The new 3B "fully open source" model from AMD
-
And we are still waiting on the day when these models can actually be run on AMD GPUs without jumping through hoops.
That is a improvement, if the model is properly trained with rocm it should be able to run on amd GPU easier
-
Nice and open source . Similar performance to Qwen 2.5.
(also ... https://www.tomsguide.com/ai/i-tested-deepseek-vs-qwen-2-5-with-7-prompts-heres-the-winner ← tested DeepSeek vs Qwen 2.5 ... )
→ Qwen 2.5 is better than DeepSeek.
So, looks good.Dont know if this test in a good representation of the two AI, but in this case it seems pretty promising, the only thing missing is a high parameters model
-
Nice. Where do I find the memory requirements? I have an older 6GB GPU so I've been able to play around with some models in the past.
Following this page it should be enough based on the requirements of qwen2.5-3B
https://qwen-ai.com/requirements/ -
Help me understand how this is Open Source? Perhaps I'm missing something, but this is Source Available.
Instead of the traditional open models (like llama, qwen, gemma...) that are only open weight, this model says that it has :
Fully open-source release of model weights, training hyperparameters, datasets, and code
Making it different from other big tech "open" models.
Tough it exists other "fully open" models like GPT neo, and more -
This is again a big win on the red team at least for me.
They developed a "fully open" 3B parameters model family trained from scratch on AMD Instinct
MI300X GPUs.AMD is excited to announce Instella, a family of fully open state-of-the-art 3-billion-parameter language models (LMs) [...]. Instella models outperform existing fully open models of similar sizes and achieve competitive performance compared to state-of-the-art open-weight models such as Llama-3.2-3B, Gemma-2-2B, and Qwen-2.5-3B [...].
As shown in this image (https://rocm.blogs.amd.com/_images/scaling_perf_instruct.png) this model outperforms current other "fully open" models, coming next to open weight only models.
A step further, thank you AMD.
PS : not doing AMD propaganda but thanks them to help and contribute to the Open Source World.
Every AI model outperforms every other model in the same weight class when you cherry pick the metrics... Although it's always good to have more to choose from
-
This is again a big win on the red team at least for me.
They developed a "fully open" 3B parameters model family trained from scratch on AMD Instinct MI300X GPUs.AMD is excited to announce Instella, a family of fully open state-of-the-art 3-billion-parameter language models (LMs) [...]. Instella models outperform existing fully open models of similar sizes and achieve competitive performance compared to state-of-the-art open-weight models such as Llama-3.2-3B, Gemma-2-2B, and Qwen-2.5-3B [...].
As shown in this image (https://rocm.blogs.amd.com/_images/scaling_perf_instruct.png) this model outperforms current other "fully open" models, coming next to open weight only models.
A step further, thank you AMD.
PS : not doing AMD propaganda but thanks them to help and contribute to the Open Source World.
It's about AI.
-
This is again a big win on the red team at least for me.
They developed a "fully open" 3B parameters model family trained from scratch on AMD Instinct MI300X GPUs.AMD is excited to announce Instella, a family of fully open state-of-the-art 3-billion-parameter language models (LMs) [...]. Instella models outperform existing fully open models of similar sizes and achieve competitive performance compared to state-of-the-art open-weight models such as Llama-3.2-3B, Gemma-2-2B, and Qwen-2.5-3B [...].
As shown in this image (https://rocm.blogs.amd.com/_images/scaling_perf_instruct.png) this model outperforms current other "fully open" models, coming next to open weight only models.
A step further, thank you AMD.
PS : not doing AMD propaganda but thanks them to help and contribute to the Open Source World.
I don't know why open sourcing malicious software is worthy of praise but okay.
-
I don't know why open sourcing malicious software is worthy of praise but okay.
I'll bite, what is malicious about this?
-
I'll bite, what is malicious about this?
What's malicious about AI and LLMs? Have you been living under a rock?
At best it is useless, and at worst it is detrimental to society.
-
What's malicious about AI and LLMs? Have you been living under a rock?
At best it is useless, and at worst it is detrimental to society.
I disagree, LLMs have been very helpful for me and I do not see how an open source AI model trained with open source datasets is detrimental to society.
-
Every AI model outperforms every other model in the same weight class when you cherry pick the metrics... Although it's always good to have more to choose from
I've shared this AI because it's one of the best fully open source AI
-
What's malicious about AI and LLMs? Have you been living under a rock?
