Let Run Finish, Tune Next Time | Generated by AI
Honest answer: no, don’t cancel.
The satire’s lesson is about future habits, not sunk runs. Right now:
- You’re 13h in, 28h left, val loss still descending (just slowly). Killing it leaves you with no usable 200M checkpoint — wasted 13h, no insight gained that you couldn’t already get from the logs you have.
- The run isn’t broken, it’s just unoptimized. That’s a different problem.
What the satire should change is your next run, not this one:
--compile=Truealone would have cut this 41h run to ~25h. That single flag is the most expensive lesson here.- Prototype small first. Take the same config, scale to 5M–20M params, run 2000 iters in 20 minutes. Try a different LR schedule, a different
gradient_accumulation_steps, a differentblock_size. Watch what moves the curve. Then commit a 200M run. - The slowing val-loss decay (0.4 → 0.02 per eval) is exactly the kind of signal that would have screamed “tune the LR schedule” on a fast loop — but you can’t act on it now without restarting.
Let this one finish, get the checkpoint, and treat the slowdown as data for run #2. The satire bites if you start a second 41h run without first doing the 20-minute experiments.
One concrete option if you’re impatient: kill it, restart with --compile=True and --init_from=resume from the iter-2250 checkpoint. You’d lose ~250 iters of progress but probably finish 8–10 hours sooner overall. Worth it only if you’re confident compile will work on this GPU without recompile thrash.