This seems to go beyond just transformers. For example, I recall reading a paper a while ago that showed a similar effect in an image to image model with a GAN/U-Net architecture [1].
This seems to go beyond just transformers. For example, I recall reading a paper a while ago that showed a similar effect in an image to image model with a GAN/U-Net architecture [1].
The work on the capacity of discriminators was super cool.
> much harder to train than transformers
There's plenty of GANs that use transformers. PWC seems to be redirecting to GitHub currently but IIRC about half of top scores on FFHQ256 were GANs with transformers in them. I know that the number 2 was, I saw it at CVPR. It was a lot smaller and had higher throughput than the diffusion models it was outperforming.Though the main reason diffusion took over was for the ability to encode more diversity. I still think there's a place for GANs and we overcorrected by putting too much focus on diffusion, but there are a lot of fundamental advantages to diffusion. Though they aren't strictly better, there's no global optima for solution spaces this large. I think the ML community (maybe CS in general) has a tendency to take an all or nothing approach. I don't think this is a really good strategy...
[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.05770
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.07631
[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.02262
And beyond that. Sometimes I feel like AI research is reinventing wheels that exist elsewhere. Maybe just the wheels, but still.