Remix.run Logo
Microsoft BitNet: 100B Param 1-Bit model for local CPUs(github.com)
110 points by redm 2 hours ago | 63 comments
LuxBennu 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The title is misleading — there's no trained 100B model, just an inference framework that claims to handle one. But the engineering is worth paying attention to. I run quantized 70B models locally (M2 Max 96GB, llama.cpp + LiteLLM), and memory bandwidth is always the bottleneck. The 1.58-bit approach is interesting because ternary weights turn matmuls into additions — a fundamentally different compute profile on commodity CPUs. If 5-7 tok/s on a single CPU for 100B-class models is reproducible, that's a real milestone for on-device inference. Framework is ready. Now we need someone to actually train the model.

embedding-shape an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Framework is ready. Now we need someone to actually train the model.

If Microslop aren't gonna train the model themselves to prove their own thesis, why would others? They've had 2 years (I think?) to prove BitNet in at least some way, are you really saying they haven't tried so far?

Personally that makes it slightly worrisome to just take what they say at face value, why wouldn't they train and publish a model themselves if this actually led to worthwhile results?

throwaw12 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Because this is Microsoft, experimenting and failing is not encouraged, taking less risky bets and getting promoted is. Also no customer asked them to have 1-bit model, hence PM didn't prioritize it.

But it doesn't mean, idea is worthless.

You could have said same about Transformers, Google released it, but didn't move forward, turns out it was a great idea.

embedding-shape 42 minutes ago | parent [-]

> You could have said same about Transformers, Google released it, but didn't move forward,

I don't think you can, Google looked at the research results, and continued researching Transformers and related technologies, because they saw the value for it particularly in translations. It's part of the original paper, what direction to take, give it a read, it's relatively approachable for being a machine learning paper :)

Sure, it took OpenAI to make it into an "assistant" that answered questions, but it's not like Google was completely sleeping on the Transformer, they just had other research directions to go into first.

> But it doesn't mean, idea is worthless.

I agree, they aren't, hope that wasn't what my message read as :) But, ideas that don't actually pan out in reality are slightly less useful than ideas that do pan out once put to practice. Root commentator seems to try to say "This is a great idea, it's all ready, only missing piece is for someone to do the training and it'll pan out!" which I'm a bit skeptical about, since it's been two years since they introduced the idea.

zozbot234 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

What OpenAI did was train increasingly large transformer model instances. which was sensible because transformers allowed for a scaling up of training compared to earlier models. The resulting instances (GPT) showed good understanding of natural language syntax and generation of mostly sensible text (which was unprecedented at the time) so they made ChatGPT by adding new stages of supervised fine tuning and RLHF to their pretrained text-prediction models.

wongarsu 27 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

On the one hand, not publishing any new models for an architecture in almost a year seems like forever given how things are moving right now. On the other hand I don't think that's very conclusive on whether they've given up on it or have other higher priority research directions to go into first either

GorbachevyChase 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The most benign answer would be that they don’t want to further support an emerging competitor to OpenAI, which they have significant business ties to. I think the more likely answer which you hinted at is that the utility of the model falls apart as scale increases. They see the approach as a dead end so they are throwing the scraps out to the stray dogs.

riskable 20 minutes ago | parent [-]

Not to mention Microsoft's investments in Nvidia and other GPU-adjacent/dependent companies!

A successful ternary model would basically erase all that value overnight. In fact, the entire stock market could crash!

Think about it: This is Microsoft we're talking about! They're a convicted monopolist that has a history of manipulating the market for IT goods and services. I wouldn't put it past them to refuse to invest in training a ternary model or going so far as to buy up ternary startups just to shut them down.

Want to make some easy money: Start a business training a ternary model and make an offer to Microsoft. I bet they'll buy you out for at least a few million even if you don't have a product yet!

gregman1 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Cannot agree more!

webXL 17 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It comes from (intentionally?) misleading docs: https://github.com/microsoft/BitNet/issues/391

(only suggesting that it's intentional because it's been there so long)

wongarsu an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've also always though that it's an interesting opportunity for custom hardware. Two bit addition is incredibly cheap in hardware, especially compared to anything involving floating point. You could make huge vector instructions on the cheap, then connect it to the fastest memory you can buy, and you have a capable inference chip.

