DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
67% Positive
Analyzed from 747 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#lora#why#more#models#leaderboard#https#task#real#data#build

Discussion (28 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PagGF8roBJmjLunsX/competitiv...
I think the idea is interesting though, although I wonder if training time for LoRA is such a bottleneck to deserve its own, extremely narrowly scoped, leaderboard. Maybe if it was more tasks or more models we could hope that it transfers? With a single task, and a single model, I’d be afraid of this overfitting pretty heavily.
For NanoGPT, I think the idea always was that the ideas can be transferred to much larger models, or serve as stepping stones for investigations on larger models.
Have we stopped treating software as a black box? This behavior will only lead to devs moving away from OSS to avoid the AI stigma.
As an author: show me why you thought this was interesting and why you’re doing it, and why you think it’s relevant. What does it build towards? What does climbing this leaderboard mean to me?
Absent those things, this is just some thing my opus could generate as well.
This makes it impossible to really check their claims in practice.
The only way I've seen these debates settled is by using a fixed task and having someone act as a referee. That's what nanoGPT's speedrun did for optimizers.
The goal is to make a public record that shows which training tricks really save time and which ones don't work when tested again. Each record should explain how the method works, so over time, the leaderboard becomes a kind of lab notebook.
As more records are added, the leaderboard serves both as a ranking and as a detailed log of what was tried. I agree, and that's my next step: adding a second track with a different model family and task (SmolLM2 + SQuAD), so we can actually test if these methods transfer instead of just promising they do.
Honestly, your opus could probably build the framework too. But a leaderboard is more than just code. It also depends on someone being willing to review submissions for cheating, make decisions when things aren't clear, and keep adding new records even months later. That part can't be automated; it needs to be maintained by people.
What is LoRA in this context? the communication protocol? Or another term appropriated by LLMs? Why the speedrun?
LoRA (Low-Rank Adaptation) is a parameter-efficient fine-tuning technique for large language models.[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LoRa
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LoRA_(machine_learning)
The AI slop "why" section in the readme is completely useless. I struggle with this too. I start every project doc with a "why" then "overview" section, and AI is still horrendously bad at the "why", filled with vapid corpo/tech startup speak. I usually write the "why" myself, or at least put down the outline to be completed.