Eugene Cheah: prediction

Transcript context

…Let's see, I haven't played too much with RAG. But when I have. I'll say I found it was a little bit challenging to do research on it because we had this experience over and over again, where you could have any, an embedding model of any quality, so you could have a really, really bad embedding model, or you could have a really, really [00:34:00] good one, By any measure of good. And for the final RAG application, it kind of didn't matter. That's what I'll say about RAG while I'm being recorded. I know it doesn't actually answer the question, but Yeah, so I think a lot of folks are like, extremely excited of the idea of RWKB or State Space potentially having infinite context. But I think the reality is that when we say infinite context, we just mean a different kind of infinite context, or you, or as it's previously covered, you need to test the model differently. So, think of it more along the lines of the human. Like, I don't remember what I ate for breakfast yesterday. Yeah, that's the statement that I'll say. And And we humans are not quadratic transformers. If we did, if let's say we increased our brain size for every second we live, we would have exploded by the time we are 5 years old or something like that. And, and I think, I think basically fundamentally for us, right, be it whether we, regardless of whether RWKB, statespace, XLSTM, [00:35:00] etc, our general idea is that instead of that expanding state, that increase in computational cost, what if we have a fixed state size? And Information theory detects that that fixed state size will have a limit. Just how big of a limit is a question, like, we, like, RWKB is running at 40 megabytes for, for its state. Its future version might run into 400 megabytes. That is like millions of tokens in, if you're talking about mathematically, the maximum possibility. It's just that I guess we were all more inefficient about it, so maybe we hit 100, 000. And that's kind of like the work we are doing, trying to like push it and maximize it. And that's where the models will start differing, because it will choose to forget things, it will choose to remember things. And that's why I think that there might be some element of right, but it may not be the same right. It may be the model learn things, and it's like, hmm, I can't remember that, that article. Let me do a database search, to search. Just like us humans, when we can't remember the article in the company. We do a search on Notion. I think something that would be really interesting is if you could have facts that are, so right now, the one intuition about language models is that all those parameters are around just to store random facts about the world. And this intuition comes from the observation that if you take a really small language model, it can do things like talk to you, or kind of has like the The style of conversation, it can learn that, but where it will usually fall over compared to a much larger one is it'll just be a lot less factual about things that it knows or that it can do. But that points to all those weights that we're spending, all that SGD that we're spending to train these models are just being used to store facts. And we have things like databases that are pretty good at storing facts. So I think one thing that would be really interesting is if we could actually have some sort of outside data store that a language model can can look at that that maybe is you know, has has some sort of gradient descent in it, but but would be quite interesting. And then maybe you could edit it, delete [00:37:00] facts, you know, change who's president so that it doesn't, it doesn't get lost.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.