Core Insights - The era of Transformers is being redefined with the introduction of the Kimi Linear architecture, which surpasses traditional attention models under the same training conditions [2][10]. Group 1: Kimi Linear Architecture - Kimi Linear employs a novel attention mechanism that reduces the KV cache requirement by 75% and achieves up to 6 times faster inference in long-context tasks [4][26]. - The architecture introduces Kimi Delta Attention (KDA), which allows for fine-grained control over memory retention, enabling the model to discard redundant information while preserving important data [12][10]. - KDA's state update mechanism is based on an improved Delta Rule, ensuring stability even with sequences of millions of tokens, preventing gradient explosion or vanishing [13][14]. Group 2: Performance and Efficiency - The model utilizes a 3:1 mixed layer design, combining three layers of linear attention followed by one layer of full attention, balancing global semantic modeling with resource efficiency [15]. - Kimi Linear has demonstrated superior performance across multiple benchmark tests, such as MMLU and BBH, outperforming traditional Transformers while maintaining accuracy in mathematical reasoning and code generation tasks [22][26]. - The architecture's deployment is seamless with existing vLLM inference frameworks, allowing for easy upgrades of Transformer-based systems to Kimi Linear [21]. Group 3: Industry Trends - The dominance of Transformers is being challenged, with alternative models like state space models (SSM) showing potential for efficient computation and long sequence modeling [28][30]. - Companies like Apple are exploring SSM architectures for their energy efficiency and lower latency, indicating a shift away from traditional Transformer reliance [30]. - The emergence of Kimi Linear signifies a move towards diverse innovations in AI architecture, suggesting a departure from the conventional Transformer path [32].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the advancements in AI models, particularly focusing on the Mamba model, which shows potential to surpass Transformer models in efficiency and generalization capabilities for long tasks and multi-interaction agent tasks [1][10]. Group 1: Transformer Limitations - Transformer models, while intelligent, face significant computational costs that grow quadratically with the length of the input sequence, making them inefficient for long documents [4][5]. - For instance, processing 1,000 words requires handling 1 million word pair relationships, and for documents with tens of thousands of words, the computational burden can reach billions [5]. Group 2: Mamba Model Advantages - Mamba, as a state space model (SSM), utilizes a lightweight design that does not rely on global attention mechanisms, instead maintaining an updated internal state to understand input information [7][10]. - This approach results in three significant advantages: linear growth in computational requirements with sequence length, support for streaming processing, and stable memory usage that does not increase significantly with longer sequences [13]. Group 3: Performance Enhancements with Tools - The introduction of external tools enhances Mamba's performance, allowing it to handle complex tasks more effectively. For example, in multi-digit addition tasks, Mamba with pointer tools can achieve near 100% accuracy after training on 5-digit addition, while Transformers struggle with 20-digit tasks [15]. - In code debugging tasks, Mamba's ability to simulate interactive debugging processes leads to significantly higher accuracy compared to Transformers when faced with complex codebases [15]. - Mamba's combination with external tools addresses its memory limitations, resulting in improved efficiency and performance in agent-based tasks [16][18].

