←back to thread

262 points rain1 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.283s | source
Show context
christianqchung ◴[] No.44442666[source]
This is a bad article. Some of the information is wrong, and it's missing lots of context.

For example, it somehow merged Llama 4 Maverick's custom Arena chatbot version with Behemoth, falsely claiming that the former is stopping the latter from being released. It also claims 40B of internet text data is 10B tokens, which seems a little odd. Llama 405B was also trained on more than 15 trillion tokens[1], but the post claims only 3.67 trillion for some reason. It also doesn't mention Mistral large for some reason, even though it's the first good European 100B+ dense model.

>The MoE arch. enabled larger models to be trained and used by more people - people without access to thousands of interconnected GPUs

You still need thousands of GPUs to train a MoE model of any actual use. This is true for inference in the sense that it's faster I guess, but even that has caveats because MoE models are less powerful than dense models of the same size, though the trade-off has apparently been worth it in many cases. You also didn't need thousands of GPUs to do inference before, even for the largest models.

The conclusion is all over the place, and has lots of just weird and incorrect implications. The title is about how big LLMs are, why is there such a focus on token training count? Also no mention of quantized size. This is a bad AI slop article (whoops, turns out the author accidentally said it was AI generated, so it's a bad human slop article).

[1] https://ai.meta.com/blog/meta-llama-3-1/

replies(1): >>44442808 #
1. rain1 ◴[] No.44442808[source]
I can correct mistakes.

> it somehow merged Llama 4 Maverick's custom Arena chatbot version with Behemoth

I can clarify this part. I wrote 'There was a scandal as facebook decided to mislead people by gaming the lmarena benchmark site - they served one version of llama-4 there and released a different model' which is true.

But it is inside the section about the llama 4 model behemoth. So I see how that could be confusing/misleading.

I could restructure that section a little to improve it.

> Llama 405B was also trained on more than 15 trillion tokens[1],

You're talking about Llama 405B instruct, I'm talking about Llama 405B base. Of course the instruct model has been traiend on more tokens.

> why is there such a focus on token training count?

I tried to include the rough training token count for each model I wrote about - plus additional details about training data mixture if available. Training data is an important part of an LLM.