5 ms·

that’s spectacular — the information density we perceive is off he charts for such a small amount of code. Makes me wonder if LLMs aren’t the best way to model

that’s spectacular — the information density we perceive is off he charts for such a small amount of code. Makes me wonder if LLMs aren’t the best way to model the world at all…

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
thfuran 2y ago
Why would you think they are?
- elijahbenizzy 2y ago
  Meh I don’t (they’re clearly imperfect) but I’m more wondering if we’re leaving lots of efficiency on the table in approaches to modeling the world.
sim7c00 2y ago
obfuscated code with a lot of short cuts is likely also not the best way to model the world :P but this is definitely an impressive feat :D i'd be happy to get it done in like 256 lines of code, likely it would take much more than that! XD... as for visual stuff. a lot of things man made and natural follow patterns (otherwise it'd be hard to recognize anything). So there's a lot of maths stuff you can use. Different types of noise or other patterns line for the height textures, fractals can be used interestingly, fibbonach/phi ratio for vegetation/trees, size ratio between skeletal elements / bones etc. - don't need any magic guessing machines for any of that.
- elijahbenizzy 2y ago
  You’re telling me god didn’t cut corners? /s Yeah, reacting to so much perceived information being represented in such little code. Versus billions/trillions of weights in LLMs…
  - sim7c00 2y ago
    i love speedtree tool. its a great example of how relatively simple algorithms can make natural complexity. also a great example on how to visually make things seem real while cutting as much corners as possible is that people used to fake bounced light through a room simply by making the backs of objects emit a fraction of light caught on the light facing side. as people cant actually at observe arbitrary speeds and bandwith, you can skip most of the universe when visually representing it, to an extreme degree.

that’s spectacular — the information density we perceive is off he charts for such a small amount of code. Makes me wonder if LLMs aren’t the best way to model the world at all…

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

thfuran 2y ago

Why would you think they are?

elijahbenizzy 2y ago
Meh I don’t (they’re clearly imperfect) but I’m more wondering if we’re leaving lots of efficiency on the table in approaches to modeling the world.

sim7c00 2y ago

obfuscated code with a lot of short cuts is likely also not the best way to model the world :P but this is definitely an impressive feat :D i'd be happy to get it done in like 256 lines of code, likely it would take much more than that! XD... as for visual stuff. a lot of things man made and natural follow patterns (otherwise it'd be hard to recognize anything). So there's a lot of maths stuff you can use. Different types of noise or other patterns line for the height textures, fractals can be used interestingly, fibbonach/phi ratio for vegetation/trees, size ratio between skeletal elements / bones etc. - don't need any magic guessing machines for any of that.

elijahbenizzy 2y ago
You’re telling me god didn’t cut corners? /s Yeah, reacting to so much perceived information being represented in such little code. Versus billions/trillions of weights in LLMs…
- sim7c00 2y ago
  i love speedtree tool. its a great example of how relatively simple algorithms can make natural complexity. also a great example on how to visually make things seem real while cutting as much corners as possible is that people used to fake bounced light through a room simply by making the backs of objects emit a fraction of light caught on the light facing side. as people cant actually at observe arbitrary speeds and bandwith, you can skip most of the universe when visually representing it, to an extreme degree.