Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
65 lines (48 loc) · 5.71 KB

File metadata and controls

65 lines (48 loc) · 5.71 KB

Inside Kimi course brief

Status: accepted concept; source freeze required before implementation Prerequisites: AI from First Principles v0.2 and Open Frontier Models: Shared Techniques v0.1 Candidate releases: Kimi K2, Kimi Linear, and Kimi K3

Promise

Reconstruct the language-model architecture lineage from the foundation Transformer through selected Kimi K2, Kimi Linear, and Kimi K3 mechanisms. Measure each change against the common baseline instead of treating Kimi K3 as an indivisible production system.

Learning outcomes

After completing the course, a learner can:

  • reconcile the public artifacts and configurations for the pinned releases;
  • account for total and active parameters in a sparse Kimi case study;
  • compare AdamW with a Muon-inspired matrix update on conditioned problems;
  • explain why fixed-size linear-attention state creates interference and needs an update or eviction policy;
  • implement deterministic linear, delta-style, gated, and channel-wise attention-state updates;
  • explain how chunkwise formulations trade arithmetic for parallel hardware utilisation without confusing FLOPs with wall-clock time;
  • trace how Kimi K3 combines KDA, gated MLA, Stable LatentMoE, SiTU-GLU, and Attention Residuals;
  • compare full and efficient attention across sequence length and recall tasks;
  • state which reported Kimi claims the toy experiments cannot test.

Provisional curriculum

  1. Reading the Kimi lineage — Kimi K2, Kimi Linear, and Kimi K3 artifact boundaries, configurations, licences, architectural claims, and the limits of comparisons across releases.
  2. Sparse and latent MoE anatomy — expert banks, routing, total versus active parameters, shared experts, latent expert computation, SiTU-GLU, capacity, and utilisation.
  3. Matrix-aware optimisation — momentum matrices, conditioning, orthogonalisation intuition, update norms, clipping, and numerical failure.
  4. Linear attention as fixed-size memory — reassociation, recurrent state, retrieval, interference, normalization, sequence length, and causal invariants.
  5. DeltaNet and chunkwise parallelism — selective replacement, delta-rule state updates, sequential dependencies, chunkwise prefill, and the distinction between operation count and hardware utilisation.
  6. Gating and Kimi Delta Attention — global decay, selective replacement, channel-wise decay, memory capacity, corruption, and adversarial recall.
  7. Kimi K3 hybrid architecture — KDA and periodic gated MLA, Stable LatentMoE, Attention Residuals, residual retrieval, quantisation boundaries, and how the pieces address different information-loss or scaling limits.
  8. Controlled architecture comparison — full, recurrent, and hybrid paths across memory, work, recall, interference, stability, and latency proxies.

Explorable and exercise spine

Lesson Explorable Focused implementation
Release anatomy Evidence and sparse-parameter map Normalise the pinned configs
Sparse and latent MoE Expert utilisation and active-compute trace Route a deterministic batch through shared and selected experts
Optimisation AdamW versus matrix-aware update paths Implement a Muon-inspired update
Linear attention Fixed-state write/read and interference laboratory Implement normalized recurrent state
DeltaNet parallelism Sequential and chunkwise state trace Implement delta updates and a checked chunkwise form
KDA gating Scalar versus channel-wise memory decay Implement deterministic gated state updates
Kimi K3 anatomy KDA/MLA/MoE/AttnRes architecture and information-path map Assemble a toy hybrid block from tested mechanisms
Comparison Cost/recall frontier across sequence lengths Build a controlled full/recurrent/hybrid comparison

Capstone

Modify the foundation Transformer with one sparse-routing change and one efficient-attention or matrix-update change, then assemble a small Kimi K3-inspired hybrid using only mechanisms implemented in the course. Measure changes independently and together on deterministic sequence tasks, then report cost, error, stability, memory, and non-reproduced production claims.

Boundary

The course does not teach generic research manifests or baseline accounting; those come from the shared core. It does not inherit conclusions from the DeepSeek course merely because both releases use sparse experts.

Kimi K3's native multimodality, million-token production behavior, quantisation-aware training stack, training scale, inference kernels, agent harness, and reported benchmark results are release artifacts to inspect, not capabilities this local toy reconstruction claims to reproduce. The first course version focuses on the language backbone and the architectural mechanisms that can be tested without weights, GPUs, APIs, or hosted services.

Acceptance criteria

  • Exact Kimi reports, commits, model cards, and licences are frozen, including manual resolution of any repository or weight-licence ambiguity.
  • Kimi K3 is a required pinned release, and its KDA, gated MLA, Stable LatentMoE, SiTU-GLU, and AttnRes claims map to explicit lessons or documented scope boundaries.
  • Optimiser and recurrent-attention math have finite-difference or equivalent numerical checks.
  • Sequential and chunkwise delta-style implementations agree within documented tolerances on deterministic fixtures.
  • Comparisons control sequence, dimensions, precision, and measurement units.
  • Failure modes cover conditioning, unstable updates, state corruption, sequence recall, memory interference, routing collapse, residual dilution, and misleading cost comparisons.
  • The course passes all clean-checkout checks without production weights, training hardware, accounts, APIs, or network services.