bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
57,558
Reputation
8,519
Daps
160,344

In Brief

Posted:

9:16 AM PST · December 26, 2024

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella speaks during the OpenAI DevDay event on November 06, 2023 in San Francisco
Image Credits:Justin Sullivan / Getty Images



Microsoft and OpenAI have a financial definition of AGI: Report​


Microsoft and OpenAI have a very specific, internal definition of artificial general intelligence (AGI) based on the startup’s profits, according to a new report from The Information. And by this definition, OpenAI is many years away from reaching it.

The two companies reportedly signed an agreement last year stating OpenAI has only achieved AGI when it develops AI systems that can generate at least $100 billion in profits. That’s far from the rigorous technical and philosophical definition of AGI many expect.

This year, OpenAI is reportedly set to lose billions of dollars, and the startup tells investors it won’t turn a profit until 2029.

This is an important detail because Microsoft loses access to OpenAI’s technology when the startup reaches AGI, a nebulous term that means different things to everyone. Some have speculated OpenAI will declare AGI sooner rather than later to box out Microsoft, but this agreement means Microsoft could have access to OpenAI’s models for a decade or more.

Last week, some debated whether OpenAI’s o3 model was a meaningful step toward AGI. While o3 may perform better than other AI models, it also comes with significant compute costs, which bodes ill for OpenAI and Microsoft’s profit-centric definition of AGI.
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
57,558
Reputation
8,519
Daps
160,344


OpenAI’s o3 suggests AI models are scaling in new ways — but so are the costs​


Maxwell Zeff

4:08 PM PST · December 23, 2024



Last month, AI founders and investors told TechCrunch that we’re now in the “second era of scaling laws,” noting how established methods of improving AI models were showing diminishing returns. One promising new method they suggested could keep gains was “test-time scaling,” which seems to be what’s behind the performance of OpenAI’s o3 model — but it comes with drawbacks of its own.

Much of the AI world took the announcement of OpenAI’s o3 model as proof that AI scaling progress has not “hit a wall.” The o3 model does well on benchmarks, significantly outscoring all other models on a test of general ability called ARC-AGI, and scoring 25% on a difficult math test that no other AI model scored more than 2% on.

Of course, we at TechCrunch are taking all this with a grain of salt until we can test o3 for ourselves (very few have tried it so far). But even before o3’s release, the AI world is already convinced that something big has shifted.

The co-creator of OpenAI’s o-series of models, Noam Brown, noted on Friday that the startup is announcing o3’s impressive gains just three months after the startup announced o1 — a relatively short time frame for such a jump in performance.

We announced @OpenAI o1 just 3 months ago. Today, we announced o3. We have every reason to believe this trajectory will continue. pic.twitter.com/Ia0b63RXIk

— Noam Brown (@polynoamial) December 20, 2024
“We have every reason to believe this trajectory will continue,” said Brown in a tweet.

Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark said in a blog post on Monday that o3 is evidence that AI “progress will be faster in 2025 than in 2024.” (Keep in mind that it benefits Anthropic — especially its ability to raise capital — to suggest that AI scaling laws are continuing, even if Clark is complementing a competitor.)

Next year, Clark says the AI world will splice together test-time scaling and traditional pre-training scaling methods to eke even more returns out of AI models. Perhaps he’s suggesting that Anthropic and other AI model providers will release reasoning models of their own in 2025, just like Google did last week.

Test-time scaling means OpenAI is using more compute during ChatGPT’s inference phase, the period of time after you press enter on a prompt. It’s not clear exactly what is happening behind the scenes: OpenAI is either using more computer chips to answer a user’s question, running more powerful inference chips, or running those chips for longer periods of time — 10 to 15 minutes in some cases — before the AI produces an answer. We don’t know all the details of how o3 was made, but these benchmarks are early signs that test-time scaling may work to improve the performance of AI models.

While o3 may give some a renewed belief in the progress of AI scaling laws, OpenAI’s newest model also uses a previously unseen level of compute, which means a higher price per answer.

“Perhaps the only important caveat here is understanding that one reason why O3 is so much better is that it costs more money to run at inference time — the ability to utilize test-time compute means on some problems you can turn compute into a better answer,” Clark writes in his blog. “This is interesting because it has made the costs of running AI systems somewhat less predictable — previously, you could work out how much it cost to serve a generative model by just looking at the model and the cost to generate a given output.”

