Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by greysphere 924 days ago
It would be interesting to compare to training a NN to draft w/o the Mistral starting point (both by epoch and by $). It's not obvious to me why the LLM component would be relevant. Maybe there are enough deck lists or mock drafts on the internet to have an influence I suppose. Or maybe 'fine tune an llm' just has more infrastructure than 'create a nn'. Maybe we need a nnfiddle to make that easier.
2 comments
filterfiber 924 days ago
The benefit of the LLMs is that the checkpoint already "understands" a lot by default. Finetuning is relatively cheap and makes many tasks such as this one perform decently well simply by shoving some data into it.

The base checkpoint takes a lot of compute to make, but that's what holds most of it's "knowledge" so to speak.

Making a NN from scratch means you'll have to somehow map the cards into inputs. I have limited knowledge of how MTG works, but most TGG have text descriptions and complex effects. Mapping text to logic is what LLMs are really good at, otherwise you're starting from scratch and will also need a relatively large amount of compute before it starts displaying any type of decent behaviour.

It's also easy for most software devs to do this - finetuning mostly consists of collecting text and feeding it into a finetuning script. You don't need to know linear algebra, what a "convolution" is, etc. to do finetuning.

link
apetresc 924 days ago
Without Mistral, how would you get it to generalize to cards it hasn't seen before? I assume by "training a NN to draft without Mistral" you mean where the input layer is just a bitmapped vector of the cards in the pack, right? The killer feature of this experiment is that it works on sets the model has never seen before and has 0 training data on, using just the text of the card. I don't think you can do that without an LLM.
link
greysphere 924 days ago
That's a good point. It looks like the article hints at some success on that front. It'd be interesting to see what that means quantitatively. Interesting that this delta could even be used as a measure of the llm's value.

I'd be curious about the difference in success w/ drafts on a new 2/2 bear with a different name, and cards with a new keyword 'fizzbangitude 7' as well.

link