Technology

I think the fundamental difference in our perspectives is that I want to see neural expansion capabilities that are not limited by a static state and dedicated compilation. I think this is the only way to achieve a real AGI. If the neural network is static, ultimately you have a state machine with a deterministic output. It can be ultra complex for sure, but it is still deterministic. I expect an AGI to have expansion in any direction at all times according to circumstances and needs; aka adaptability beyond any preprogrammed algorithms.

Forth is very old, and from an era when most compute hardware was tailor made. It was originally created as a way to get professional astronomy observatories online much more quickly. The fundamental concept with Forth is to create the simplest looping interpreter on any given system using assembly or any supported API. The interpreter can then build on the Forth dictionary of words. Words are the fundamental building block of Forth. They can be anything from a pointer to a variable, or a function, to an entire operating system and GUI. Anything can be assigned to a word and a word can be any combination of data, types, and other words. The syntax is extremely simple. It is a stack based language that is very close to the bare metal. It is so simple and small, that there are versions of Forth that run on tiny old 8 bit AVRs and other microcontrollers.

Anyways, the idea of a threaded interpreter like Forth, could be made to compile tensor layers. The API for the network would be part of the Forth dictionary. Another key aspect to Forth is that the syntax to create new words is so simple that a word can be made that creates the required formatting. This could make it possible for a model to provide any arbitrary data for incorporation/modification and allow Forth to attempt to add it into the network in real time. It could also be used to modify specific tensor weights when a bad output is indicated by the user and a correction is provided.

If we put aside text formatting, settings, and user interface elements, the main reason a LLM needs external code for interfacing is because of the propensity for errors due to syntax complexity with languages like Python or C. No models can generate reliable complex code suitable for their own execution internally without intervention. Forth is so flexible that a dictionary could even be a tensor table of weights, like words could be the values. Forth is probably the most anti-standards, anti-syntax, language ever created.

Conceptually, the interpreter is like a compiler, command line, task scheduler, and init/process manager all built into one ultra simple system. Words are built from the registers, flags, and interrupts, up to anything of arbitrary complexity. A model does not need this low level interface with compute hardware, but this is not my point. Models are built on tensors and tokens. Forth can be made to speak these natively and in near real time as prompted internally and without compilation; a true learning machine. Most Forth implementations also have an internal bookmarking system that allows the dictionary to roll back to a known good state when encountering errors in newly created words.

A word of warning, full implementations like ANS Forth or G-Forth are intimidating at first glance. It is far better to look at something like Flash Forth for microcontrollers to see the raw power of the basic system without the giant dictionaries present in modern desktop implementations.

The key book on the concepts behind Forth and threaded interpretive languages is here: https://archive.org/details/R.G.LoeligerThreadedInterpretiveLanguagesTheirDesignAndImplementationByteBooks1981

I do use Oobabooga a lot. I am developing my own scripts and modifying some of Oobabooga too. I also use Koboldcpp. I am on a 12gen i7 with 20 logic cores and 64GB of system memory along with a 3080Ti with 16GBV. The 70B 4 bit quantized model running with 14 layers offloaded onto the GPU generates 3 tokens a second. So it is 1.5 times faster than just on the CPU.

If I was putting together another system, I would only get something with AVX-512 instructions support in the CPU. That instruction is troublesome for CVE issues. You'll probably need to look into this depending on your personal privacy/security threat model. The ability to run larger models is really important. You really want all the RAM. The answer to the question of how much is always yes. You are not going to get enough memory using consumer GPUs you can only offload a few layers onto a consumer grade GPU. I can't say how well even larger models than the 70B will perform as the memory bottlenecks. I can't even say how a 30B or larger runs at full quantization. I can't add any more memory to my system. Running the full models, as a rule of thumb, requires double the token size in RAM. So a 30B will require around 60GB of memory to initial load. Most of these models are float-16. So running them 8-bit cuts the size in half with penalties in areas like accuracy. Running 4 bit splits the size again. There is tuning, bias, and asymmetry in the way quantization is done to preserve certain aspects like emerging phenomena in the original data. This is why a larger model with a smaller quantization may outperform a smaller model running at full quantization. For GPUs, if you are at all serious about this, you need at least 16GBV at a bare minimum. Really, we need to see a descent priced 40-80GBV consumer option. The thing is that GPU memory is directly tied to compute hardware. There isn't the overhead of a memory management system like system memory has. This is what makes GPUs ideal and fast, but it is the biggest chunk of bleeding edge silicon in consumer hardware already, and we need it to be 4× larger and cheap. That is not going to happen any time soon. This means the most accessible path to larger models is using the system memory. While you'll never get the parallelism of a GPU, having cpu instructions that are 512 bits wide is a big performance boost. You also need max logic cores. That is just my take.

Language is not a requirement for sentience, and these models clearly show that you can have language without having sentience.

As would any text user interface.

jealous jĕl′əs adjective

1. Envious or resentful of the good fortune or achievements of another.
2. Fearful or wary of losing one's position or situation to someone else, especially in a sexual relationship.
3. Having to do with or arising from feelings of envy, apprehension, or bitterness.

I understand you’re not mentally sound so this is a waste of time but for your sake I’m going to let you know, you are speaking gibberish.

People do not eat sentient animals out of jealousy.

Your nonsensical religious definition has nothing to do with why people eat sentient animals.