Next-Concept Modeling: Fast, Parallel Coarse-to-Fine Text Generation (arxiv.org)
pinyen_cheng 6 hours ago
alansaber 4 hours ago
OOTY00TYOO 4 hours ago
IanCal 4 hours ago
idiotsecant 4 hours ago
dormento 3 hours ago
alansaber 4 hours ago
dsjoerg 3 hours ago
rhdunn 3 hours ago
[1] https://tech.yahoo.com/gaming/articles/did-nvidia-manufactur...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1xdjbd1/multiple_rep...
[3] https://www.techradar.com/computing/gpu/is-the-gpu-stock-cri...
[4] https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-nvidia-ai-gpu-data-ce...
Lerc 2 hours ago
The suggestion seems to have come from the claim that to maintain a priority queue, you have to be buying consistently. That might mean buying more than you need to ensure supply when you need it. The assumption that the excess goes into a warehouse seems to have come from someone's fevered imagination.
If there are GPUs built and not yet installed, and people who want to be using them now, money can be made getting the supply to find the demand. Most large scale companies know how to do that sort of thing. If someone has a data center and no GPUs arriving for six months, paying a few million to trade the GPUs that will exist in six months for the ones that exist now gets them an additional six months of operation, while ensuring the original buyer will have GPUs when they need them, plus a few million.
torginus an hour ago
owebmaster an hour ago
swiftcoder 8 hours ago
LoganDark 7 hours ago
I feel like their GPU architecture is going to need a significant redesign. There are limits to this tile-based mobile architecture.
mycall 2 hours ago
LoganDark an hour ago
Not comparing price or efficiency or value or anything like that. Just the platforms as a whole.
swiftcoder an hour ago
The problem here is that they aren't equivalent platforms - no amount of money will buy you an RTX 5090 with 512 GB of RAM.
If you want to buy the 16x RTX 5090s you need to get to the same 512 GB of RAM, we're talking $100,000 just in GPUs, industrial levels of power/cooling/noise, and the interconnect bandwidth is still going to kill it for normal inferencing workloads.
Of course, that 16x cluster is an absolute beast in terms of raw compute - it's just not all that useful for the things people are trying to do with such machines today.
siamaksalman 8 hours ago
cubefox 4 hours ago
However, they hardly compare against the conventional next-token-prediction objective, which suggests they don't beat it, except for highly non-linear tasks like sudoku. Unfortunately, machine learning papers often tend to focus exclusively on the positives without mentioning bad aspects.
nickhodge 8 hours ago
imtringued 7 hours ago
This makes me wonder what these people think an "LLM" even is. The name itself implies that it is large and about language. It does not imply that an "LLM" is inherently autoregressive or that it has any particular architecture even though most LLMs are transformers. Anything can be a large language model as long as it is large and models language.
NCM is basically a hierarchical diffusion transformer where the further layers take one big token and then generate two smaller tokens. So it is more like an evaluation strategy. You could apply this to any model architecture.
I personally think the name NCM itself is terrible because it contains the word "next" which inherently implies an ordering and somehow we are supposed to think that "LLM" which contains no mention of ordering, is constrained to ordered token production.
hsuduebc2 5 hours ago
alansaber 4 hours ago
totetsu 7 hours ago
shiandow 6 hours ago
spiderfarmer 6 hours ago
shiandow 6 hours ago
And I don't think I've ever used the Oxford comma.
There was probably some rule about not beginning sentences with Or and And but you probably know better than I.
jabron 5 hours ago
wccrawford 3 hours ago
They didn't teach you that about English, though. It's quite common to write "21x" for "21 times" in English and is pretty much universally understood and accepted by native speakers.
shiandow 3 hours ago
For what it's worth I've not seen "12x" in formal contexts, but if that is proper then the times symbol still shouldn't be styled as part of the maths formula imho.
sorenjan 2 hours ago
cubefox 5 hours ago
shiandow 3 hours ago
For one it simply looks like you forgot to finish the formula.