Summarizer

Batching Feasibility

Questions about whether this approach can be batched efficiently, noting batching requires knowing execution paths upfront which contradicts dynamic tool use.

← Back to Executing programs inside transformers with exponentially faster inference

Integrating tool execution directly into model processing faces significant hurdles, primarily because GPUs are high-cost resources that shouldn't be left idling during unpredictable external I/O or complex error handling. Critics argue that batching becomes a "fantasy" in this context since efficient parallel processing requires knowing execution paths upfront, which contradicts the inherently dynamic nature of tool use. Furthermore, offloading these tasks to the CPU remains more cost-effective, as the "Wild West" of system calls threatens to tank inference throughput by introducing latency into an environment built for deterministic compute. This creates a stark trade-off between the theoretical speed of integrated tools and the practical reality of maintaining reliable system performance.

2 comments tagged with this topic

View on HN · Topics
very cool idea. But, time savings are not true for every tool call, and it's not clear to me yet whether this is batch-able; also, intuitively, for most of the models that run on GPU, you'd still want to offload tool exec part to CPU since it's much cheaper...
View on HN · Topics
If you push tool execution into the model itself, you inherit all the I/O unpredictability and error handling baggage, but now inside a GPU context that's allergic to latency. Inference throughput tanks if external calls start blocking, and A100s make expensive waiters. Batching is fantasy unless you know up front exactly what gets executed, which is the opposite of dynamic tools. If you want "faster" here, the trade is reliable deterministic compute versus the usual Wild West of system calls and side effects.