Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dangeratio t1_j9igzb4 wrote

Check out Amazon’s multimodal chain of thought model, only 738 million and scores better on all question classes than ChatGPT. See table 4 on page 7 here - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2302.00923.pdf

20

Destiny_Knight t1_j9iupzk wrote

What the actual fuck is that paper? The thing performed better than a human at several different question classes.

At fucking less than one billion parameters. 100x less than GPT 3.5.

Edit: For clarity, I am impressed not angry lol.

12

IluvBsissa t1_j9j5t08 wrote

Are you angry or impressed ?

3

Destiny_Knight t1_j9j6iq0 wrote

impressed lol

2

IluvBsissa t1_j9j6v5v wrote

If these models are so smol and efficient, why are they not released ?? I just don't get it. I thought PaLM was kept private because it was too costly to run to be profitable...

3

kermunnist t1_j9kqsaw wrote

That's because the smaller models are less useful. With neural networks (likely including biological ones) there's a hard trade off between specialized performance and general performance. If these 100+x smaller models were trained on the same data as GPT-3 they would perform 100+x worse on these metrics (maybe not exactly because in this case the model was multimodal which definitely gave a performance advantage). The big reason this model performed so much is because it was fine tuned on problems similar to the ones on this exam where as GPT-3 was fine turned on anything and everything. This means that this model would likely not be a great conversationalist and would probably flounder at most other tasks GPT-3.5 does well on.

5

drekmonger t1_j9iios3 wrote

Heh. I tried their rationalization step with ChatGPT, just with prompting. For their question about the fries and crackers it said the problem is flawed, because there's such a thing as crackers with low or no salt. Also correctly inferred that fries are usually salted, but don't have to be. (of course, it didn't have the picture to go by, which was the point of the research)

Great paper though. Thanks for sharing.

8