Back to News
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

jmward01about 15 hours ago
I think there is real value in going smaller/limiting resources. The trend is 'just make the weights bigger and throw more data at it'. It is a MBA's view of winning. We have a knob, keep turning it. It does work but it may not drive as much creativity as resource limits can drive. It is like urban growth boundaries in city planning. If you aren't allowed to 'just expand' you are forced to build more intelligently inside the city and those creative solutions often lead to major improvements.
patrick0dabout 12 hours ago
Inspired by parameter golf and speedrun approaches I make the case for picking loss functions like a wallclock for LoRA on AI safety targets. The result when I tried it was a functional distillation of an Sparse AutoEncoder into a 5.3MB probe. I have a technical writeup below about it if anyone is interested.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/PagGF8roBJmjLunsX/competitiv...

walrus01about 11 hours ago
Reading the title, for a moment I thought this would be something about a LoRA serial data bridge over RF and an actual physical wall clock, possibly some novel new homebuilt piece of hardware to display perfectly accurate NTP synchronized time or something.
stephantulabout 17 hours ago
Sadly 100% generated.

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.

Vineeth147about 17 hours ago
That's fair on both points. Much of this was built with AI, but the runs and numbers are real. They are also reproducible, so I would prefer to be judged on that. And yes, using a single model and task can lead to overfitting. The plan is to add more tracks, including bigger models and other tasks, so a technique only matters if it transfers. Right now, it's just the initial track, so your concern is valid. Thanks for the feedback.
Gisbitusabout 17 hours ago
I understand the feedback in the second paragraph, however I do not understand why we're judging projects by whether they've been AI generated or not.

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.

stephantulabout 16 hours ago
Not the software, the whole thing.

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.

Vineeth147about 16 hours ago
I fine-tune small models with limited resources, but it's hard to tell which speedup claims are real. Each method, like DoRA, rsLoRA, Unsloth, or packing tricks, uses different models, data, and hardware in their reports.

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.

monegatorabout 15 hours ago
Feels like i'm missing the introduction paragraph in the repo.

What is LoRA in this context? the communication protocol? Or another term appropriated by LLMs? Why the speedrun?

garimbaboyabout 12 hours ago
LoRa (Long Range) is a physical radio communication techniche.[1]

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)

nomelabout 4 hours ago
The author responds with reasoning here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48975473

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.

gowthamgts12about 15 hours ago
Low Rank Adaptation. Google “Lora llm”
Schlagbohrerabout 13 hours ago
Yes but what are LoRAs being tested for / trying to do in this case? I couldn't find any information there about what the actual output goal is for the LoRAs. Speed doing what?
maleldilabout 7 hours ago
How long it takes to train that particular configuration. The table column is named "train time".
pigeonsabout 11 hours ago
I wish there was an acronym for it that didn't collide with the radio tech.
jorlowabout 8 hours ago
Honest question when was the radio tech lora on the hn frontpage? Im slightly shocked this still creates such confusion every time
jkwangabout 13 hours ago
A wall-clock leaderboard is a nice complement to the usual loss-curve comparisons. Curious whether you plan to track hardware-normalized entries too, since GPU differences can dominate the timing.
HumblyTossedabout 11 hours ago
Sigh... Unfortunate naming.