with tips to speed-up training. PyTorch Lightning does already take care of some of the points above per-default. Thomas Wolf at Hugging Face has a number of interesting articles on accelerating deep learning – with a particular focus on language models. The same goes for Sylvain Gugger and Jeremy Howard: they have many interesting posts in particular on learning rates and AdamW. Thanks to Ben Hahn, Kevin Klein and Robin Vaaler for their feedback on a draft of this post! I've also put all of the above into this blog post.

[D] What are some good advanced platforms?
reddit
LLM Vibe Score0
Human Vibe Score1
SemperZeroThis week

[D] What are some good advanced platforms?

Hey. I'm 27 and I think I got most of the basics for ML. I'm very good at math, I understand statistics and probability quite deep, worked on research projects by myself, for which I had to build models on my own. Not really complex, but still requiring creativity and a good understanding of basic concepts. I will soon start a data science job at a FAANG company and I want to further improve my skills and use their resources to the fullest, but I'm not really sure where to go from here in terms of learning. Could you help me with some more advanced materials/forums for ML research/place with good papers/place with good articles? I'd also like to study the very best and see the way they code and explain advanced concepts (like Andrej Karpathy) where can I find them?? is there a Twitch for challenger level AI researchers streaming live processes? Or videos showing the entire project flow (how they do data visualizations, mining, choosing models, tuning, etc) like top digital artists show the highlights or the entire speed-up of their painting processes? Here's a list all of my projects to get a general idea of my level and where I'm at: calculating the distance between hundreds of 42.000 feature objects (containing categorical, strings, numbers, hashes, booleans as variables) and then clustering. with some vector processing and a neural network implemented from scratch in C some models like ARIMA (together with linear regression) combining a FFT with a neural network for a 42d wave classification T-SNE to split dataset into 2d grids -> Kullback–Leibler on grids for distance -> DBSCAN/KMEANS for clustering genetic algorithms for hyperparameter optimizations and reinforcement learning (neuro evolution) DBSCAN -> Levenberg-Marquardt for polynomial coefficients-> neural network predicting the coefficients based on different parameters playing with instance segmentation and some algorithms to synchronize a color and a depth camera simulations/statistics/probabilities for video games a lot of visualizations and data mining for patterns As you can see there is no LLM/ Generative AI/ Computer Vision stuff, which I would like to get into. I'm also not 100% sure what else would be nice to learn in general. I know most of the basic procedures for training, balancing datasets, avoid overfit, computing error plots, comparing models, etc and I'm familiar with most of math (not insanely advanced) used in ML. I didn't read many papers, but holy ... most of them are so unreadable and filled with pompous nonsense that 99% of the effort is de-obfuscating the bs and reading for so long just to figure out how the input is encoded, what's the output, and what's the model. Where can I find good, readable, structured papers which are actually on point? I'm from Eastern Europe and most of my learning has been done by my self after high school, the education quality is close to zero in the universities here and I never had any mentors at the jobs I worked. There's no research in this country, and getting to work on these projects was insanely hard, some of them being done in my free time or for free just to get experience... Fortunately after a lot of hard work I got into FAANG, and I hope things will be better here. Most of what I've learned has been from very fragmented places on the internet, and now I'm looking for centralized places and communities of top quality content. TL;DR: sorry for the long rambling. had to order my thoughts and figure what i actually want: Looking for top tier AI researchers showcasing their work processes, places with clear papers/articles, tips for someone who's no longer a very beginner, and other communities like this.

Showing 793-816 of 1945 resources