jamesbriggs
Joined 5 years ago
Joined 5 years ago
It was a ton of fun to figure it out and it brought back some nostalgia from the days of training ML models, tweaking learning rates, dropout, and watching loss charts in W&B.
Final performance was way better than any 1-3B parameter LLM I tried with agentic workflows in the past.
- LoRA fine-tuning of Llama 3.2 1B - Deploy of private AI agent systems - Using NVIDIA NIMs to host our fine-tuned LLM - Interacting with our LLM + streamed output
It was a ton of fun to figure this out, and it brought back some nostalgia from the good old days of training ML models, tweaking learning rates and dropout, and watching loss charts in W&B.
The result is a llama-3.2-1b-instruct fine-tuned to provide pretty good function-calling abilities (better than any other out-of-the-box 1-3B models I tried).
I think LLMs are fairly good at deciding what information is relevant to a query or not though, it is rare that I have found an LLM to be distracted by RAG results (even when they're not relevant)
Maybe your question is referring to the need to have quantization at larger index sizes? In which case, yes would typically be true because you're wanting to either (1) minimize the index size when quantizing it, or (2) optimizing the query space (to search through less). Whether you want (1) or (2) will impact on the type of quantization being performed (basically 1 == product quantization, and 2 == inverted index)
So once you get to the 1M+ size, you need to consider quantization in some form - or you can go with graph-based retrieval, if you don't mind using a lot of disk space.
You can see our framework [here](https://github.com/aurelio-labs/graphai). I don't necessarily recommend it as it's built for our use-cases and I make no guarantees for others, but it might be interesting to see what rolling your own might look like