Group 1 - The core argument is that Nvidia's dominance in the GPU market will face increasing competition within the next 2-3 years as specialized chips for different workloads emerge, leading to a more diversified ecosystem [6][9][23] - Tri Dao emphasizes that the architecture for AI models, particularly the Transformer, is stabilizing, but there are still ongoing changes and challenges in chip design and workload adaptation [11][12][21] - The future of AI workloads will include three main types: traditional chatbots, ultra-low latency scenarios, and large-scale batch processing, which will require tailored optimizations from hardware vendors [24][96] Group 2 - The cost of inference has decreased by approximately 100 times since the launch of ChatGPT, driven by improvements in model efficiency and inference optimization techniques [73][75][90] - Techniques such as model quantization and collaborative design between model architecture and hardware have significantly contributed to this cost reduction [82][84][88] - There is still an estimated potential for a further 10-fold improvement in inference optimization, particularly through specialized hardware and model advancements [90][93][95] Group 3 - The AI hardware landscape is expected to diversify as companies like Cerebras, Grok, and SambaNova introduce solutions that emphasize low-latency inference and high throughput for various applications [23][24][96] - The emergence of specialized AI inference providers will lead to different trade-offs, with some focusing on broad coverage while others aim for excellence in specific scenarios [96][97] - The evolution of AI workloads will continue to drive demand for innovative solutions, particularly in real-time video generation and agentic applications that require seamless integration with human tools [117][115][120]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the trade-offs between State Space Models (SSM) and Transformers, arguing that tokenization is a limitation that SSM can overcome, leading to better computational efficiency and modeling capabilities [1][3][61]. Group 1: State Space Models (SSM) - SSM is defined as a modern version of recurrent neural networks (RNN) with key features that allow it to match the language modeling performance of Transformers [8][10]. - A significant characteristic of SSM is that its hidden state dimension is greater than the input and output dimensions, allowing for better context storage [9][10]. - The model's state update function must be expressive enough to accurately encode and retrieve necessary information, which is achieved through dynamic transfer matrices in selective SSM [11][12]. - Mamba, a specific SSM, integrates parallelization and memory management techniques to enhance computational efficiency [13][14]. - The article highlights that SSMs can outperform Transformers in language modeling tasks when computational resources are matched [53][56]. Group 2: Transformers - Transformers excel in tasks requiring fine-grained operations on individual tokens, but they suffer from quadratic complexity, limiting their efficiency [82][86]. - The article argues that Transformers have an inductive bias that affects their modeling capabilities, making them sensitive to the resolution and semantic content of the data [83][85]. - Despite their strengths, Transformers are not the ultimate solution for all modeling tasks, and there is still significant work to be done in the field [89]. Group 3: Tokenization - Tokenization is a critical step in language modeling, but it introduces limitations in understanding language details [39][40]. - The article posits that removing tokenization could lead to better model performance and aligns with the essence of deep learning, which aims to minimize manual feature engineering [44][45]. - The author suggests that without tokenization, models could learn more effective patterns directly from raw data, enhancing their capabilities [46][52].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the trade-offs between two mainstream sequence models: State Space Models (SSMs) and Transformer models, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each approach [1][3]. Summary by Sections Introduction to Mamba and SSMs - Mamba is a typical SSM that builds on a modern structured SSM suitable for deep learning, outperforming similarly sized Transformers in language tasks [2]. - The author consolidates insights from previous talks into a comprehensive article, hinting at a significant upcoming advancement in architecture [3][4]. Attention Mechanism and Its Limitations - The article challenges the common belief that the high computational cost of models like ChatGPT is solely due to the quadratic complexity of the attention mechanism in Transformers [5][6]. - A new architecture is expected to be compatible with Transformers, suggesting a shift in understanding the limitations of attention mechanisms [7][8]. Comparison of SSMs and Transformers - SSMs are likened to the human brain, summarizing past information into a fixed-size hidden state, making them more efficient for processing long sequences [15][16]. - SSMs have advantages in handling unstructured data and exhibit linear computational costs with respect to sequence length, making them suitable for resource-constrained environments [16]. Key Elements of Mamba's Success - Mamba's effectiveness is attributed to three key factors: state size, state expressivity, and training efficiency [17][20]. - SSMs allow for larger hidden states, enhancing information storage compared to traditional RNNs [18]. - Mamba introduces selective SSMs to improve state expressivity, akin to the gating mechanisms in classic RNNs [19]. - Training efficiency is achieved through careful parameterization and parallel scanning algorithms [21]. Limitations of SSMs - SSMs lack precise recall and retrieval capabilities for past information, which is a strength of Transformer models [22]. Transformer Model Characteristics - Transformers function like a database, storing every piece of information in a KV cache, allowing for precise memory and token-level operations [23][25]. - They excel in processing well-defined tokenized data but suffer from high computational costs and dependency on high-quality data [26][27]. Tokenization Debate - The author argues against the necessity of tokenization, stating it contradicts the end-to-end learning principle of deep learning and complicates multilingual and multimodal applications [28][30]. - Evidence suggests that SSMs outperform Transformers on raw data, emphasizing Transformers' weaknesses with non-semantic token data [32]. Conclusion on SSMs vs. Transformers - Both SSMs and Transformers have their unique strengths and weaknesses, and a hybrid approach could yield better performance [33][35]. - Research indicates that a combination of SSM and attention layers could enhance model capabilities, with an optimal ratio of 3:1 to 10:1 [37]. - The future direction may involve developing models that can directly process raw data, leveraging the advantages of both architectures [40].

