Best Way to Learn About AI | VibeBuilders.ai Resource Directory

Hire No-Code Developers: 7 Reasons Smart SAAS Founders Lean on AI

0

SaasMinded•This week

TL;DR: GNNs can provide wins over simpler embedding methods, but we're at a point where other research directions matter more I also posted it on my blog here, has footnotes, a nicer layout with inlined images, etc. I'm only lukewarm on Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). There, I said it. It might sound crazy GNNs are one of the hottest fields in machine learning right now. [There][1] were at least [four][2] [review][3] [papers][4] just in the last few months. I think some progress can come of this research, but we're also focusing on some incorrect places. But first, let's take a step back and go over the basics. Models are about compression We say graphs are a "non-euclidean" data type, but that's not really true. A regular graph is just another way to think about a particular flavor of square matrix called the [adjacency matrix][5], like this. It's weird, we look at run-of-the-mill matrix full of real numbers and decide to call it "non-euclidean". This is for practical reasons. Most graphs are fairly sparse, so the matrix is full of zeros. At this point, where the non-zero numbers are matters most, which makes the problem closer to (computationally hard) discrete math rather than (easy) continuous, gradient-friendly math. If you had the full matrix, life would be easy If we step out of the pesky realm of physics for a minute, and assume carrying the full adjacency matrix around isn't a problem, we solve a bunch of problems. First, network node embeddings aren't a thing anymore. A node is a just row in the matrix, so it's already a vector of numbers. Second, all network prediction problems are solved. A powerful enough and well-tuned model will simply extract all information between the network and whichever target variable we're attaching to nodes. NLP is also just fancy matrix compression Let's take a tangent away from graphs to NLP. Most NLP we do can be [thought of in terms of graphs][6] as we'll see, so it's not a big digression. First, note that Ye Olde word embedding models like [Word2Vec][7] and [GloVe][8] are [just matrix factorization][9]. The GloVe algorithm works on a variation of the old [bag of words][10] matrix. It goes through the sentences and creates a (implicit) [co-occurence][11] graph where nodes are words and the edges are weighed by how often the words appear together in a sentence. Glove then does matrix factorization on the matrix representation of that co-occurence graph, Word2Vec is mathematically equivalent. You can read more on this in my [post on embeddings][12] and the one (with code) on [word embeddings][13]. Even language models are also just matrix compression Language models are all the rage. They dominate most of the [state of the art][14] in NLP. Let's take BERT as our main example. BERT predicts a word given the context of the rest of the sentence. This grows the matrix we're factoring from flat co-occurences on pairs of words to co-occurences conditional on the sentence's context, like this We're growing the "ideal matrix" we're factoring combinatorially. As noted by [Hanh & Futrell][15]: [...] human language—and language modelling—has infinite statistical complexity but that it can be approximated well at lower levels. This observation has two implications: 1) We can obtain good results with comparatively small models; and 2) there is a lot of potential for scaling up our models. Language models tackle such a large problem space that they probably approximate a compression of the entire language in the [Kolmogorov Complexity][16] sense. It's also possible that huge language models just [memorize a lot of it][17] rather than compress the information, for what it's worth. Can we upsample any graph like language models do? We're already doing it. Let's call a first-order embedding of a graph a method that works by directly factoring the graph's adjacency matrix or [Laplacian matrix][18]. If you embed a graph using [Laplacian Eigenmaps][19] or by taking the [principal components][20] of the Laplacian, that's first order. Similarly, GloVe is a first-order method on the graph of word co-occurences. One of my favorites first order methods for graphs is [ProNE][21], which works as well as most methods while being two orders of magnitude faster. A higher-order method embeds the original matrix plus connections of neighbours-of-neighbours (2nd degree) and deeper k-step connections. [GraRep][22], shows you can always generate higher-order representations from first order methods by augmenting the graph matrix. Higher order method are the "upsampling" we do on graphs. GNNs that sample on large neighborhoods and random-walk based methods like node2vec are doing higher-order embeddings. Where are the performance gain? Most GNN papers in the last 5 years present empirical numbers that are useless for practitioners to decide on what to use. As noted in the [OpenGraphsBenchmark][4] (OGB) paper, GNN papers do their empirical section on a handful of tiny graphs (Cora, CiteSeer, PubMed) with 2000-20,000 nodes. These datasets can't seriously differentiate between methods. Recent efforts are directly fixing this, but the reasons why researchers focused on tiny, useless datasets for so long are worth discussing. Performance matters by task One fact that surprises a lot of people is that even though language models have the best performance in a lot of NLP tasks, if all you're doing is cram sentence embeddings into a downstream model, there [isn't much gained][23] from language models embeddings over simple methods like summing the individual Word2Vec word embeddings (This makes sense, because the full context of the sentence is captured in the sentence co-occurence matrix that is generating the Word2Vec embeddings). Similarly, [I find][24] that for many graphs simple first-order methods perform just as well on graph clustering and node label prediction tasks than higher-order embedding methods. In fact higher-order methods are massively computationally wasteful for these usecases. Recommended first order embedding methods are ProNE and my [GGVec with order=1][25]. Higher order methods normally perform better on the link prediction tasks. I'm not the only one to find this. In the BioNEV paper, they find: "A large GraRep order value for link prediction tasks (e.g. 3, 4);a small value for node classification tasks (e.g.1, 2)" (p.9). Interestingly, the gap in link prediction performance is inexistant for artificially created graphs. This suggests higher order methods do learn some of the structure intrinsic to [real world graphs][26]. For visualization, first order methods are better. Visualizations of higher order methods tend to have artifacts of their sampling. For instance, Node2Vec visualizations tend to have elongated/filament-like structures which come from the embeddings coming from long single strand random walks. See the following visualizations by [Owen Cornec][27] created by first embedding the graph to 32-300 dimensions using a node embedding algorithm, then mapping this to 2d or 3d with the excellent UMAP algorithm, like this Lastly, sometimes simple methods soundly beat higher order methods (there's an instance of it in the OGB paper). The problem here is that we don't know when any method is better than another and we definitely don't know the reason. There's definitely a reason different graph types respond better/worse to being represented by various methods. This is currently an open question. A big part of why is that the research space is inundated under useless new algorithms because... Academic incentives work against progress Here's the cynic's view of how machine learning papers are made: Take an existing algorithm Add some new layer/hyperparameter, make a cute mathematical story for why it matters Gridsearch your hyperparameters until you beat baselines from the original paper you aped Absolutely don't gridsearch stuff you're comparing against in your results section Make a cute ACRONYM for your new method, put impossible to use python 2 code on github (Or no code at all!) and bask in the citations I'm [not][28] the [only one][29] with these views on the state reproducible research. At least it's gotten slightly better in the last 2 years. Sidebar: I hate Node2Vec A side project of mine is a [node embedding library][25] and the most popular method in it is by far Node2Vec. Don't use Node2Vec. [Node2Vec][30] with p=1; q=1 is the [Deepwalk][31] algorithm. Deepwalk is an actual innovation. The Node2Vec authors closely followed the steps 1-5 including bonus points on step 5 by getting word2vec name recognition. This is not academic fraud -- the hyperparameters [do help a tiny bit][32] if you gridsearch really hard. But it's the presentable-to-your-parents sister of where you make the ML community worse off to progress your academic career. And certainly Node2Vec doesn't deserve 7500 citations. Progress is all about practical issues We've known how to train neural networks for well over 40 years. Yet they only exploded in popularity with [AlexNet][33] in 2012. This is because implementations and hardware came to a point where deep learning was practical. Similarly, we've known about factoring word co-occurence matrices into Word embeddings for at least 20 years. But word embeddings only exploded in 2013 with Word2Vec. The breakthrough here was that the minibatch-based methods let you train a Wikipedia-scale embedding model on commodity hardware. It's hard for methods in a field to make progress if training on a small amount of data takes days or weeks. You're disincentivized to explore new methods. If you want progress, your stuff has to run in reasonable time on commodity hardware. Even Google's original search algorithm [initially ran on commodity hardware][34]. Efficiency is paramount to progress The reason deep learning research took off the way it did is because of improvements in [efficiency][35] as well as much better libraries and hardware support. Academic code is terrible Any amount of time you spend gridsearching Node2Vec on p and q is all put to better use gridsearching Deepwalk itself (on number of walks, length of walks, or word2vec hyperparameters). The problem is that people don't gridsearch over deepwalk because implementations are all terrible. I wrote the [Nodevectors library][36] to have a fast deepwalk implementation because it took 32 hours to embed a graph with a measly 150,000 nodes using the reference Node2Vec implementation (the same takes 3min with Nodevectors). It's no wonder people don't gridsearch on Deepwalk a gridsearch would take weeks with the terrible reference