| ▲ | FuckButtons 3 days ago |
| why is this amazing, it’s just a 1 bit lossy compression representation of the original information? If you have a vector in n-dimensional space this is effectively just representing the basis vectors that the original has. |
|
| ▲ | simonw 3 days ago | parent [-] |
| You can take 8192 bytes of information (1024 x 32 bit floats) and reduce that to 128 bytes (1024 bits, a 64x reduction in size!) and still get results that are about 95% as good. I find that cool and surprising. |
| |
| ▲ | sa-code 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm with you, it's very satisfying to see a simple technique work well. It's impressive | |
| ▲ | computably 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | 1024 bits for a hash is pretty roomy. The embedding "just" has to be well-distributed across enough of the dimensions. | | |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, that's what I was thinking: Did we think 32 bits across each of the 1024 dimensions would be necessary? Maybe 32768 bits is adding unnecessary precision to what is ~1024 bits of information in the first place. | | |
| ▲ | FuckButtons 2 days ago | parent [-] | | That’s a much more interesting question, I wonder if there is a way to put a lower bound on the number of bits you could use? |
|
|
|