alt Hacker NewsThat paper is from over a year ago, and it compared against codex-davinci... which was basically GPT-3, from what I understand. Saying >100B makes it sound a lot more impressive than it is in today's context... 100B models today are a lot more capable. The researchers also compared against a couple of other ancient(/irrelevant today), small models that don't give me much insight.
FLAME seems like a fun little model, and 60M is truly tiny compared to other LLMs, but I have no idea how good it is in today's context, and it doesn't seem like they ever released it.
I would like to disagree with its being irrelevant. If anything, the 100B models are irrelevant in the context and should be seen as a "fun inclusion" rather than a serious addition worth comparing against. It out-performing a 100B model at the time becomes a fun bragging point, but it's not the core value of the method or paper.
Running a prompt against every single cell of a 10k row document was never gonna happen with a large model. Even using a transformer model architecture in the first place can be seen as ludicrous overkill but feasible on modern machines.
So I'd say the paper is very relevant, and the top commenter in this very thread demonstrated their own homegrown version with a very nice use-case (paper abstract and title sorting for making a summary paper)