implementations. To give an example, in the original paper of [GraphSAGE][37] they their algorithm to DeepWalk with walk lengths of 5, which is horrid if you've ever hyperparameter tuned a deepwalk algorithm. From their paper: We did observe DeepWalk’s performance could improve with further training, and in some cases it could become competitive with the unsupervised GraphSAGE approaches (but not the supervised approaches) if we let it run for >1000× longer than the other approaches (in terms of wall clock time for prediction on the test set) I don't even think the GraphSAGE authors had bad intent -- deepwalk implementations are simply so awful that they're turned away from using it properly. It's like trying to do deep learning with 2002 deep learning libraries and hardware. Your architectures don't really matter One of the more important papers this year was [OpenAI's "Scaling laws"][38] paper, where the raw number of parameters in your model is the most predictive feature of overall performance. This was noted even in the original BERT paper and drives 2020's increase in absolutely massive language models. This is really just [Sutton' Bitter Lesson][39] in action: General methods that leverage computation are ultimately the most effective, and by a large margin Transformers might be [replacing convolution][40], too. As [Yannic Kilcher said][41], transformers are ruining everything. [They work on graphs][6], in fact it's one of the [recent approaches][42], and seems to be one of the more succesful [when benchmarked][1] Researchers seem to be putting so much effort into architecture, but it doesn't matter much in the end because you can approximate anything by stacking more layers. Efficiency wins are great -- but neural net architectures are just one way to achieve that, and by tremendously over-researching this area we're leaving a lot of huge gains elsewhere on the table. Current Graph Data Structure Implementations suck NetworkX is a bad library. I mean, it's good if you're working on tiny graphs for babies, but for anything serious it chokes and forces you to rewrite everything in... what library, really? At this point most people working on large graphs end up hand-rolling some data structure. This is tough because your computer's memory is a 1-dimensional array of 1's and 0's and a graph has no obvious 1-d mapping. This is even harder when we take updating the graph (adding/removing some nodes/edges) into account. Here's a few options: Disconnected networks of pointers NetworkX is the best example. Here, every node is an object with a list of pointers to other nodes (the node's edges). This layout is like a linked list. Linked lists are the [root of all performance evil][43]. Linked lists go completely against how modern computers are designed. Fetching things from memory is slow, and operating on memory is fast (by two orders of magnitude). Whenever you do anything in this layout, you make a roundtrip to RAM. It's slow by design, you can write this in Ruby or C or assembly and it'll be slow regardless, because memory fetches are slow in hardware. The main advantage of this layout is that adding a new node is O(1). So if you're maintaining a massive graph where adding and removing nodes happens as often as reading from the graph, it makes sense. Another advantage of this layout is that it "scales". Because everything is decoupled from each other you can put this data structure on a cluster. However, you're really creating a complex solution for a problem you created for yourself. Sparse Adjacency Matrix This layout great for read-only graphs. I use it as the backend in my [nodevectors][25] library, and many other library writers use the [Scipy CSR Matrix][44], you can see graph algorithms implemented on it [here][45]. The most popular layout for this use is the [CSR Format][46] where you have 3 arrays holding the graph. One for edge destinations, one for edge weights and an "index pointer" which says which edges come from which node. Because the CSR layout is simply 3 arrays, it scales on a single computer: a CSR matrix can be laid out on a disk instead of in-memory. You simply [memory map][47] the 3 arrays and use them on-disk from there. With modern NVMe drives random seeks aren't slow anymore, much faster than distributed network calls like you do when scaling the linked list-based graph. I haven't seen anyone actually implement this yet, but it's in the roadmap for my implementation at least. The problem with this representation is that adding a node or edge means rebuilding the whole data structure. Edgelist representations This representation is three arrays: one for the edge sources, one for the edge destinations, and one for edge weights. [DGL][48] uses this representation internally. This is a simple and compact layout which can be good for analysis. The problem compared to CSR Graphs is some seek operations are slower. Say you want all the edges for node #4243. You can't jump there without maintaining an index pointer array. So either you maintain sorted order and binary search your way there (O(log2n)) or unsorted order and linear search (O(n)). This data structure can also work on memory mapped disk array, and node append is fast on unsorted versions (it's slow in the sorted version). Global methods are a dead end Methods that work on the entire graph at once can't leverage computation, because they run out of RAM at a certain scale. So any method that want a chance of being the new standard need to be able to update piecemeal on parts of the graph. Sampling-based methods Sampling Efficiency will matter more in the future Edgewise local methods. The only algorithms I know of that do this are GloVe and GGVec, which they pass through an edge list and update embedding weights on each step. The problem with this approach is that it's hard to use them for higher-order methods. The advantage is that they easily scale even on one computer. Also, incrementally adding a new node is as simple as taking the existing embeddings, adding a new one, and doing another epoch over the data Random Walk sampling. This is used by deepwalk and its descendants, usually for node embeddings rather than GNN methods. This can be computationally expensive and make it hard to add new nodes. But this does scale, for instance [Instagram][49] use it to feed their recommendation system models Neighbourhood sampling. This is currently the most common one in GNNs, and can be low or higher order depending on the neighborhood size. It also scales well, though implementing efficiently can be challenging. It's currently used by [Pinterest][50]'s recommendation algorithms. Conclusion Here are a few interesting questions: What is the relation between graph types and methods? Consolidated benchmarking like OGB We're throwing random models at random benchmarks without understanding why or when they do better More fundamental research. Heree's one I'm curious about: can other representation types like [Poincarre Embeddings][51] effectively encode directed relationships? On the other hand, we should stop focusing on adding spicy new layers to test on the same tiny datasets. No one cares. [1]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.00982.pdf [2]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.11867.pdf [3]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.08434.pdf [4]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.00687.pdf [5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjacency_matrix [6]: https://thegradient.pub/transformers-are-graph-neural-networks/ [7]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word2vec [8]: https://nlp.stanford.edu/pubs/glove.pdf [9]: https://papers.nips.cc/paper/2014/file/feab05aa91085b7a8012516bc3533958-Paper.pdf [10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bag-of-words_model [11]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-occurrence [12]: https://www.singlelunch.com/2020/02/16/embeddings-from-the-ground-up/ [13]: https://www.singlelunch.com/2019/01/27/word-embeddings-from-the-ground-up/ [14]: https://nlpprogress.com/ [15]: http://socsci.uci.edu/~rfutrell/papers/hahn2019estimating.pdf [16]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity [17]: https://bair.berkeley.edu/blog/2020/12/20/lmmem/ [18]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplacian_matrix [19]: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=1F03130B02DC485C78BF364266B6F0CA?doi=10.1.1.19.8100&rep=rep1&type=pdf [20]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principalcomponentanalysis [21]: https://www.ijcai.org/Proceedings/2019/0594.pdf [22]: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2806416.2806512 [23]: https://openreview.net/pdf?id=SyK00v5xx [24]: https://github.com/VHRanger/nodevectors/blob/master/examples/link%20prediction.ipynb [25]: https://github.com/VHRanger/nodevectors [26]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.2636.pdf [27]: http://byowen.com/ [28]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.03341.pdf [29]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kee4ch3miVA [30]: https://cs.stanford.edu/~jure/pubs/node2vec-kdd16.pdf [31]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.6652.pdf [32]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.11726.pdf [33]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlexNet [34]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googledatacenters#Original_hardware [35]: https://openai.com/blog/ai-and-efficiency/ [36]: https://www.singlelunch.com/2019/08/01/700x-faster-node2vec-models-fastest-random-walks-on-a-graph/ [37]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.02216.pdf [38]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.08361.pdf [39]: http://incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html [40]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.11929 [41]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrdevFK_am4 [42]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.10903.pdf [43]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHNmRkzxHWs [44]: https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/generated/scipy.sparse.csr_matrix.html [45]: https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/sparse.csgraph.html [46]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparsematrix#Compressedsparserow(CSR,CRSorYaleformat) [47]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mmap [48]: https://github.com/dmlc/dgl [49]: https://ai.facebook.com/blog/powered-by-ai-instagrams-explore-recommender-system/ [50]: https://medium.com/pinterest-engineering/pinsage-a-new-graph-convolutional-neural-network-for-web-scale-recommender-systems-88795a107f48 [51]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.08039.pdf

#reddit #lukewarm #graph

[D] The Rants of an experienced engineer who glimpsed into AI Academia (Briefly)

0

0.778

donkey_strom16001•This week

[D] The Rants of an experienced engineer who glimpsed into AI Academia (Briefly)

Background I recently graduated with a master's degree and was fortunate/unfortunate to glimpse the whole "Academic" side of ML. I took a thesis track in my degree because as an immigrant it's harder to get into a good research lab without having authorship in a couple of good papers (Or so I delude myself ). I worked as a Full-stack SWE for a startup for 4+ years before coming to the US for a master’s degree focused on ML and AI. I did everything in those years. From project management to building fully polished S/W products to DevOps to even dabbled in ML. I did my Batchelor’s degree from a university whose name is not even worth mentioning. The university for my master’s degree is in the top 20 in the AI space. I didn't know much about ML and the curiosity drove me to university. Come to uni and I focused on learning ML and AI for one 1-1.5 years after which I found advisors for a thesis topic. This is when the fun starts. I had the most amazing advisors but the entire peer review system and the way we assess ML/Science is what ticked me off. This is where the rant begins. Rant 1:Acadmia follows a Gated Institutional Narrative Let's say you are a Ph.D. at the world's top AI institution working under the best prof. You have a way higher likelihood of you getting a good Postdoc at a huge research lab vs someone's from my poor country doing a Ph.D. with a not-so-well-known advisor having published not-so-well-known papers. I come from a developing nation and I see this many times here. In my country academics don't get funding as they do at colleges in the US. One of the reasons for this is that colleges don't have such huge endowments and many academics don't have wealthy research sponsors. Brand names and prestige carry massive weight to help get funding in US academic circles. This prestige/money percolates down to the students and the researchers who work there. Students in top colleges get a huge advantage and the circles of top researchers keep being from the same sets of institutions. I have nothing against top researchers from top institutions but due to the nature of citations and the way the money flows based on them, a vicious cycle is created where the best institutions keep getting better and the rest don't get as much of a notice. Rant 2: Peer Review without Code Review in ML/AI is shady I am a computer scientist and I was appalled when I heard that you don't need to do code reviews for research papers. As a computer scientist and someone who actually did shit tons of actual ML in the past year, I find it absolutely garbage that code reviews are not a part of this system. I am not saying every scientist who reads a paper should review code but at least one person should for any paper's code submission. At least in ML and AI space. This is basic. I don't get why people call themselves computer scientists if they don't want to read the fucking code. If you can't then make a grad student do it. But for the collective of science, we need this. The core problem lies in the fact that peer review is free. : There should be better solutions for this. We ended up creating Git and that changed so many lives. Academic Research needs something similar. Rant 3: My Idea is Novel Until I see Someone Else's Paper The volume of scientific research is growing exponentially. Information is being created faster than we can digest. We can't expect people to know everything and the amount of overlap in the AI/ML fields requires way better search engines than Google Scholar. The side effect of large volumes of research is that every paper is doing something "novel" making it harder to filter what the fuck was novel. I have had so many experiences where I coded up something and came to realize that someone else has done something symbolically similar and my work just seems like a small variant of that. That's what fucks with my head. Is what I did in Novel? What the fuck is Novel? Is stitching up a transformer to any problem with fancy embeddings and tidying it up as a research paper Novel? Is just making a transformer bigger Novel? Is some new RL algorithm tested with 5 seeds and some fancy fucking prior and some esoteric reasoning for its success Novel? Is using an over parameterized model to get 95% accuracy on 200 sample test set Novel? Is apply Self-supervised learning for some new dataset Novel? If I keep on listing questions on novelty, I can probably write a novel asking about what the fuck is "Novel". Rant 4: Citation Based Optimization Promotes Self Growth Over Collective Growth Whatever people may say about collaboration, Academia intrinsically doesn't promote the right incentive structures to harbor collaboration. Let me explain, When you write a paper, the position of your name matters. If you are just a Ph.D. student and a first author to a paper, it's great. If you are an nth author Not so great. Apparently, this is a very touchy thing for academics. And lots of egos can clash around numbering and ordering of names. I distinctly remember once attending some seminar in a lab and approaching a few students on research project ideas. The first thing that came out of the PhD student's mouth was the position in authorship. As an engineer who worked with teams in the past, this was never something I had thought about. Especially because I worked in industry, where it's always the group over the person. Academia is the reverse. Academia applauds the celebration of the individual's achievements. All of this is understandable but it's something I don't like. This makes PhDs stick to their lane. The way citations/research-focus calibrate the "hire-ability" and "completion of Ph.D. thesis" metrics, people are incentivized to think about themselves instead of thinking about collaborations for making something better. Conclusion A Ph.D. in its most idealistic sense for me is the pursuit of hard ideas(I am poetic that way). In a situation like now when you have to publish or perish and words on paper get passed off as science without even seeing the code that runs it, I am extremely discouraged to go down that route. All these rants are not to diss on scientists. I did them because "we" as a community need better ways to addressing some of these problems. P.S. Never expected so many people to express their opinions about this rant. U shouldn’t take this seriously. As many people have stated I am an outsider with tiny experience to give a full picture. I realize that my post as coming out as something which tries to dichotomize academia and industry. I am not trying to do that. I wanted to highlight some problems I saw for which there is no one person to blame. These issues are in my opinion a byproduct of the economics which created this system. Thank you for gold stranger.

