Llama.cpp 30B runs with only 6GB of RAM now

Author here. For additional context, please read https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp/discussions/638#discu... The loading time performance has been a huge win for usability, and folks have been having the most wonderful reactions after using this change. But we don't have a compelling enough theory yet to explain the RAM usage miracle. So please don't get too excited just yet! Yes things are getting more awesome, but like all things in science a small amount of healthy skepticism is warranted.

Didn't expect to see two titans today: ggerganov AND jart. Can ya'll slow down you make us mortals look bad :')

Seeing such clever use of mmap makes me dread to imagine how much Python spaghetti probably tanks OpenAI's and other "big ML" shops' infra when they should've trusted in zero copy solutions.

Perhaps SWE is dead after all, but LLMs didn't kill it...

This doesn't even seem that clever, just regular ol' use of mmap where there was none before. Wonder what other performance is being left on the floor. I'm convinced entire power plants could be retired if the world stopped using python unfortunately.

>> I'm convinced entire power plants could be retired if the world stopped using python unfortunately.

On the other hand, many business and professionals wouldn't exist :)

I can't find a single good argument for Python based on merit that's not at least 15+ years dated and stems from "But Google is using it".

It's not the easiest syntax, not the best compiler support, performance and threading is a joke. The entire language is based on hype back from the time when the only two mainstream languages were C++ and Java.

There were plenty of other languages competing with python for the same niche such as perl, ruby, js, php etc... Python is superior to all of those just for syntax alone, it is easier and cleaner to both read and write.

That might be true, but it seems to generally fall under the category of 'relevant 15+ years ago', doesn't it?

I'm arguing against the point that it clearly did have the easiest syntax compared to the competition back then and not because Google was using it.

Even if it doesn't have the best syntax now (which I doubt), the tooling and libraries make it a better choice over any language that have an edge over python syntax.

> I'm arguing against the point that it clearly did have the easiest syntax compared to the competition back then and not because Google was using it.

Maybe, not sure? My point was that both the syntax and Google using it was more relevant 15 years ago than now.

(I don't have much of an opinion on the 15+ years ago thing.)

I don't see any reason for it to be less true now.

Is python syntax worse than any brand new languages like rust or go? Absolutely not. It's still better.

Did Google stop using it? I don't think so, but I also don't think people picked it just because Google did.