Core Insights - The article discusses the advantages of linear recurrent models, such as Mamba, and linear attention mechanisms in handling long sequences, which is crucial for long-context reasoning tasks [1][2] - It highlights the performance improvements of recurrent models over time, indicating that they can now compete with Transformers in various tasks, despite previous limitations [3] - A significant finding is that recurrent models struggle with generalization beyond training lengths, leading to performance drops when faced with longer sequences [4][6] Group 1 - The article presents a solution to the generalization issue in recurrent models through simple training interventions, allowing them to generalize to sequences up to 256k in length with just 500 additional training steps [7] - The research emphasizes that recurrent models possess untapped potential rather than inherent flaws [7][8] - The authors propose the "Unexplored States Hypothesis" to explain why recurrent models fail to generalize in length, indicating that they only learn from a limited subset of possible states during training [13][14] Group 2 - The article outlines four training interventions to improve length generalization by altering the initial state of the model [19] - These interventions include Random Noise, Fitted Noise, State Passing, and Truncated Backpropagation Through Time (TBTT), each designed to expose the model to a broader range of state distributions [20][19] - The findings reveal that State Passing and TBTT mechanisms effectively enable length generalization, achieving results with only 0.02% of the original pre-training budget [23][24] Group 3 - The article discusses the performance of these interventions in various long-context tasks, demonstrating their ability to enhance length generalization [31] - Specific tasks mentioned include the BABILong benchmark, password retrieval, and synthetic copying tasks, where the interventions significantly improved model performance [32][35][39] - The results indicate that models trained with these interventions can effectively utilize relationships between tokens beyond the training context length [36][39] Group 4 - The article introduces the concept of "Effective Remembrance" to measure how well a model retains information from previous tokens, aiming for models to focus on recent context rather than distant tokens [44][50] - It shows that State Passing improves effective memory, allowing models to prioritize recent tokens in their predictions [51][52] - This adjustment is crucial for text modeling, ensuring that earlier tokens do not disproportionately influence the model's output [52]

"我们跑的是下半场，赌的就是未来的长文本需求。" MiniMax 在今年 1 月发布了参数为 4560 亿的开源大模型 MiniMax-01，该模型就用到了他们开发的线 性注意力机制 "Lightning Attention"。 我们邀请了这个项目的负责人，MiniMax 高级研究总监钟怡然，来与我们一起聊线性注意力的研发过 程。钟怡然在 MiniMax 负责大模型网络架构设计，目前正开发多模态深度推理模型。 钟怡然曾担任上海人工智能实验室青年科学家，是新架构探索组的 PI（项目负责人）；他在澳洲国立大 学获得博士学位，师从李宏东教授和 Richard Hartley 院士。他和他的团队已在一些国际顶级学术会议和 期刊上发表了 20 余篇关于模型新架构的论文，覆盖了当前多类非 Transformer 架构，如线性注意力机制 （线性注意力）、长卷积（Long Convolution）和线性循环网络（Linear RNN）。 在 2021 年，线性注意力还是一个 "看起来很美好的泡泡"，怡然和团队就开始探索线性架构的实现。 嘉宾 丨 钟怡然 整理 丨 刘倩 程曼祺 上期播客中， 我们与清华的两位博士生，肖朝军和傅 ...