Clark, and others, pointed to o3’s performance on the ARC-AGI benchmark — a difficult test used to assess breakthroughs on AGI — as an indicator of its progress. It’s worth noting that passing this test, according to its creators, does not mean an AI model has achieved AGI, but rather it’s one way to measure progress toward the nebulous goal. That said, the o3 model blew past the scores of all previous AI models which had done the test, scoring 88% in one of its attempts. OpenAI’s next best AI model, o1, scored just 32%.

Screenshot-2024-12-23-at-3.59.48PM.png
Chart showing the performance of OpenAI’s o-series on the ARC-AGI test.Image Credits:ARC Prize

But the logarithmic x-axis on this chart may be alarming to some. The high-scoring version of o3 used more than $1,000 worth of compute for every task. The o1 models used around $5 of compute per task, and o1-mini used just a few cents.

The creator of the ARC-AGI benchmark, François Chollet, writes in a blog that OpenAI used roughly 170x more compute to generate that 88% score, compared to high-efficiency version of o3 that scored just 12% lower. The high-scoring version of o3 used more than $10,000 of resources to complete the test, which makes it too expensive to compete for the ARC Prize — an unbeaten competition for AI models to beat the ARC test.

However, Chollet says o3 was still a breakthrough for AI models, nonetheless.

“o3 is a system capable of adapting to tasks it has never encountered before, arguably approaching human-level performance in the ARC-AGI domain,” said Chollet in the blog. “Of course, such generality comes at a steep cost, and wouldn’t quite be economical yet: You could pay a human to solve ARC-AGI tasks for roughly $5 per task (we know, we did that), while consuming mere cents in energy.”

It’s premature to harp on the exact pricing of all this — we’ve seen prices for AI models plummet in the last year, and OpenAI has yet to announce how much o3 will actually cost. However, these prices indicate just how much compute is required to break, even slightly, the performance barriers set by leading AI models today.

This raises some questions. What is o3 actually for? And how much more compute is necessary to make more gains around inference with o4, o5, or whatever else OpenAI names its next reasoning models?

It doesn’t seem like o3, or its successors, would be anyone’s “daily driver” like GPT-4o or Google Search might be. These models just use too much compute to answer small questions throughout your day such as, “How can the Cleveland Browns still make the 2024 playoffs?”

Instead, it seems like AI models with scaled test-time compute may only be good for big picture prompts such as, “How can the Cleveland Browns become a Super Bowl franchise in 2027?” Even then, maybe it’s only worth the high compute costs if you’re the general manager of the Cleveland Browns, and you’re using these tools to make some big decisions.

Institutions with deep pockets may be the only ones that can afford o3, at least to start, as Wharton professor Ethan Mollick notes in a tweet.

O3 looks too expensive for most use. But for work in academia, finance & many industrial problems, paying hundreds or even thousands of dollars for a successful answer would not be we prohibitive. If it is generally reliable, o3 will have multiple use cases even before costs drop

— Ethan Mollick (@emollick) December 22, 2024

We’ve already seen OpenAI release a $200 tier to use a high-compute version of o1, but the startup has reportedly weighed creating subscription plans costing up to $2,000. When you see how much compute o3 uses, you can understand why OpenAI would consider it.

But there are drawbacks to using o3 for high-impact work. As Chollet notes, o3 is not AGI, and it still fails on some very easy tasks that a human would do quite easily.

This isn’t necessarily surprising, as large language models still have a huge hallucination problem, which o3 and test-time compute don’t seem to have solved. That’s why ChatGPT and Gemini include disclaimers below every answer they produce, asking users not to trust answers at face value. Presumably AGI, should it ever be reached, would not need such a disclaimer.

One way to unlock more gains in test-time scaling could be better AI inference chips. There’s no shortage of startups tackling just this thing, such as Groq or Cerebras, while other startups are designing more cost-efficient AI chips, such as MatX. Andreessen Horowitz general partner Anjney Midha previously told TechCrunch he expects these startups to play a bigger role in test-time scaling moving forward.

While o3 is a notable improvement to the performance of AI models, it raises several new questions around usage and costs. That said, the performance of o3 does add credence to the claim that test-time compute is the tech industry’s next best way to scale AI models.
 

bnew

Veteran
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
57,558
Reputation
8,519
Daps
160,344


DeepSeek-V3, ultra-large open-source AI, outperforms Llama and Qwen on launch​


Shubham Sharma@mr_bumss

December 26, 2024 10:46 AM



Black and white AI vector image of robot jumping over the heads of onlookers in a city


Credit: VentureBeat made with Midjourney



Chinese AI startup DeepSeek, known for challenging leading AI vendors with its innovative open-source technologies, today released a new ultra-large model: DeepSeek-V3.