You'd still need full GPUs for training, but for inference the hardware would be orders of magnitude simpler than what Nvidia is making

regularfry an hour ago | parent [-]

You only need GPUs if you assume the training is gradient descent. GAs or anything else that can handle nonlinearities would be fine, and possibly fast enough to be interesting.

WithinReason an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> a fundamentally different compute profile on commodity CPU

In what way? On modern processors, a Fused Multiply-Add (FMA) instruction generally has the exact same execution throughput as a basic addition instruction

actionfromafar an hour ago | parent [-]

Bitnet encoding more information dense per byte perhaps? CPUs have slow buses so would eke out more use of bandwidth?

rustyhancock an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes. I had to read it over twice, it does strike me as odd that there wasn't a base model to work with.

But it seems the biggest model available is 10B? Somewhat unusual and does make me wonder just how challenging it will be to train any model in the 100B order of magnitude.

wongarsu an hour ago | parent [-]

Approximately as challenging as training a regular 100B model from scratch. Maybe a bit more challenging because there's less experience with it

The key insight of the BitNet paper was that using their custom BitLinear layer instead of normal Linear layers (as well as some more training and architecture changes) lead to much, much better results than quantizing an existing model down to 1.58 bits. So you end up making a full training run in bf16 precision using the specially adapted model architecture

august11 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In their demo they're running 3B model.

cubefox an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

LLM account

hrmtst93837 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I browsed through the history of the user and confirm this statement. I know that there are users who say they used em-dashes even before the rise of ChatGPT and HN statistics support that. For example, one prominent example is dang.

However this user uses — in almost all his posts and he had a speed of 1 comment per minute or so on multiple different topics.

Springtime an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Hmm, the user joined in 2019 but had no submissions or comments until just 40 minutes ago (at least judging by the lack of a second page?) and all the comments are on AI related submissions. Benefit of doubt is it'd have to be a very dedicated lurker or dormant account they remembered they had.

Edit: oh, just recalled dang restricted Show HNs the other day to only non-new users (possibly with some other thresholds). I wonder if word got out and some are filling accounts with activity.

orbital-decay an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Funny enough I now involuntarily take RTFA as a slight slop signal, because all these accounts dutifully read the article before commenting, unlike most HNers who often respond to headlines.

vova_hn2 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

First they claimed that if you use em dashes you are not human

And I did not speak out

Because I was not using em dashes

Then they claimed that if you're crammar is to gud you r not hmuan

And I did not spek aut

Because mi gramar sukcs

Then they claimed that if you actually read the article that you are trying to discuss you are not human...

K0balt 33 minutes ago | parent [-]

I’ve been rounded up for things I wrote two decades ago because of my em dashes lol. The pitchfork mentality gives me little hope for how things are going to go once we have hive mind AGI robots pervasive in society.

vova_hn2 21 minutes ago | parent [-]

If I was operating a bot farm, at this point I would probably add some bots that go around and accuse legit human users (or just random users) of being bots.

Created confusion and frustration will make it much harder to separate signal from the noise for most people.

yorwba an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not all of them do: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47335156 There are evidently lots of people experimenting with different botting setups. Some do better at blending in than others.

PeterHolzwarth 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

Interesting - the account you mention, and the GP, are both doing replies that are themselves all about the same length, and also the same length between the two accounts. I get what you mean.

cubefox an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah. It correctly pointed out that the editorialized HN title is wrong, there is no 100B model.

nkohari 31 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I would love to understand the thought process behind this. I'm sure it's a fun experiment, to see if it's possible and so on... but what tangible benefit could there be to burning tokens to spam comments on every post?

butILoveLife an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

>. I run quantized 70B models locally (M2 Max 96GB, llama.cpp + LiteLLM), and memory bandwidth is always the bottleneck.

