4 ms·
None of the evidence you present here supports your conclusion: 20kb per image is like a jpeg worth of data, so certainly not throwing away anything. A tiny m
by Guvante 4y ago
None of the evidence you present here supports your conclusion:
20kb per image is like a jpeg worth of data, so certainly not throwing away anything.
A tiny model file without logic as to how you got to it isn't interesting. You could just throw away 99.5% (or whatever the ratio is) of the data and call it good. Mishmash data before you do and you might not even have to do that.
This style of AI is all about getting right past the human ability to perceive the mishmash and stop there. Given the underlying algorithm is literally about mishmashing I don't know why you are trying to fight that point.
- corysama 4y ago0.5 bytes per image. Not 20,000 bytes per image. Mishmashing implies that small clumps of pixels are in the model file somewhere. That's literally not true and has no relationship to how the algorithm actually works. There's a ton of misinformation about how this works being tossed around. It's causing a lot of anger over ideas that simply false. That's what I'm fighting.
- Guvante 4y ago100,000 / 5 = 20,000 off the numbers given here. Don't quote the 2 GB one that one is disingenuous. That is like copying the dictionary heap sorting by word frequency leaving only the most popular words and saying "see I couldn't have copied the dictionary it is too small to have done that". And no the fact that it has "all" the data isn't material here.