Available via Hugging Face under the company’s license agreement, the new model comes with 671B parameters but uses a mixture-of-experts architecture to activate only select parameters, in order to handle given tasks accurately and efficiently. According to benchmarks shared by DeepSeek, the offering is already topping the charts, outperforming leading open-source models, including Meta’s Llama 3.1-405B, and closely matching the performance of closed models from Anthropic and OpenAI.

The release marks another major development closing the gap between closed and open-source AI. Ultimately, DeepSeek, which started as an offshoot of Chinese quantitative hedge fund High-Flyer Capital Management, hopes these developments will pave the way for artificial general intelligence (AGI), where models will have the ability to understand or learn any intellectual task that a human being can.


What does DeepSeek-V3 bring to the table?​


Just like its predecessor DeepSeek-V2, the new ultra-large model uses the same basic architecture revolving around multi-head latent attention (MLA) and DeepSeekMoE. This approach ensures it maintains efficient training and inference — with specialized and shared “experts” (individual, smaller neural networks within the larger model) activating 37B parameters out of 671B for each token.

While the basic architecture ensures robust performance for DeepSeek-V3, the company has also debuted two innovations to further push the bar.

The first is an auxiliary loss-free load-balancing strategy. This dynamically monitors and adjusts the load on experts to utilize them in a balanced way without compromising overall model performance. The second is multi-token prediction (MTP), which allows the model to predict multiple future tokens simultaneously. This innovation not only enhances the training efficiency but enables the model to perform three times faster, generating 60 tokens per second.

“During pre-training, we trained DeepSeek-V3 on 14.8T high-quality and diverse tokens…Next, we conducted a two-stage context length extension for DeepSeek-V3,” the company wrote in a technical paper detailing the new model. “In the first stage, the maximum context length is extended to 32K, and in the second stage, it is further extended to 128K. Following this, we conducted post-training, including Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning (RL) on the base model of DeepSeek-V3, to align it with human preferences and further unlock its potential. During the post-training stage, we distill the reasoning capability from the DeepSeekR1 series of models, and meanwhile carefully maintain the balance between model accuracy and generation length.”

Notably, during the training phase, DeepSeek used multiple hardware and algorithmic optimizations, including the FP8 mixed precision training framework and the DualPipe algorithm for pipeline parallelism, to cut down on the costs of the process.

Overall, it claims to have completed DeepSeek-V3’s entire training in about 2788K H800 GPU hours, or about $5.57 million, assuming a rental price of $2 per GPU hour. This is much lower than the hundreds of millions of dollars usually spent on pre-training large language models.

Llama-3.1, for instance, is estimated to have been trained with an investment of over $500 million.


Strongest open-source model currently available​


Despite the economical training, DeepSeek-V3 has emerged as the strongest open-source model in the market.

The company ran multiple benchmarks to compare the performance of the AI and noted that it convincingly outperforms leading open models, including Llama-3.1-405B and Qwen 2.5-72B. It even outperforms closed-source GPT-4o on most benchmarks, except English-focused SimpleQA and FRAMES — where the OpenAI model sat ahead with scores of 38.2 and 80.5 (vs 24.9 and 73.3), respectively.

Notably, DeepSeek-V3’s performance particularly stood out on the Chinese and math-centric benchmarks, scoring better than all counterparts. In the Math-500 test, it scored 90.2, with Qwen’s score of 80 the next best.

The only model that managed to challenge DeepSeek-V3 was Anthropic’s Claude 3.5 Sonnet, outperforming it with higher scores in MMLU-Pro, IF-Eval, GPQA-Diamond, SWE Verified and Aider-Edit.



The work shows that open-source is closing in on closed-source models, promising nearly equivalent performance across different tasks. The development of such systems is extremely good for the industry as it potentially eliminates the chances of one big AI player ruling the game. It also gives enterprises multiple options to choose from and work with while orchestrating their stacks.

Currently, the code for DeepSeek-V3 is available via GitHub under an MIT license, while the model is being provided under the company’s model license. Enterprises can also test out the new model via DeepSeek Chat, a ChatGPT-like platform, and access the API for commercial use. DeepSeek is providing the API at the same price as DeepSeek-V2 until February 8. After that, it will charge $0.27/million input tokens ($0.07/million tokens with cache hits) and $1.10/million output tokens.

Screen-Shot-2024-12-26-at-1.24.36-PM.png
 
Top