4 ms·
Doesn't decompression require the entire stable fusion model? (and the exact same model at that) This could be interesting but I'm wondering if the compression
by tomxor 4y ago
Doesn't decompression require the entire stable fusion model? (and the exact same model at that)
This could be interesting but I'm wondering if the compression size is more a result of the benefit of what is essentially a massive offline dictionary built into the decoder vs some intrinsic benefit to processing the image in latent space based on the information in the image alone.
That said... I suppose it's actually quite hard to implement a "standard image dictionary" and this could be a good way to do that.
- tantalor 4y agoI thought that's what "some important caveats" was going to be, but no, article didn't mention this.
- thehappypm 4y agoHaha. Here’s a faster compression model. Make a database of every image ever made. Compute a thumbprint and use that as the index of the database. Boom!
- Sohcahtoa82 4y agoA quick Google says there are 10^72 to 10^82 atoms in the universe. Assuming 24-bit color, if you could store an entire image in a single atom, then you could store images that are only 60 pixels and each atom would still have a unique image.
- thehappypm 4y agoNot every possible image has been produced!
- Sohcahtoa82 4y agoI'll get started, then!
- operator-name 4y agoThe latent space _is_ the massive offline dictionary, and the benifit is not having to hand craft the massive offline dictionary?
- tomxor 4y agoFor those of us unfamiliar... roughly how large is that in terms of bytes?