At best it is useless, and at worst it is detrimental to society.
So in a nutshell, it's malicious because you said so
Ok gotcha Mr/Ms/Mrs TechnoBigot
-
This is again a big win on the red team at least for me.
They developed a "fully open" 3B parameters model family trained from scratch on AMD Instinct MI300X GPUs.AMD is excited to announce Instella, a family of fully open state-of-the-art 3-billion-parameter language models (LMs) [...]. Instella models outperform existing fully open models of similar sizes and achieve competitive performance compared to state-of-the-art open-weight models such as Llama-3.2-3B, Gemma-2-2B, and Qwen-2.5-3B [...].
As shown in this image (https://rocm.blogs.amd.com/_images/scaling_perf_instruct.png) this model outperforms current other "fully open" models, coming next to open weight only models.
A step further, thank you AMD.
PS : not doing AMD propaganda but thanks them to help and contribute to the Open Source World.
I'll be bookmarking the website & thank you
-
I disagree, LLMs have been very helpful for me and I do not see how an open source AI model trained with open source datasets is detrimental to society.
I don't know what to say other than pull your head outta the sand.
-
So in a nutshell, it's malicious because you said so
Ok gotcha Mr/Ms/Mrs TechnoBigot
Yes, that's totally what I said.
-
I don't know what to say other than pull your head outta the sand.
No you.
Explain your exact reasons for thinking it's malicious. There's a lot of FUD surrounding "AI," a lot of which come from unrealistic marketing BS and poor choices by C-suite types that have nothing to do with the technology itself. If you can describe your concerns, maybe I or others can help clarify things.
-
No you.
Explain your exact reasons for thinking it's malicious. There's a lot of FUD surrounding "AI," a lot of which come from unrealistic marketing BS and poor choices by C-suite types that have nothing to do with the technology itself. If you can describe your concerns, maybe I or others can help clarify things.
These models are trained on human creations with the express intent to drive out those same human creators. There is no social safety net available so those creators can maintain a reasonable living standard without selling their art. It won't even work--the models aren't good enough to replace these jobs, but they're good enough to fool the C-suite into thinking they can--but they'll do lots of damage in the attempt.
The issues are primarily social, not technical. In a society that judges itself on how well it takes care of the needs of everyone, I would have far less of an issue with it.
-
Help me understand how this is Open Source? Perhaps I'm missing something, but this is Source Available.
The source code on these models is almost too boring to care about. Training data and weights is what really matters.
-
Yes, that's totally what I said.
Something we all agree on
-
These models are trained on human creations with the express intent to drive out those same human creators. There is no social safety net available so those creators can maintain a reasonable living standard without selling their art. It won't even work--the models aren't good enough to replace these jobs, but they're good enough to fool the C-suite into thinking they can--but they'll do lots of damage in the attempt.
The issues are primarily social, not technical. In a society that judges itself on how well it takes care of the needs of everyone, I would have far less of an issue with it.
The issues are primarily social, not technical.
Right, and having a FOSS alternative is certainly a good thing.
I think it's important to separate opposition to AI policy from a specific implementation. If your concerns are related to the social impact of a given technology, that is where the opposition should go, not toward the technology itself.
That said, this is largely similar to opposition to other types of technological change. Every time a significant change in technology comes about, there is a significant impact to jobs. The printing press destroyed the livelihood of scribes, but it made books dramatically cheaper, which created new jobs for typesetters, booksellers, etc. The automobile dramatically cut back jobs like farriers, stable hands, etc, but created new jobs for drivers, mechanics, etc. I'm sure each of those large shifts in technology also had an overreaction by business owners as they adjusted to the new normal. It certainly sucks for those impacted, but it tends to benefit those who can quickly adapt and make use of the new technology.
So I totally understand the hesitation around AI, especially given the overreaction by C-suites in gutting their workforce based on the promises made by AI marketing teams. However, that has nothing to do with the technology, but the social issues around the technology. Instead of hating AI in general, redirect that anger onto the actual problems:
- poor social safety net
- expensive education
- lack of consequences for false marketing
- lack of consequences for C-suite mistakes
Hating on a FOSS model just because it's related to an industry that is seeing abuse is the wrong approach.
