High Signal Podcasts Evidence ledger
Method
Browse
← Back to evidence

Evidence receipt / belief

Published · transcript-backed

Jeff Dean: belief

12 Feb 2025 Dwarkesh Podcast Jeff Dean & Noam Shazeer — 25 years at Google: from PageRank to AGI

“I've been a big fan of models that are sparse because I think you want different parts of the model to be good at different things.”

— Jeff Dean

Source trail

Everything needed to verify it.

Speaker
Jeff Dean
Attribution
Verified speaker
Claim type
belief
Recorded
12 Feb 2025
Publisher
Dwarkesh Podcast

Transcript context

…Right. Now, language models, obviously, you put in language, you get language out. Obviously, it's multimodal. But the Pathways blog post talks about so many different use cases that are not obviously of this kind of auto-regressive nature going through the same model. Could you imagine, basically, Google as a company, the product is like Google Search goes through this, Google Images goes through this, Gmail goes through it? Just like the entire server is just this huge mixture of experts, specialized? One thing I've heard you talk a lot about is continual learning, the idea that you could just have a model which improves over time rather than having to start from scratch. Is there any fundamental impediment to that? Because theoretically, you should just be able to keep fine-tuning a model. What does that future look like to you? Yeah, I've been thinking about this more and more. I've been a big fan of models that are sparse because I think you want different parts of the model to be good at different things. We have our Gemini 1.5 Pro model, and other models are mixture-of-experts style models where you now have parts of the model that are activated for some token and parts that are not activated at all because you've decided this is a math-oriented thing, and this part's good at math, and this part's good at understanding cat images. So, that gives you this ability to have a much more capable model that's still quite efficient at inference time because it has very large capacity, but you activate a small part of it. But I think the current problem, well, one limitation of what we're doing today is it's still a very regular structure where each of the experts is the same size. The paths merge back together very fast. They don't go off and have lots of different branches for mathy things that don't merge back together with the kind of cat-image thing. I think we should probably have a more organic structure in these things. I also would like it if the pieces of those model of the model could be developed a little bit independently. Like right now, I think we have this issue where we're going to train a model. So, we do a bunch of preparation work on deciding the most awesome algorithms we can come up with and the most awesome data mix we can come up with. But there's always trade-offs there, like we'd love to include more multilingual data, but that might come at the expense of including less coding data, and so, the model's less good at coding but better at multilingual, or vice versa. I think it would be really great if we could have a small set of people who care about a particular subset of languages go off and create really good training data, train a modular piece of a model that we can then hook up to a larger model that improves its capability in, say, Southeast Asian languages or in reasoning about Haskell code or something. Then, you also have a nice software engineering benefit where you've decomposed the problem a bit compared to what we do today, which is we have this kind of a whole bunch of people working. But then, we have this kind of monolithic process of starting to do pre-training on this model. If we could do that, you could have 100 teams around Google. You could have people all around the world working to improve languages they care about or particular problems they care about and all collectively work on improving the model. And that's kind of a form of continual learning. around the world working to improve languages they care about or particular problems they care about and all collectively work on improving the model. And that's kind of a form of continual learning. You're starting to see some of this by having a lot of uses of Gemini models across Google that are not necessarily fine-tuned. They're just given instructions for this particular use case in this feature in this product setting. So, I definitely see a lot more sharing of what the underlying models are capable of across more and more services. I do think that's a pretty interesting direction to go, for sure.…

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

Search evidence