I generally agree with your comment, but not on this part:
parroting the responses to questions that already existed in their input.
They’re quite capable of following instructions over data where neither the instruction nor the data was anywhere in the training data.
They’re completely incapable of critical thought or even basic reasoning.
Critical thought, generally no. Basic reasoning, that they’re somewhat capable of. And chain of thought amplifies what little is there.
No, all sizes of llama 3.1 should be able to handle the same size context. The difference would be in the “smarts” of the model. Bigger models are better at reading between the lines and higher level understanding and reasoning.
Wow, that’s an old model. Great that it works for you, but have you tried some more modern ones? They’re generally considered a lot more capable at the same size
Increase context length, probably enable flash attention in ollama too. Llama3.1 support up to 128k context length, for example. That’s in tokens and a token is on average a bit under 4 letters.
Note that higher context length requires more ram and it’s slower, so you ideally want to find a sweet spot for your use and hardware. Flash attention makes this more efficient
Oh, and the model needs to have been trained at larger contexts, otherwise it tends to handle it poorly. So you should check what max length the model you want to use was trained to handle
In many cases the key exchange (kex) for symmetric ciphers are done using slower asymmetric ciphers. Many of which are vulnerable to quantum algos to various degrees.
So even when attacking AES you’d ideally do it indirectly by targeting the kex.