I imagine you got 96gb because you thought you'd be running models locally? Did you not know the phrase Unified Memory is marketing speak?

devnotes77 31 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The compute throughput question (whether FMA equals ADD on modern CPUs) is accurate — that's not where the gain is. The real win is memory footprint.

A 100B ternary model packs to roughly 20-25GB (100B params at ~1.58 bits each). FP16 would be ~200GB, INT4 ~50GB. That difference is what moves the "doesn't fit" threshold. You go from needing HBM or multi-GPU NVLink to running on a workstation with 32GB DDR5.

DDR5 at ~100 GB/s is still much slower than HBM at ~3 TB/s, so memory bandwidth is still the inference bottleneck — but bandwidth is only a problem once the model actually fits. For 100B-class models, capacity was the harder constraint. That's what 1.58-bit actually solves.

nickcw an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> bitnet.cpp is the official inference framework for 1-bit LLMs (e.g., BitNet b1.58). It offers a suite of optimized kernels, that support fast and lossless inference of 1.58-bit models on CPU and GPU (NPU support will coming next).

One bit or one trit? I am confused!

drsopp an hour ago | parent | next [-]

"1-bit LLMs" is just marketing. The Shannon entropy of one letter with a 3 symbol alphabet (-1, 0, 1) is 1.58.

Dwedit an hour ago | parent [-]

Log Base 2 of 3 = ~1.5849625, so that's the limit to how well you can pack three-state values into bits of data.

For something more practical, you can pack five three-state values within a byte because 3^5 = 243, which is smaller than 256. To unpack, you divide and modulo by 3 five separate times. This encodes data in bytes at 1.6 bits per symbol.

But the packing of 5 symbols into a byte was not done here. Instead, they packed 4 symbols into a byte to reduce computational complexity (no unpacking needed)

rasz an hour ago | parent [-]

>1-bit model

>packed 4 symbols into a byte

microslop, typical bunch of two-bit frauds!

cubefox an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah, "1.58 bit" is 1 trit with three states, since log2(3)≈1.58.

So it's not a inference framework for 1-bit models (two states per parameter) but for 1.58 bit models (three states per parameter). Annoying that they try to mix up the two.

silon42 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

I always hope for "just a bunch of if statements" ... this is not it.

himata4113 8 minutes ago | parent [-]

it's if {} else if {} else {}

giancarlostoro an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

One of the things I often wonder is "what will be the minimally viable LLM" that can work from just enough information that if it googles the rest it can provide reasonable answers? I'm surprised something like Encyclopedia Britanica hasn't yet (afaik) tried to capitalize on AI by selling their data to LLMs and validating outputs for LLM companies, it would make a night and day difference in some areas I would think. Wikipedia is nice, but there's so much room for human error and bias there.

embedding-shape an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Your worry about Wikipedia is that there is "much room for human error and bias", yet earlier you seem to imply that a LLM that has access to the www somehow would have less human error and bias? Personally, I'd see it the other way around.

giancarlostoro 23 minutes ago | parent [-]

When GPT 3.5 became a thing, it had crawled a very nuanced set of websites, this is what I mean. You basically curate where it sources data from.

bee_rider 36 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Isn’t that sort of what a RAG is? You’d need an LLM “smart” enough to turn natural-user prompts into searches, then some kind of search, then an LLM “smart” though to summarize the results.

giancarlostoro 24 minutes ago | parent [-]

Yeah, I think RAG is the idea that will lead us there, though its a little complicated, because for some subjects, say Computer Science, you need a little more than just "This is Hello World in Go" you might need to understand not just Go syntax on the fly, but more CS nuances that are not covered in one single simple document. The idea being having a model that runs fully locally on a phone or laptop with minimal resources. On the other hand, I can also see smaller models talking to larger models that are cheaper to run in the cloud. I am wondering if this is the approach Apple might take with Siri, specifically in order to retain user privacy as much as possible.

intrasight an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's not so much a "minimally viable LLM" but rather an LLM that knows natural language well but knows nothing else. Like me - as an engineer who knows how to troubleshoot in general but doesn't know about a specific device like my furnace (recent example).