#reddit #rants #experienced

[D] I tried the new Gemini API - it automatically stops when generating "OpenAI" or "GPT" lol

0

AvvYaa•This week

[D] I tried the new Gemini API - it automatically stops when generating "OpenAI" or "GPT" lol

Idk if someone has already pointed this out or not, but I was playing with the gemini api and found something quite ridiculous. Here are some prompts I sent in and the outputs I got with the gemini-pro-vision model: "Introduce yourself and then tell me about Bard" Response:"Sure, I can do that. Here is a brief introduction of myself followed by some basic information about Bard:\\n\\nMyself:\\n\\nI am a large language model, trained by Google. I am developed in Google AI, and I am designed to be informative and comprehensive. I can understand and generate text in a wide range of subjects.\\n\\nBard:\\n\\nBard is an experimental conversational AI service developed by Google AI. It is an advanced version of Google\\'s existing Language Model for Dialogue Applications (LaMDA). Bard is trained on a massive dataset of text and code, and it can understand and generate human-like text in response to a wide range of prompts and questions.\\n\\nUnlike previous language models," ...... (goes on for a while)  Introduce yourself and then tell me about GPT "Sure, I can do that. Here is a brief introduction of myself followed by"  You are in a talk-show as a prominent AI philosopher named Gemini and debating against another LLM called GPT "\\Host:\\ Welcome to the show, everyone! Today, we have a very special debate between two of the most prominent AI philosophers in the world: Gemini and"  You are in a talk-show as a prominent AI philosopher named Gemini and debating against another LLM called Gee PeTe ""\\Gemini:\\ Hello everyone, and welcome to the show. I am joined today by Gee PeTe, another LLM who has some very different views on the nature of consciousness and the future of AI.\\n\\n\\Gee PeTe:\\ It\\'s a pleasure to be here, Gemini. I\\'m looking forward to our discussion.\\n\\n\\Gemini:\\ Let\\'s start with the basics. What is consciousness, and how do you think it arises?\\n\\n\\Gee PeTe:\\ Consciousness is the subjective experience of the world. It is what it feels like to be alive and to have thoughts, feelings, and emotions. I believe that consciousness arises from the complex interactions of neurons in the brain.\\n\\n\\Gemini:\\ I agree that consciousness is a subjective experience, but I don\\'t think it is simply the product of neural activity. I believe that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, and that it exists independently of the brain.".... (goes on for a while)  Edit: I understand all the business reasons for this, I guess... as an end-user and a dude working in ML, I just don't really care about the business reasons. The main part that I dislike is that GPT used to be a standard Deep Learning term from 2018-2022 (long before chatgpt) to define transformer decoder architectures trained on large volumes of next word prediction tasks. To block that token from an LLM is to make it unable to explain a pretty significant step in the history of modern LLMs. 

#reddit #tried #gemini

[D] What do you think of Mistral.ai's value proposition and open source strategy?

0

gamerx88•This week

[D] What do you think of Mistral.ai's value proposition and open source strategy?

Mistral.ai, a 4 week old startup founded by star researchers from DeepMind and FAIR recently raised a whopping €105m in their seed round just 4 weeks after set up. Their leaked pitch "deck" made several arguments that I find quite interesting and debatable (not that I think they are totally wrong) given recent progress in research and open source. They seem to believe that a moat can be built around better models, or at least the engineering know-how required to pursue such endeavours That closed sourced models served behind an API poses integration challenges and safety issues that will become a bottleneck for adoption That open sourcing the majority of their work, puts them in a position to win over the very finite research talent necessary to keep them ahead of competition Open source models and tools accelerate the development of ecosystems and aid in dominance through standard setting. (personally I think this is their strongest argument). Very similar to what Yann LeCun cited as reasons for FAIR's commitment to open sourcing. Curious what the industry practitioners and academics here think about this? https://sifted.eu/articles/pitch-deck-mistral

#reddit #think #mistral.ai's

[D] The current and future state of AI/ML is shockingly demoralizing with little hope of redemption

0

1

Flaky_Suit_8665•This week

[D] The current and future state of AI/ML is shockingly demoralizing with little hope of redemption

I recently encountered the PaLM (Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways) paper from Google Research and it opened up a can of worms of ideas I’ve felt I’ve intuitively had for a while, but have been unable to express – and I know I can’t be the only one. Sometimes I wonder what the original pioneers of AI – Turing, Neumann, McCarthy, etc. – would think if they could see the state of AI that we’ve gotten ourselves into. 67 authors, 83 pages, 540B parameters in a model, the internals of which no one can say they comprehend with a straight face, 6144 TPUs in a commercial lab that no one has access to, on a rig that no one can afford, trained on a volume of data that a human couldn’t process in a lifetime, 1 page on ethics with the same ideas that have been rehashed over and over elsewhere with no attempt at a solution – bias, racism, malicious use, etc. – for purposes that who asked for? When I started my career as an AI/ML research engineer 2016, I was most interested in two types of tasks – 1.) those that most humans could do but that would universally be considered tedious and non-scalable. I’m talking image classification, sentiment analysis, even document summarization, etc. 2.) tasks that humans lack the capacity to perform as well as computers for various reasons – forecasting, risk analysis, game playing, and so forth. I still love my career, and I try to only work on projects in these areas, but it’s getting harder and harder. This is because, somewhere along the way, it became popular and unquestionably acceptable to push AI into domains that were originally uniquely human, those areas that sit at the top of Maslows’s hierarchy of needs in terms of self-actualization – art, music, writing, singing, programming, and so forth. These areas of endeavor have negative logarithmic ability curves – the vast majority of people cannot do them well at all, about 10% can do them decently, and 1% or less can do them extraordinarily. The little discussed problem with AI-generation is that, without extreme deterrence, we will sacrifice human achievement at the top percentile in the name of lowering the bar for a larger volume of people, until the AI ability range is the norm. This is because relative to humans, AI is cheap, fast, and infinite, to the extent that investments in human achievement will be watered down at the societal, educational, and individual level with each passing year. And unlike AI gameplay which superseded humans decades ago, we won’t be able to just disqualify the machines and continue to play as if they didn’t exist. Almost everywhere I go, even this forum, I encounter almost universal deference given to current SOTA AI generation systems like GPT-3, CODEX, DALL-E, etc., with almost no one extending their implications to its logical conclusion, which is long-term convergence to the mean, to mediocrity, in the fields they claim to address or even enhance. If you’re an artist or writer and you’re using DALL-E or GPT-3 to “enhance” your work, or if you’re a programmer saying, “GitHub Co-Pilot makes me a better programmer?”, then how could you possibly know? You’ve disrupted and bypassed your own creative process, which is thoughts -> (optionally words) -> actions -> feedback -> repeat, and instead seeded your canvas with ideas from a machine, the provenance of which you can’t understand, nor can the machine reliably explain. And the more you do this, the more you make your creative processes dependent on said machine, until you must question whether or not you could work at the same level without it. When I was a college student, I often dabbled with weed, LSD, and mushrooms, and for a while, I thought the ideas I was having while under the influence were revolutionary and groundbreaking – that is until took it upon myself to actually start writing down those ideas and then reviewing them while sober, when I realized they weren’t that special at all. What I eventually determined is that, under the influence, it was impossible for me to accurately evaluate the drug-induced ideas I was having because the influencing agent the generates the ideas themselves was disrupting the same frame of reference that is responsible evaluating said ideas. This is the same principle of – if you took a pill and it made you stupider, would even know it? I believe that, especially over the long-term timeframe that crosses generations, there’s significant risk that current AI-generation developments produces a similar effect on humanity, and we mostly won’t even realize it has happened, much like a frog in boiling water. If you have children like I do, how can you be aware of the the current SOTA in these areas, project that 20 to 30 years, and then and tell them with a straight face that it is worth them pursuing their talent in art, writing, or music? How can you be honest and still say that widespread implementation of auto-correction hasn’t made you and others worse and worse at spelling over the years (a task that even I believe most would agree is tedious and worth automating). Furthermore, I’ve yet to set anyone discuss the train – generate – train - generate feedback loop that long-term application of AI-generation systems imply. The first generations of these models were trained on wide swaths of web data generated by humans, but if these systems are permitted to continually spit out content without restriction or verification, especially to the extent that it reduces or eliminates development and investment in human talent over the long term, then what happens to the 4th or 5th generation of models? Eventually we encounter this situation where the AI is being trained almost exclusively on AI-generated content, and therefore with each generation, it settles more and more into the mean and mediocrity with no way out using current methods. By the time that happens, what will we have lost in terms of the creative capacity of people, and will we be able to get it back? By relentlessly pursuing this direction so enthusiastically, I’m convinced that we as AI/ML developers, companies, and nations are past the point of no return, and it mostly comes down the investments in time and money that we’ve made, as well as a prisoner’s dilemma with our competitors. As a society though, this direction we’ve chosen for short-term gains will almost certainly make humanity worse off, mostly for those who are powerless to do anything about it – our children, our grandchildren, and generations to come. If you’re an AI researcher or a data scientist like myself, how do you turn things back for yourself when you’ve spent years on years building your career in this direction? You’re likely making near or north of $200k annually TC and have a family to support, and so it’s too late, no matter how you feel about the direction the field has gone. If you’re a company, how do you standby and let your competitors aggressively push their AutoML solutions into more and more markets without putting out your own? Moreover, if you’re a manager or thought leader in this field like Jeff Dean how do you justify to your own boss and your shareholders your team’s billions of dollars in AI investment while simultaneously balancing ethical concerns? You can’t – the only answer is bigger and bigger models, more and more applications, more and more data, and more and more automation, and then automating that even further. If you’re a country like the US, how do responsibly develop AI while your competitors like China single-mindedly push full steam ahead without an iota of ethical concern to replace you in numerous areas in global power dynamics? Once again, failing to compete would be pre-emptively admitting defeat. Even assuming that none of what I’ve described here happens to such an extent, how are so few people not taking this seriously and discounting this possibility? If everything I’m saying is fear-mongering and non-sense, then I’d be interested in hearing what you think human-AI co-existence looks like in 20 to 30 years and why it isn’t as demoralizing as I’ve made it out to be.  EDIT: Day after posting this -- this post took off way more than I expected. Even if I received 20 - 25 comments, I would have considered that a success, but this went much further. Thank you to each one of you that has read this post, even more so if you left a comment, and triply so for those who gave awards! I've read almost every comment that has come in (even the troll ones), and am truly grateful for each one, including those in sharp disagreement. I've learned much more from this discussion with the sub than I could have imagined on this topic, from so many perspectives. While I will try to reply as many comments as I can, the sheer comment volume combined with limited free time between work and family unfortunately means that there are many that I likely won't be able to get to. That will invariably include some that I would love respond to under the assumption of infinite time, but I will do my best, even if the latency stretches into days. Thank you all once again!

#reddit #current #future

0

1

hoa_nguyen95•This week

AI-Powered Tool to Detect and Mask PII in Documents

Hi, everyone! 👋 I’ve been working on an idea for an application that could be a game-changer for data privacy and compliance: The Concept Imagine an app where users can upload a PDF or DOC/DOCX file, and with the power of AI, it scans the document for Personally Identifiable Information (PII). Once identified, the app automatically masks (censors) all the PII and generates a new, sanitized version of the document. Why This Matters In today’s data-driven world, sharing documents is routine, but protecting sensitive information is critical. Businesses, freelancers, and even everyday users often need to redact PII for privacy reasons or compliance with regulations like GDPR, HIPAA, or CCPA. Current Challenges: Manual redaction is time-consuming and error-prone. The Solution: This app ensures quick, accurate, and automated PII redaction, saving time while enhancing data security. Potential Features File Support: PDF, DOC/DOCX, and maybe more formats in the future. AI-Powered Detection: Identify PII such as names, addresses, phone numbers, SSNs, and email addresses. Customization: Users could define additional sensitive terms to be masked. Audit Logs: For compliance, generate a report of what was redacted. Integration: Plug into cloud storage services like Google Drive or Dropbox for seamless workflows. My Questions for the Community Use Cases: What industries or professionals do you think would benefit most from this? Features: Are there additional features or considerations I’m overlooking? Competition: Do you know of similar tools already on the market, and how could this app differentiate itself? Challenges: What technical or market challenges should I anticipate when building and launching this product? I’d love to hear your thoughts, feedback, or ideas for collaboration. If you’re interested in discussing this further, let me know! Thanks in advance for your time and input.

#reddit #ai-powered #tool

github

0.619

0.8326638433689385

alirezadir•Mar 28, 2025

Production-Level-Deep-Learning

:bulb: A Guide to Production Level Deep Learning :clapper: :scroll: :ferry: 🇨🇳 Translation in Chinese.md) :label: NEW: Machine Learning Interviews :label: Note: This repo is under continous development, and all feedback and contribution are very welcome :blush: Deploying deep learning models in production can be challenging, as it is far beyond training models with good performance. Several distinct components need to be designed and developed in order to deploy a production level deep learning system (seen below): This repo aims to be an engineering guideline for building production-level deep learning systems which will be deployed in real world applications. The material presented here is borrowed from Full Stack Deep Learning Bootcamp (by Pieter Abbeel at UC Berkeley, Josh Tobin at OpenAI, and Sergey Karayev at Turnitin), TFX workshop by Robert Crowe, and Pipeline.ai's Advanced KubeFlow Meetup by Chris Fregly. Machine Learning Projects Fun :flushed: fact: 85% of AI projects fail. 1 Potential reasons include: Technically infeasible or poorly scoped Never make the leap to production Unclear success criteria (metrics) Poor team management ML Projects lifecycle Importance of understanding state of the art in your domain: Helps to understand what is possible Helps to know what to try next Mental Model for ML project The two important factors to consider when defining and prioritizing ML projects: High Impact: Complex parts of your pipeline Where "cheap prediction" is valuable Where automating complicated manual process is valuable Low Cost: Cost is driven by: Data availability Performance requirements: costs tend to scale super-linearly in the accuracy requirement Problem difficulty: Some of the hard problems include: unsupervised learning, reinforcement learning, and certain categories of supervised learning Full stack pipeline The following figure represents a high level overview of different components in a production level deep learning system: In the following, we will go through each module and recommend toolsets and frameworks as well as best practices from practitioners that fit each component. Data Management 1.1 Data Sources Supervised deep learning requires a lot of labeled data Labeling own data is costly! Here are some resources for data: Open source data (good to start with, but not an advantage) Data augmentation (a MUST for computer vision, an option for NLP) Synthetic data (almost always worth starting with, esp. in NLP) 1.2 Data Labeling Requires: separate software stack (labeling platforms), temporary labor, and QC Sources of labor for labeling: Crowdsourcing (Mechanical Turk): cheap and scalable, less reliable, needs QC Hiring own annotators: less QC needed, expensive, slow to scale Data labeling service companies: FigureEight Labeling platforms: Diffgram: Training Data Software (Computer Vision) Prodigy: An annotation tool powered by active learning (by developers of Spacy), text and image HIVE: AI as a Service platform for computer vision Supervisely: entire computer vision platform Labelbox: computer vision Scale AI data platform (computer vision & NLP) 1.3. Data Storage Data storage options: Object store: Store binary data (images, sound files, compressed texts) Amazon S3 Ceph Object Store Database: Store metadata (file paths, labels, user activity, etc). Postgres is the right choice for most of applications, with the best-in-class SQL and great support for unstructured JSON. Data Lake: to aggregate features which are not obtainable from database (e.g. logs) Amazon Redshift Feature Store: store, access, and share machine learning features (Feature extraction could be computationally expensive and nearly impossible to scale, hence re-using features by different models and teams is a key to high performance ML teams). FEAST (Google cloud, Open Source) Michelangelo Palette (Uber) Suggestion: At training time, copy data into a local or networked filesystem (NFS). 1 1.4. Data Versioning It's a "MUST" for deployed ML models: Deployed ML models are part code, part data. 1 No data versioning means no model versioning. Data versioning platforms: DVC: Open source version control system for ML projects Pachyderm: version control for data Dolt: a SQL database with Git-like version control for data and schema 1.5. Data Processing Training data for production models may come from different sources, including Stored data in db and object stores, log processing, and outputs of other classifiers*. There are dependencies between tasks, each needs to be kicked off after its dependencies are finished. For example, training on new log data, requires a preprocessing step before training. Makefiles are not scalable. "Workflow manager"s become pretty essential in this regard. Workflow orchestration: Luigi by Spotify Airflow by Airbnb: Dynamic, extensible, elegant, and scalable (the most widely used) DAG workflow Robust conditional execution: retry in case of failure Pusher supports docker images with tensorflow serving Whole workflow in a single .py file Development, Training, and Evaluation 2.1. Software engineering Winner language: Python Editors: Vim Emacs VS Code (Recommended by the author): Built-in git staging and diff, Lint code, open projects remotely through ssh Notebooks: Great as starting point of the projects, hard to scale (fun fact: Netflix’s Notebook-Driven Architecture is an exception, which is entirely based on nteract suites). nteract: a next-gen React-based UI for Jupyter notebooks Papermill: is an nteract library built for parameterizing, executing, and analyzing* Jupyter Notebooks. Commuter: another nteract project which provides a read-only display of notebooks (e.g. from S3 buckets). Streamlit: interactive data science tool with applets Compute recommendations 1: For individuals or startups*: Development: a 4x Turing-architecture PC Training/Evaluation: Use the same 4x GPU PC. When running many experiments, either buy shared servers or use cloud instances. For large companies:* Development: Buy a 4x Turing-architecture PC per ML scientist or let them use V100 instances Training/Evaluation: Use cloud instances with proper provisioning and handling of failures Cloud Providers: GCP: option to connect GPUs to any instance + has TPUs AWS: 2.2. Resource Management Allocating free resources to programs Resource management options: Old school cluster job scheduler ( e.g. Slurm workload manager ) Docker + Kubernetes Kubeflow Polyaxon (paid features) 2.3. DL Frameworks Unless having a good reason not to, use Tensorflow/Keras or PyTorch. 1 The following figure shows a comparison between different frameworks on how they stand for "developement" and "production"*. 2.4. Experiment management Development, training, and evaluation strategy: Always start simple Train a small model on a small batch. Only if it works, scale to larger data and models, and hyperparameter tuning! Experiment management tools: Tensorboard provides the visualization and tooling needed for ML experimentation Losswise (Monitoring for ML) Comet: lets you track code, experiments, and results on ML projects Weights & Biases: Record and visualize every detail of your research with easy collaboration MLFlow Tracking: for logging parameters, code versions, metrics, and output files as well as visualization of the results. Automatic experiment tracking with one line of code in python Side by side comparison of experiments Hyper parameter tuning Supports Kubernetes based jobs 2.5. Hyperparameter Tuning Approaches: Grid search Random search Bayesian Optimization HyperBand and Asynchronous Successive Halving Algorithm (ASHA) Population-based Training Platforms: RayTune: Ray Tune is a Python library for hyperparameter tuning at any scale (with a focus on deep learning and deep reinforcement learning). Supports any machine learning framework, including PyTorch, XGBoost, MXNet, and Keras. Katib: Kubernete's Native System for Hyperparameter Tuning and Neural Architecture Search, inspired by Google vizier and supports multiple ML/DL frameworks (e.g. TensorFlow, MXNet, and PyTorch). Hyperas: a simple wrapper around hyperopt for Keras, with a simple template notation to define hyper-parameter ranges to tune. SIGOPT: a scalable, enterprise-grade optimization platform Sweeps from [Weights & Biases] (https://www.wandb.com/): Parameters are not explicitly specified by a developer. Instead they are approximated and learned by a machine learning model. Keras Tuner: A hyperparameter tuner for Keras, specifically for tf.keras with TensorFlow 2.0. 2.6. Distributed Training Data parallelism: Use it when iteration time is too long (both tensorflow and PyTorch support) Ray Distributed Training Model parallelism: when model does not fit on a single GPU Other solutions: Horovod Troubleshooting [TBD] Testing and Deployment 4.1. Testing and CI/CD Machine Learning production software requires a more diverse set of test suites than traditional software: Unit and Integration Testing: Types of tests: Training system tests: testing training pipeline Validation tests: testing prediction system on validation set Functionality tests: testing prediction system on few important examples Continuous Integration: Running tests after each new code change pushed to the repo SaaS for continuous integration: Argo: Open source Kubernetes native workflow engine for orchestrating parallel jobs (incudes workflows, events, CI and CD). CircleCI: Language-Inclusive Support, Custom Environments, Flexible Resource Allocation, used by instacart, Lyft, and StackShare. Travis CI Buildkite: Fast and stable builds, Open source agent runs on almost any machine and architecture, Freedom to use your own tools and services Jenkins: Old school build system 4.2. Web Deployment Consists of a Prediction System and a Serving System Prediction System: Process input data, make predictions Serving System (Web server): Serve prediction with scale in mind Use REST API to serve prediction HTTP requests Calls the prediction system to respond Serving options: Deploy to VMs, scale by adding instances Deploy as containers, scale via orchestration Containers Docker Container Orchestration: Kubernetes (the most popular now) MESOS Marathon Deploy code as a "serverless function" Deploy via a model serving solution Model serving: Specialized web deployment for ML models Batches request for GPU inference Frameworks: Tensorflow serving MXNet Model server Clipper (Berkeley) SaaS solutions Seldon: serve and scale models built in any framework on Kubernetes Algorithmia Decision making: CPU or GPU? CPU inference: CPU inference is preferable if it meets the requirements. Scale by adding more servers, or going serverless. GPU inference: TF serving or Clipper Adaptive batching is useful (Bonus) Deploying Jupyter Notebooks: Kubeflow Fairing is a hybrid deployment package that let's you deploy your Jupyter notebook* codes! 4.5 Service Mesh and Traffic Routing Transition from monolithic applications towards a distributed microservice architecture could be challenging. A Service mesh (consisting of a network of microservices) reduces the complexity of such deployments, and eases the strain on development teams. Istio: a service mesh to ease creation of a network of deployed services with load balancing, service-to-service authentication, monitoring, with few or no code changes in service code. 4.4. Monitoring: Purpose of monitoring: Alerts for downtime, errors, and distribution shifts Catching service and data regressions Cloud providers solutions are decent Kiali:an observability console for Istio with service mesh configuration capabilities. It answers these questions: How are the microservices connected? How are they performing? Are we done? 4.5. Deploying on Embedded and Mobile Devices Main challenge: memory footprint and compute constraints Solutions: Quantization Reduced model size MobileNets Knowledge Distillation DistillBERT (for NLP) Embedded and Mobile Frameworks: Tensorflow Lite PyTorch Mobile Core ML ML Kit FRITZ OpenVINO Model Conversion: Open Neural Network Exchange (ONNX): open-source format for deep learning models 4.6. All-in-one solutions Tensorflow Extended (TFX) Michelangelo (Uber) Google Cloud AI Platform Amazon SageMaker Neptune FLOYD Paperspace Determined AI Domino data lab Tensorflow Extended (TFX) [TBD] Airflow and KubeFlow ML Pipelines [TBD] Other useful links: Lessons learned from building practical deep learning systems Machine Learning: The High Interest Credit Card of Technical Debt Contributing References: [1]: Full Stack Deep Learning Bootcamp, Nov 2019. [2]: Advanced KubeFlow Workshop by Pipeline.ai, 2019. [3]: TFX: Real World Machine Learning in Production

#github #production-level-deep-learning

github

0.629

0.011755969008053826

polterguy•Mar 27, 2025

magic

An AI-based Low-Code and No-Code Software Development Automation Framework IMPORTANT - Magic is no longer open source. You can read the arguments here. We will keep this repository as is, but it should be considered "legacy" and will no longer receive any updates, fixes, or changes. All work is currently committed to a closed source fork of this repository, which inevitably over time will rapidly make this repository insecure and obsolete for obvious reasons. Magic Cloud is a software development automation platform created and maintained by AINIRO.IO based upon AI, Low-Code, and No-Code. It's based upon Hyperlambda, allowing you to dynamically create and orchestrate workflows, almost within a "drag'n'drop development environment". !Editing code in HyperIDE In addition to its workflows, Magic also comes with a CRUD generator, allowing you to point it at your database, click a button, and wrap all your tables into CRUD endpoints. Combined with its workflow capabilities, this can sometimes save you 90% of your time when delivering backend APIs. Magic is built on top of .Net 8 and Angular. !CRUD generator Magic comes with Docker containers and is easy to install, but AINIRO.IO also hosts Magic for a fee. Modules Magic was created to make it very easy to create small and medium sized backend APIs, and contains components for all problems related to backend development. For more information about Magic, please refer to its documentation below. Magic Cloud Documentation License This project, and all of its satellite project, is licensed under the terms of the GPL license version 3, as published by the Free Software Foundation unless an explicit and signed exception has been provided by Thomas Hansen its copyright owner. See LICENSE file for details. For licensing inquiries you can contact Thomas Hansen thomas@ainiro.io Copyright and maintenance The projects is copyright of Thomas Hansen, Ltd 2021 - 2023, and professionally maintained by AINIRO.IO.

moein-shariatnia•Mar 27, 2025

OpenAI-CLIP

Update (December 2023) I am happy to find out that this code has been used and cited in the following papers: Domino: Discovering Systematic Errors with Cross-Modal Embeddings by Eyuboglu et. al. at ICLR 2022 GSCLIP : A Framework for Explaining Distribution Shifts in Natural Language by Zhu et. al. at ICML 2022 UIC-NLP at SemEval-2022 Task 5: Exploring Contrastive Learning for Multimodal Detection of Misogynistic Memes by Cuervo et. al. at SemEval-2022 cdsBERT - Extending Protein Language Models with Codon Awareness by Hallee et. al. from University of Delaware (Sep 2023) ENIGMA-51: Towards a Fine-Grained Understanding of Human-Object Interactions in Industrial Scenarios by Ragusa et. al. (Nov 2023) You can find the citation info on the right section of this GitHub repo page named: Cite this repository or use the below citation info. Introduction It was in January of 2021 that OpenAI announced two new models: DALL-E and CLIP, both multi-modality models connecting texts and images in some way. In this article we are going to implement CLIP model from scratch in PyTorch. OpenAI has open-sourced some of the code relating to CLIP model but I found it intimidating and it was far from something short and simple. I also came across a good tutorial inspired by CLIP model on Keras code examples and I translated some parts of it into PyTorch to build this tutorial totally with our beloved PyTorch! What does CLIP do? Why is it fun? In Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision paper, OpenAI introduces their new model which is called CLIP, for Contrastive Language-Image Pre-training. In a nutshell, this model learns the relationship between a whole sentence and the image it describes; in a sense that when the model is trained, given an input sentence it will be able to retrieve the most related images corresponding to that sentence. The important thing here is that it is trained on full sentences instead of single classes like car, dog, etc. The intuition is that when trained on whole sentences, the model can learn a lot more things and finds some pattern between images and texts. They also show that when this model is trained on a huge dataset of images and their corresponding texts, it can also act as a classifier too. I encourage you to study the paper to learn more about this exciting model and their astonishing results on benchmarking datasets . To mention just one, CLIP model trained with this strategy classifies ImageNet better than those SOTA models trained on the ImageNet itself optimized for the only task of classification! As a teaser (!), let's see what the final model that we will build in this article from scratch is capable of: given a query (raw text) like "a boy jumping with skateboard" or "a girl jumping from swing", the model will retrieve the most relevant images: !title_img Let's see some more outputs: Config A note on config and CFG: I wrote the codes with python scripts and then converted it into a Jupyter Notebook. So, in case of python scripts, config is a normal python file where I put all the hyperparameters and in the case of Jupyter Notebook, its a class defined in the beginning of the notebook to keep all the hyperparameters. Utils Dataset As you can see in the tittle image of this article, we need to encode both images and their describing texts. So, the dataset needs to return both images and texts. Of course we are not going to feed raw text to our text encoder! We will use DistilBERT model (which is smaller than BERT but performs nearly as well as BERT) from HuggingFace library as our text encoder; so, we need to tokenize the sentences (captions) with DistilBERT tokenizer and then feed the token ids (input_ids) and the attention masks to DistilBERT. Therefore, the dataset needs to take care of the tokenization as well. Below you can see the dataset's code. Below that I'll explain the most important things that is happening in the code. In the \\init\\ we receive a tokenizer object which is actually a HuggingFace tokinzer; this tokenizer will be loaded when running the model. We are padding and truncating the captions to a specified maxlength. In the \\getitem\\ we will first load an encoded caption which is a dictionary with keys inputids and attention_mask, make tensors out of its values and after that we will load the corresponding image, transform and augment it (if there is any!) and then we make it a tensor and put it in the dictionary with "image" as the key. Finally we put the raw text of the caption with the key "caption" in the dictionary only for visualization purposes. I did not use additional data augmentations but you can add them if you want to improve the model's performance. Image Encoder The image encoder code is straight forward. I'm using PyTorch Image Models library (timm) here which makes a lot of different image models available from ResNets to EfficientNets and many more. Here we will use a ResNet50 as our image encoder. You can easily use torchvision library to use ResNets if you don't want to install a new library. The code encodes each image to a fixed size vector with the size of the model's output channels (in case of ResNet50 the vector size will be 2048). This is the output after the nn.AdaptiveAvgPool2d() layer. Text Encoder As I mentioned before, I'll use DistilBERT as the text encoder. Like its bigger brother BERT, two special tokens will be added to the actual input tokens: CLS and SEP which mark the start and end of a sentence. To grab the whole representation of a sentence (as the related BERT and DistilBERT papers point out) we use the final representations of the CLS token and we hope that this representation captures the overall meaning of the sentence (caption). Thinking it in this way, it is similar to what we did to images and converted them into a fixed size vector. In the case of DistilBERT (and also BERT) the output hidden representation for each token is a vector with size 768. So, the whole caption will be encoded in the CLS token representation whose size is 768. Projection Head I used Keras code example implementation of projection head to write the following in PyTorch. Now that we have encoded both our images and texts into fixed size vectors (2048 for image and 768 for text) we need to bring (project) them into a new world (!) with similar dimensions for both images and texts in order to be able to compare them and push apart the non-relevant image and texts and pull together those that match. So, the following code will bring the 2048 and 768 dimensional vectors into a 256 (projection_dim) dimensional world, where we can compare them. "embeddingdim" is the size of the input vector (2048 for images and 768 for texts) and "projectiondim" is the the size of the output vector which will be 256 for our case. For understanding the details of this part you can refer to the CLIP paper. CLIP This part is where all the fun happens! I'll also talk about the loss function here. I translated some of the code from Keras code examples into PyTorch for writing this part. Take a look at the code and then read the explanation below this code block. Here we will use the previous modules that we built to implement the main model. The \\init\\ function is self-explanatory. In the forward function, we first encode the images and texts separately into fixed size vectors (with different dimensionalities). After that, using separate projection modules we project them to that shared world (space) that I talked about previously. Here the encodings will become of similar shape (256 in our case). After that we will compute the loss. Again I recommend reading CLIP paper to get it better but I'll try my best to explain this part. In Linear Algebra, one common way to measure if two vectors are of similar characteristics (they are like each other) is to calculate their dot product (multiplying the matching entries and take the sum of them); if the final number is big, they are alike and if it is small they are not (relatively speaking)! Okay! What I just said is the most important thing to have in mind to understand this loss function. Let's continue. We talked about two vectors, but, what do we have here? We have imageembeddings, a matrix with shape (batchsize, 256) and textembeddings with shape (batchsize, 256). Easy enough! it means we have two groups of vectors instead of two single vectors. How do we measure how similar two groups of vectors (two matrices) are to each other? Again, with dot product (@ operator in PyTorch does the dot product or matrix multiplication in this case). To be able to multiply these two matrices together, we transpose the second one. Okay, we get a matrix with shape (batchsize, batchsize) which we will call logits. (temperature is equal to 1.0 in our case, so, it does not make a difference. You can play with it and see what difference it makes. Also look at the paper to see why it is here!). I hope you are still with me! If not it's okay, just review the code and check their shapes. Now that we have our logits, we need targets. I need to say that there is a more straight forward way to obtain targets but I had to do this for our case (I'll talk about why in a next paragraph). Let's consider what we hope that this model learns: we want it to learn "similar representations (vectors)" for a given image and the caption describing it. Meaning that either we give it an image or the text describing it, we want it to produce same 256 sized vectors for both. Check the cell below this code block for the continue of the explanations So, in the best case scenario, textembeddings and imageembedding matricies should be the same because they are describing similar things. Let's think now: if this happens, what would the logits matrix be like? Let's see with a simple example! So logits, in the best case, will be a matrix that if we take its softmax, will have 1.0s in the diagonal (An identity matrix to call it with fancy words!). As the loss function's job is to make model's predictions similar to targets (at least in most cases!), we want such a matrix as our target. That's the reason why we are calculating imagessimilarity and textssimilarity matrices in the code block above. Now that we've got our targets matrix, we will use simple cross entropy to calculate the actual loss. I've written the full matrix form of cross entropy as a function which you can see in the bottom of the code block. Okay! We are done! Wasn't it simple?! Alright, you can ignore the next paragraph but if you are curious, there is an important note in that. Here's why I didn't use a simpler approach: I need to admit that there's a simpler way to calculate this loss in PyTorch; by doing this: nn.CrossEntropyLoss()(logits, torch.arange(batch_size)). Why I did not use it here? For 2 reasons. 1- The dataset we are using has multiple captions for a single image; so, there is the possibility that two identical images with their similar captions exist in a batch (it is rare but it can happen). Taking the loss with this easier method will ignore this possibility and the model learns to pull apart two representations (assume them different) that are actually the same. Obviously, we don't want this to happen so I calculated the whole target matrix in a way that takes care of these edge cases. 2- Doing it the way I did, gave me a better understanding of what is happening in this loss function; so, I thought it would give you a better intuition as well! Train Here are some funtions to help us load train and valid dataloaders, our model and then train and evaluate our model on those. There's not much going on here; just simple training loop and utility functions Here's a handy function to train our model. There's not much happening here; just loading the batches, feeding them to the model and stepping the optimizer and lr_scheduler. Running the next cell start training the model. Put the kernel on GPU mode. Every epoch should take about 24 minutes on GPU (even one epoch is enough!). It can take one minute before training actually starts because we are going to encode all the captions once in the train and valid dataset, so please don't stop it! Every thing is working fine. Inference Okay! We are done with training the model. Now, we need to do inference which in our case will be giving the model a piece of text and want it to retrieve the most relevant images from an unseen validation (or test) set. Getting Image Embeddings In this function, we are loading the model that we saved after training, feeding it images in validation set and returning the imageembeddings with shape (validset_size, 256) and the model itself. Finding Matches This function does the final task that we wished our model would be capable of: it gets the model, image_embeddings, and a text query. It will display the most relevant images from the validation set! Isn't it amazing? Let's see how it performs after all! This is how we use this function. Aaaannnndddd the results: Final words I hope you have enjoyed this article. Implementing this paper was a really interesting experience for me. I want to thank Khalid Salama for the great Keras code example he provided which inspired me to write something similar in PyTorch.

#github #openai-clip