Machine Learning

1 readers

1 users here now

Community Rules:

Be nice. No offensive behavior, insults or attacks: we encourage a diverse community in which members feel safe and have a voice.
Make your post clear and comprehensive: posts that lack insight or effort will be removed. (ex: questions which are easily googled)
Beginner or career related questions go elsewhere. This community is focused in discussion of research and new projects that advance the state-of-the-art.
Limit self-promotion. Comments and posts should be first and foremost about topics of interest to ML observers and practitioners. Limited self-promotion is tolerated, but the sub is not here as merely a source for free advertisement. Such posts will be removed at the discretion of the mods.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

communick@academy.garden

Are LLMs at a practical limit for layer stacking? [D] (alien.top)

submitted 1 year ago by cstein123@alien.top to c/machinelearning@academy.garden

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Can LLMs stack more layers than the largest ones currently have, or is it bottlenecked? Is it because the gradients can’t propagate properly to the beginning of the network? Because inference would be to slow?

If anyone could provide a paper that talks about layer stacking scaling I would love to read it!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Brudaks@alien.top 1 points 1 year ago

The bottleneck is the total compute budget devoted to training, so while I'm quite certain that stacking a few more layers can be done and would have some benefit, it might well be that spending the same extra compute on a larger context window or 'wider' layers or simply doing more iterations on the same data would have a larger benefit than more layers, and if the people training the very large models think so, they would do these other things instead of stacking more layers.