Great work! I still think that [1] does a better job of helping us understand how GPT and LLM work, but yours is funnier.
Then, some criticism. I probably don't get it, but I think the HN headline does your project a disservice. Your project does not demystify anything (see below) and it diverges from your project's claim, too. Furthermore, I think you claim too much on your github. "This project exists to show that training your own language model is not magic." and then just posts a few command line statements to execute. Yeah, running a mail server is not magic, just apt-get install exim4. So, code. Looking at train_guppylm.ipynb and, oh, it's PyTorch again. I'm better off reading [2] if I'm looking into that (I know, it is a published book, but I maintain my point).
So, in short, it does not help the initiated or the uninitiated. For the initiated it needs more detail for it to be useful, the uninitiated more context for it to be understood. Still a fun project, even if oversold.
Could it be possible to train LLM only through the chat messages without any other data or input?
If Guppy doesn't know regular expressions yet, could I teach it to it just by conversation? It's a fish so it wouldn't probably understand much about my blabbing, but would be interesting to give it a try.
Or is there some hard architectural limit in the current LLM's, that the training needs to be done offline and with fairly large training set.
This is a direct output from the synthetic training data though - wonder if there is a bit of overfitting going on or it’s just a natural limitation of a much smaller model.
File "<frozen runpy>", line 198, in _run_module_as_main
File "<frozen runpy>", line 88, in _run_code
File "/home/user/gupik/guppylm/guppylm/__main__.py", line 48, in <module>
main()
File "/home/user/gupik/guppylm/guppylm/__main__.py", line 29, in main
engine = GuppyInference("checkpoints/best_model.pt", "data/tokenizer.json")
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
File "/home/user/gupik/guppylm/guppylm/inference.py", line 17, in __init__
self.tokenizer = Tokenizer.from_file(tokenizer_path)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Exception: No such file or directory (os error 2)
```
You’re absolutely right! HN isn’t just LLM-infested hellscape, it’s a completely new paradigm of machine assisted chocolate-infused information generation.
I love these kinds of educational implementations.
I want to really praise the (unintentional?) nod to Nagel, by limiting capabilities to representation of a fish, the user is immediately able to understand the constraints. It can only talk like a fish cause it’s very simple
Especially compared to public models, thats a really simple correspondence to grok intuitively (small LLM > only as verbose as a fish, larger LLM > more verbose) so kudos to the author for making that simple and fun.
> the user is immediately able to understand the constraints
Nagel's point was quite literally the opposite[1] of this, though. We can't understand what it must "be like to be a bat" because their mental model is so fundamentally different than ours. So using all the human language tokens in the world can't get us to truly understand what it's like to be a bat, or a guppy, or whatever. In fact, Nagel's point is arguably even stronger: there's no possible mental mapping between the experience of a bat and the experience of a human.
IMO we're a step before that: We don't even have a real fish involved, we have a character that is fictionally a fish.
In LLM-discussions, obviously-fictional characters can be useful for this, like if someone builds a "Chat with Count Dracula" app. To truly believe that a typical "AI" is some entity that "wants to be helpful" is just as mistaken as believing the same architecture creates an entity that "feels the dark thirst for the blood of the living."
Or, in this case, that it really enjoys food-pellets.
Id highly disagree with that. Were all living in the same shared universe, and underlying every intelligence must be precisely an understanding of events happening in this space-time.
I’m not going to argue other than to say that you need to view the point from a third party perspective evaluating “fish” vs “more verbose thing,” such that the composition is the determinant of the complexity of interaction (which has a unique qualia per nagel)
Hence why it’s a “unintentional nod” not an instantiation
I think this is a nice project because it is end to end and serves its goal well. Good job! It's a good example how someone might do something similar for a specific purpose. There are other visualizers that explain different aspects of LLMs but this is a good applied example.
How much training data did you end up needing for the fish personality to feel coherent? Curious what the minimum viable dataset looks like for something like this.
Then, some criticism. I probably don't get it, but I think the HN headline does your project a disservice. Your project does not demystify anything (see below) and it diverges from your project's claim, too. Furthermore, I think you claim too much on your github. "This project exists to show that training your own language model is not magic." and then just posts a few command line statements to execute. Yeah, running a mail server is not magic, just apt-get install exim4. So, code. Looking at train_guppylm.ipynb and, oh, it's PyTorch again. I'm better off reading [2] if I'm looking into that (I know, it is a published book, but I maintain my point).
So, in short, it does not help the initiated or the uninitiated. For the initiated it needs more detail for it to be useful, the uninitiated more context for it to be understood. Still a fun project, even if oversold.
[1] https://spreadsheets-are-all-you-need.ai/ [2] https://github.com/rasbt/LLMs-from-scratch
You> hello Guppy> hi. did you bring micro pellets.
You> HELLO Guppy> i don't know what it means but it's mine.
But the character still comes through in response :)
If Guppy doesn't know regular expressions yet, could I teach it to it just by conversation? It's a fish so it wouldn't probably understand much about my blabbing, but would be interesting to give it a try.
Or is there some hard architectural limit in the current LLM's, that the training needs to be done offline and with fairly large training set.
How does it handle unknown queries?
Laughed loudly :-D
* How training. In cloud or in my own dev
* How creating a gguf
Traceback (most recent call last):
Exception: No such file or directory (os error 2) `````` # after config device checkpoint_path = "checkpoints/best_model.pt"
ckpt = torch.load(checkpoint_path, map_location=device, weights_only=False)
model = GuppyLM(mc).to(device) if "model_state_dict" in ckpt: model.load_state_dict(ckpt["model_state_dict"]) else: model.load_state_dict(ckpt)
start_step = ckpt.get("step", 0) print(f"Encore {start_step}") ```
I want to really praise the (unintentional?) nod to Nagel, by limiting capabilities to representation of a fish, the user is immediately able to understand the constraints. It can only talk like a fish cause it’s very simple
Especially compared to public models, thats a really simple correspondence to grok intuitively (small LLM > only as verbose as a fish, larger LLM > more verbose) so kudos to the author for making that simple and fun.
Nagel's point was quite literally the opposite[1] of this, though. We can't understand what it must "be like to be a bat" because their mental model is so fundamentally different than ours. So using all the human language tokens in the world can't get us to truly understand what it's like to be a bat, or a guppy, or whatever. In fact, Nagel's point is arguably even stronger: there's no possible mental mapping between the experience of a bat and the experience of a human.
[1] https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Nagel_Bat.pdf
In LLM-discussions, obviously-fictional characters can be useful for this, like if someone builds a "Chat with Count Dracula" app. To truly believe that a typical "AI" is some entity that "wants to be helpful" is just as mistaken as believing the same architecture creates an entity that "feels the dark thirst for the blood of the living."
Or, in this case, that it really enjoys food-pellets.
I’m not going to argue other than to say that you need to view the point from a third party perspective evaluating “fish” vs “more verbose thing,” such that the composition is the determinant of the complexity of interaction (which has a unique qualia per nagel)
Hence why it’s a “unintentional nod” not an instantiation
https://huggingface.co/datasets/arman-bd/guppylm-60k-generic