And I don't think that LLM could just Google or check Wikipedia.

But I do agree that this architecture makes a lot of sense. I assume it will become the norm to use such edge LLMs.

giancarlostoro 22 minutes ago | parent [-]

Correct! I know RAG is a thing, but I wish we could have "DLCs" for LLMs like image generation has LoRa's which are cheaper to train for than retraining the entire model, and provide more output like what you want. I would love to pop in the CS "LoRa or DLC" and ask it about functional programming in Elixir, or whatever.

Maybe not crawl the web, but hit a service with pre-hosted, precurated content it can digest (and cache) that doesn't necessarily change often enough. You aren't using it for the latest news necessarily, but programming is mostly static knowledge a a good example.

utopiah an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> validating outputs for LLM companies

How? They can validate thousands if not millions of queries but nothing prevent the millions-th-and-one from being a hallucination. People who would then pay extra for a "Encyclopedia Britanica validated LLM" would then, rightfully so IMHO, complain that "it" suggested them to cook with a dangerous mushroom.

uniq7 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Since Google Search already includes an AI summary, your minimally viable "LLM" can be just an HTTP GET call

thinkingtoilet an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Wikipedia has proven to be as accurate as encyclopedias for decades now. Also, I'm betting AI companies have illegally trained their models on the Encyclopedia Britanica's data by now.

WhitneyLand 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If they had a big result like, native 1.58-bit quality clearly matches top peers, they would be saying that prominently in the repo.

The engineering/optimization work is nice, but this is not what people have been waiting for, as much as, can’t the Bitnet idea that seemed promise really deliver in a competitive way.

152334H 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

but there is no trained 100b param model? "can run a 100B BitNet" is about the inference implementation, not about the existence of any such model

Arcuru an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's good to see this getting some continued development. I looked into it last year[1] and I thought it showed a lot of promise so I've been very disappointed that I never saw a newer model.

[1] - https://jackson.dev/post/dont-sleep-on-bitnet/

radarsat1 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm curious if 1-bit params can be compared to 4- or 8-bit params. I imagine that 100B is equivalent to something like a 30B model? I guess only evals can say. Still, being able to run a 30B model at good speed on a CPU would be amazing.

philvas 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

steve jobs would have loved the microsoft repo with demo on mac

algoth1 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Headline: 100B. Falcon 3 family: 10B. An order of magnitude off

bee_rider an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What’s the lower limit on the number of bits per parameter? If you use CSR-style sparse matrices to store the weights can it be less than 1?

simonw an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Anyone know how hard it would be to create a 1-bit variant of one of the recent Qwen 3.5 models?

nikhizzle 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Almost trivial using open source tools, the question is how it performs without calibration/fine tuning.

wongarsu 33 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

The results would probably be underwhelming. The bitnet paper doesn't give great baselines to compare to, but in their tests a 2B network trained for 1.58bits using their architecture was better than Llama 3 8B quantized to 1.58bits. Though that 2B network was about on par with a 1.5B qwen2.5.

If you have an existing network, making an int4 quant is the better tradeoff. 1.58b quants only become interesting when you train the model specifically for it

On the other hand maybe it works much better than expected because llama3 is just a terrible baseline

syntaxing 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Misleading title but this is pretty exciting. Interesting how this is based on llama cpp. Its nice to see some momentum since they released the paper in 2023

QuadmasterXLII 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

headline hundred billion parameter, none of the official models are over 10 billion parameters. Curious.

Tuna-Fish an hour ago | parent [-]

The project is an inference framework which should support 100B parameter model at 5-7tok/s on CPU. No one has quantized a 100B parameter model to 1 trit, but this existing is an incentive for someone to do so.

itsthecourier an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

https://github-production-user-asset-6210df.s3.amazonaws.com...

demo shows a huge love for water, this AI knows its home

_fw an hour ago | parent [-]

Also, very influenced by the literature of Jenkins (2010).

rarisma 37 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

No 100b model.

My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined.