If the problem of training and inference on neural networks can be optimized so that a topology can be used to keep closely related data together, we will see huge advancements in training and inference speed, and probably in model size as a result.
And speed isn't just speed. Speed makes impossible (not enough time in our lifetime) things possible.
A huge factor in Deepseek being able to train on H800 (half HBM bandwith as H100) is that they used GPU cores to compress/decompress the data moved around between the GPU memory and the compute units. This reduces latency in accessing data and made up for the slower memory bandwith (which translates in higher latency when fetching data). Anything that reduces the latency of memory accesses is a huge accelerator for neural nets. The number one way to achieve this is to keep related data next to each other, so that it fits in the closest caches possible.
Having said that it would be fun to see things like rearrangement data moves based on temerature of silicon parts after training cycle.
Aside from HW acceleration today, designs like Cebras would benefit heavily by reducing the amount of random access from accessing the weights (and thus freeing up cross-chip memory bandwidth for other things).
But those game devs knew where everything was spatially on the disc, and how the data would generally be used during gameplay. It was consistent.
Do engineers have a lot of insight into how models get loaded spatially onto a given GPU at run time? Is this constant? Is it variable on a per GPU basis? I would think it would have to be.
Hard to optimize for this.
The brain itself seems to have bottlenecks that aren't distance related, like hemispheres and the corpus callosum that are preserved over all placental mammals and other mammalian groups have something similar and still hemispheres. Maybe it's just an artifact of bilateral symmetry that is stuck in there from path dependence, or forcing a redundancy to make damage more recoverable, but maybe it has a big regularizing or alternatively specializing effect (regularization like dropout tends to force more distributed representations which seems kind of opposite to this work and other work like "Seeing is Believing: Brain-Inspired Modular Training for Mechanistic Interpretability," https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.08746 ).
any idea why this is the case? CNN have the bias that neighbouring pixels are somehow relevant - they are neighbours. ViTs have to re-learn this from scratch. So why do they end up doing better than CNN?
Better interpretability, I suppose. Could give insights into how cognition works.
More work is being done on this as we speak.
I.e., is this something that could (and therefore, will) be turned towards identifying toxic concepts as understood by the chinese or us government, or to identify (say) pro-union concepts so they can be down-weighted in a released model, etc?
This is true. The features closer together now have much stronger semantic overlap. You can watch how the weights self-organize in a GPT here: https://toponets.github.io/webpage_assets/banner_video.mp4
We're already studying the effects of topographic structure on polysemanticity.
The gains in parameter efficiency was a surprise even to us when we first tried it out.
https://twitter.com/justinvincent/status/1884357300703400274
[0]: https://fraunhoferhhi.github.io/Self-Organizing-Gaussians/