Show HN: finetune LLMs via the Finetuning Hub
10 by rsaha7 | 0 comments on Hacker News.
Hi HN community, I have been working on benchmarking publicly available LLMs these past couple of weeks. More precisely, I am interested on the finetuning piece since a lot of businesses are starting to entertain the idea of self-hosting LLMs trained on their proprietary data rather than relying on third party APIs. To this point, I am tracking the following 4 pillars of evaluation that businesses are typically look into: - Performance - Time to train an LLM - Cost to train an LLM - Inference (throughput / latency / cost per token) For each LLM, my aim is to benchmark them for popular tasks, i.e., classification and summarization. Moreover, I would like to compare them against each other. So far, I have benchmarked Flan-T5-Large, Falcon-7B and RedPajama and have found them to be very efficient in low-data situations, i.e., when there are very few annotated samples. Llama2-7B/13B and Writer’s Palmyra are in the pipeline. But there’s so many LLMs out there! In case this work interests you, would be great to join forces. GitHub repo attached — feedback is always welcome :) Happy hacking!
Hi HN community, I have been working on benchmarking publicly available LLMs these past couple of weeks. More precisely, I am interested on the finetuning piece since a lot of businesses are starting to entertain the idea of self-hosting LLMs trained on their proprietary data rather than relying on third party APIs. To this point, I am tracking the following 4 pillars of evaluation that businesses are typically look into: - Performance - Time to train an LLM - Cost to train an LLM - Inference (throughput / latency / cost per token) For each LLM, my aim is to benchmark them for popular tasks, i.e., classification and summarization. Moreover, I would like to compare them against each other. So far, I have benchmarked Flan-T5-Large, Falcon-7B and RedPajama and have found them to be very efficient in low-data situations, i.e., when there are very few annotated samples. Llama2-7B/13B and Writer’s Palmyra are in the pipeline. But there’s so many LLMs out there! In case this work interests you, would be great to join forces. GitHub repo attached — feedback is always welcome :) Happy hacking! 0 https://ift.tt/lvAtn3N 10 Show HN: finetune LLMs via the Finetuning Hub
10 by rsaha7 | 0 comments on Hacker News.
Hi HN community, I have been working on benchmarking publicly available LLMs these past couple of weeks. More precisely, I am interested on the finetuning piece since a lot of businesses are starting to entertain the idea of self-hosting LLMs trained on their proprietary data rather than relying on third party APIs. To this point, I am tracking the following 4 pillars of evaluation that businesses are typically look into: - Performance - Time to train an LLM - Cost to train an LLM - Inference (throughput / latency / cost per token) For each LLM, my aim is to benchmark them for popular tasks, i.e., classification and summarization. Moreover, I would like to compare them against each other. So far, I have benchmarked Flan-T5-Large, Falcon-7B and RedPajama and have found them to be very efficient in low-data situations, i.e., when there are very few annotated samples. Llama2-7B/13B and Writer’s Palmyra are in the pipeline. But there’s so many LLMs out there! In case this work interests you, would be great to join forces. GitHub repo attached — feedback is always welcome :) Happy hacking!
Hi HN community, I have been working on benchmarking publicly available LLMs these past couple of weeks. More precisely, I am interested on the finetuning piece since a lot of businesses are starting to entertain the idea of self-hosting LLMs trained on their proprietary data rather than relying on third party APIs. To this point, I am tracking the following 4 pillars of evaluation that businesses are typically look into: - Performance - Time to train an LLM - Cost to train an LLM - Inference (throughput / latency / cost per token) For each LLM, my aim is to benchmark them for popular tasks, i.e., classification and summarization. Moreover, I would like to compare them against each other. So far, I have benchmarked Flan-T5-Large, Falcon-7B and RedPajama and have found them to be very efficient in low-data situations, i.e., when there are very few annotated samples. Llama2-7B/13B and Writer’s Palmyra are in the pipeline. But there’s so many LLMs out there! In case this work interests you, would be great to join forces. GitHub repo attached — feedback is always welcome :) Happy hacking! 0 https://ift.tt/lvAtn3N 10 Show HN: finetune LLMs via the Finetuning Hub
Comments
Post a Comment