by godelski | 2025-08-08 06:20:57+00:00
> Something like GPT-2

I got 2 things to say here

1) There's plenty of things that can achieve similar performance to GPT-2 these days. We mentioned Mamba, they compared to GPT-3 in their first paper[0]. They compare with the open sourced version and you'll also see some other architectures referenced there like Hyena and H3. It's the GPT-Neo and GPT-J models. Remember GPT-3 is pretty much just a scaled up GPT-2.

2) I think you are underestimating the costs to train some of these things. I know Karpathy said you can now train GPT-2 for like $1k[1] but a single training run is a small portion of the total costs. I'll reference StyleGAN3 here just because the paper has good documentation on the very last page[2]. Check out the breakdown but there's a few things I want to specifically point out. The whole project cost 92 V100 years but the results of the paper only accounted for 5 of those. That's 53 of the 1876 training runs. Your $1k doesn't get you nearly as far as you'd think. If we simplify things and say everything in that 5 V100 years cost $1k then that means they spent $85k before that. They spent $18k before they even went ahead with that project. If you want realistic numbers, multiply that by 5 because that's roughly what a V100 will run you (discounted for scale). ~$110k ain't too bad, but that is outside the budget of most small labs (including most of academia). And remember, that's just the cost of the GPUs, that doesn't pay for any of the people running that stuff.

I don't expect you to know any of this stuff if you're not a researcher. Why would you? It's hard enough to keep up with the general AI trends, let alone niche topics lol. It's not an intelligence problem, it's a logistics problem, right? A researcher's day job is being in those weeds. You just get a lot more hours in the space. I mean I'm pretty out of touch of plenty of domains just because time constraints.

> I don't think this is feasible for large investments. I may be wrong, but i also don't think other avenues aren't being funded.

So I'm trying to say, I think your bar has been met.

And I think if we are actually looking at the numbers, yeah, I do not think these avenues are being funded. But don't take it from me, take it from FeiFei Li[3]

| Not a single university today can train a ChatGPT model

I'm not sure if you're a researcher or not, you haven't answered that question. But I think if you were you'd be aware of this issue because you'd be living with it. If you were a PhD student you would see the massive imbalance of GPU resources given to those working closely with big tech vs those trying to do things on their own. If you were a researcher you'd also know that even inside those companies that there aren't much resources given to people to do these things. You get them on occasion like the StarFlow and TarFlow I pointed out before, but these tend to be pretty sporadic. Even a big reason we talk about Mamba is because of how much they spent on it.

But if you aren't a researcher I'd ask why you have such confidence that these things are being funded and that these things cannot be scaled or improved[4]. History is riddled with examples of inferior tech winning mostly due to marketing. I know we get hyped around new tech, hell, that's why I'm a researcher. But isn't that hype a reason we should try to address this fundamental problem? Because the hype is about the advance of technology, right? I really don't think it is about the advancement of a specific team, so if we have the opportunity for greater and faster advancement, isn't that something we should encourage? Because I don't understand why you're arguing against that. An exciting thing of working at the bleeding edge is seeing all the possibilities. But a disheartening thing about working at the bleeding edge is seeing many promising avenues be passed by for things like funding and publicity. Do we want meritocracy to win out or the dollar?

I guess you'll have to ask yourself: what's driving your excitement?

[0] I mean the first Mamba paper, not the first SSM paper btw: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.00752

[1] https://github.com/karpathy/llm.c/discussions/677

[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.12423

[3] https://www.ft.com/content/d5f91c27-3be8-454a-bea5-bb8ff2a85...

[4] I'm not saying any of this stuff is straight de fact better. But there definitely is an attention imbalance and you have to compare like to like. If you get to x in 1000 man hours and someone else gets there in 100, it may be worth taking a look deeper. That's all.