osmarks/nanogpt-experiments
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/osmarks/nanogpt-experiments.git synced 2024-12-30 12:00:29 +00:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

flesh out the remaining TODOs in readme a bit more

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Andrej Karpathy 2023-01-03 07:41:28 +00:00
parent 177d5f7dc5
commit b45eec3e4b
1 changed files with 25 additions and 6 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

31
README.md
View File

@ -84,12 +84,31 @@ Code by default now uses [PyTorch 2.0](https://pytorch.org/get-started/pytorch-2
## todos ## todos
A few that I'm aware of, other than the ones mentioned in code: A few todos I'm aware of:
Optimizations
- Additional optimizations to the running time - Additional optimizations to the running time
- Report and track other metrics e.g. PPL - Investigate need for an actual Data Loader with a dedicated worker process for data
- Look into more efficient fused optimizers (e.g. apex)
- Re-evaluate use of flash attention (previously I wasn't able to get the forward pass to match up so I took it out)
- CUDA Graphs?
- Investigate potential speedups from Lightning or huggingface Accelerate
Features / APIs
- Add back fp16 support? (would need to also add back gradient scaler)
- Add CPU support
- Finetune the finetuning script, I think the hyperparams are not great
- Replace poor man's configurator, and make sample.py configurable...
- Report and track other metrics e.g. perplexity, num_tokens, MFU, ...
- Eval zero-shot perplexities on PTB, WikiText, other related benchmarks - Eval zero-shot perplexities on PTB, WikiText, other related benchmarks
- Current initialization (PyTorch default) departs from GPT-2. In a very quick experiment I found it to be superior to the one suggested in the papers, but that can't be right
- Currently fp16 is much faster than bf16. Potentially revert back to using fp16 and re-introduce the gradient scaler? Suspiciousness
- Add some finetuning dataset and guide on some dataset for demonstration.
- Reproduce GPT-2 results. It was estimated ~3 years ago that the training cost of 1.5B model was ~$50K - Current initialization (PyTorch default) departs from GPT-2. In a very quick experiment I found it to be superior to the one suggested in the papers, but that can't be right?
- I am still not 100% confident that my GPT-2 small reproduction hyperparameters are good, if someone has reproduced GPT-2 I'd be eager to exchange notes ty
Results
- Actually reproduce GPT-2 results and have clean configs that reproduce the result. It was estimated ~3 years ago that the training cost of 1.5B model was ~$50K (?). Sounds a bit too high.