2 min readfrom Machine Learning

Nanochat vs Llama for training from scratch? [P]

Our take

In the quest to train a model from scratch using historical data, the choice between Nanochat and Llama is pivotal. While Nanochat has proven effective for pretraining and supervised fine-tuning (SFT), its limitations in interoperability raise concerns. The latest version lacks compatibility with transformers, which is essential for an open-source project aimed at accessibility. Conversely, Llama offers a robust architecture and utilizes the transformers 'trainer' class, potentially enhancing your training experience with a larger dataset. Exploring these options will help determine the best path forward.

Hey all - I'm engaged in a project training a model entirely on historical data, which I've posted about before on this subreddit. My last training run was done using Nanochat, and while that was very successful for pretraining and SFT of the initial model, I'm finding that while nanochat is great for getting it up and running, it's not so great for interoperability. There has been a little bit of work done to make nanochat transformers-compatible, but the latest version of nanochat (which I trained with) doesn't produce a transformers-compatible model.

So, I'm considering my next training run using the Llama architecture and the transformers 'trainer' class. I have assembled a much larger dataset for pretraining, and I want this to be an open-source project that people can access using transformers. However, I know that there are advantage to nanochat (such as the auto-scaling --depth parameter). All that said, is Llama the best potential architecture for this scenario? Or is there a better option that I could use here? Or do I just go with Nanochat again, and hope that I can build out a nanochat-to-HF export script on the other side?

submitted by /u/centerstate
[link] [comments]

Read on the original site

Open the publisher's page for the full experience

View original article