Tobberone

But per the definition given involving negative mass, it should be “meassurable mass in the presence of exotic matter”. Anywho…

I need to look into flash attention! And if i understand you correctly a larger model of llama3.1 would be better prepared to handle a larger context window than a smaller llama3.1 model?

Thanks! I actually picked up the concept of context window, and from there how to create a modelfile, through one of the links provided earlier and it has made a huge difference. In your experience, would a small model like llama3.2 with a bigger context window be able to provide the same output as a big modem L, like qwen2.5:14b, with a more limited window? The bigger window obviously allow more data to be taken into account, but how does the model size compare?

Thank you for your detailed answer:) it’s 20 years and 2 kids since I last tried my hand at reading code, but I’m doing my best to catch up😊 Context window is a concept I picked up from your links which has provided me much help!

The problem I keep running into with that approach is that only the last page is actually summarised and some of the texts are… Longer.

Do you know of any nifty resources on how to create RAGs using ollama/webui? (Or even fine-tuning?). I’ve tried to set it up, but the documents provided doesn’t seem to be analysed properly.

I’m trying to get the LLM into reading/summarising a certain type of (wordy) files, and it seems the query prompt is limited to about 6k characters.

I couldnt disagree more with you. If there are pedestrians nearby you drive slow and keep your distance regardless of where you drive.

The same goes for pedestrians, though. Don’t walk where it’s not safe, for everyones safety. Like the interstate. It’s a shared responsibility.

This, however, is in the middle of a neighborhood where a ball and a kid could come flying at moments notice…

You are on to the issue yourself. First and foremost we need to stop releasing CO2. That in and of itself is not enough, but the most important bit. Some countries (a lot?) has enough tree cover to offset a huge chunk of their CO2 emissions today by trees. Some might even be CO2 neutral, had it not been for the use of wood for fuel. Therein lies the potential. And this is already a mature industry with market dependencies well established.

Resembling this CO2 uptake with man made processes will require a monumental investment in both monetary and energy terms and the output will be pitiful when the net effect is calculated.

So slamming the effect of trees, which does not require any of that development and investment costs because it doesn’t solve the entire problem, because it isn’t a silver bullet is rather short sighted. It is already today the best tool we have to sequester carbon from the atmosphere for cheap and with a comoditiezed biproduct.

What’s wrong with trees? They cost next to nothing and runs on renewable energy.

Nah, just about anything except climate change. Economical, less blackouts, better resilience and sticking it to the man (as in the incompetent power companies) I’d imagine would be the go-to arguments…