How about you post something you've done/built instead of just insulting other people. Spend your mornings using people stuff just to poke holes in it?
One of the most magical parts of the hologram for me is that if you cut it (the film media) in half, you have two copies of the hologram. The reduction in size is a loss of resolution - but the scene stays the same.
Though that also is part of the reason that a they're not more common. Each hologram is the film rather than a "print".
If someone wants to make 100 holograms to be able to sell them as more than a one off art piece you're making 100 units of the film.
> if you cut it (the film media) in half, you have two copies of the hologram.
A hologram is much like a window, you can look through a big window or a small window, and see what's at the other side both times, but the big window still gives you a lot more viewing angles than the small one. Cutting a hologram in half gives you half a hologram, not two copies of the hologram, it's just that you can change your viewing angle to still see what's on the other side, but that will be a different image than with the full hologram.
I remember as a kid having one of the Usborne books (80s) very badly illustrating this, and it gave completely the wrong idea about what you got; one chopped up hologram from a magazine later and I was sadder and wiser.
You get pretty much what you would naively expect from chopping up a hologram before reading that kind of misleading "two copies" text: exactly the same view of the object as you had from that part of the hologram before you cut it up.
It shows a hologram that has been cut into 3 pieces and the aspect of the viewpoint changing as you look through it, though each one has the full subject that was imaged.
My point is that while you can see the full subject you get it from the exact same point of view as that part of the hologram before it was chopped up.
If you couldn't see part of the subject from part of the intact plate you won't be able to after either.
The phrasing you used, "two copies of the hologram" is very misleading in the same way that my Usborne book was.
Chopping a hologram in half gives you two copies of the hologram in exactly the same sense that chopping a photo in half gives you two copies of the photo.
In both cases what you can see from that part of the plate/print is the same before and after you chop it up.
> Though that also is part of the reason that a they're not more common. Each hologram is the film rather than a "print".
This might be true for current processes but it seems like it should be possible to duplicate a hologram - use a hologram as a stand-in for the original scene when creating a new hologram. The result might have some blur (that progressively gets worse the more 'generations' you are from the original) but that seems like a solvable problem if someone worked at it.
I think the real reason we don't see them is more practical - it's amazing tech but a bit too much of a novelty in its current state, it's just not something that most people would want to put on their wall.
You could also cut them into pieces to duplicate the holograms. They would obviously be smaller. A cut hologram includes the whole hologram, just from the perspective of that part of the cut piece.
Glass plates likely wouldn't be the best choice for this.
Film sheets might be doable.
https://www.geola.com/product/pfg-01-film/ for a Lithuanian distributor. 35cm (about 1 foot) isn't that large. Might be able to cut it into 4ths (classic 4"x5") ... 2"x3" is a small size (12 per sheet).
They are just not overcharging. Nvidia's top AI chip Rubin sells in 72-GPU racks for about $3.5–7.8M. A rack running Xiaomi's MiMo V2.6 Pro generates roughly 150–300B tokens a day, worth about $130–260k at Xiaomi's API price.
That's a payback of the infrastructure in a few weeks in theory. After a few weeks or a month, the only cost is electricity, and whatever they make after that is pure profit. This is why they can charge normal prices. Not $50 for 1M tokens.
Funny you should ask. In high school I was regarded as highly intelligent, I was near the top of all of my classes and widely read, with an excellent memory for facts and figures. (Though no visual memory whatsoever).
Then one day we did a IQ test in science class. I scored near the bottom of the class. All of the geometry based "what comes next" puzzles left me flummoxed. Because I couldn't visualise, I couldn't rotate images in my head to identify patterns and so many of the questions were like that.
In my experience with IQ tests involving complete the sequence many of the solutions when I looked up the intent behind them made very little sense to me.
Hmm I'm pretty sure I have some degree of aphantasia, because I read a lot but I never visualize what's going on (or not consciously, at least).
However, back in school when we did elementary geometry I had no problem solving everything, to the point I even qualified for the national math competitions once.
Maybe though, it's because i was drawing helper figures on paper instead of imagining them.
I have no problem with figure matching IQ style tests, as opposed to one of the sibling posters.
Edit: oh interesting, lower in the article. I have absolutely no problem with spatial navigation, on the contrary, I'm better than many people. But for example if we're retracing our steps on a mountain path I can't tell you in advance what were the landmarks to look for. I will recognize them as soon as we see them or notice we're missing any landmarks though.
Visualizing for me has always been like touching something with my eyes closed. I can't "see" the object, but I have a feeling for all the shapes and contours. You can feel which way a key is in your hand and where each ridge is without having to see it. I solve geometry problems the same way. I can't see the whole thing at once, but I can move my sense of feeling across arbitrary scenes.
I can somewhat imagine a simple square or triangle but only more like feeling it in the dark without fully “seeing” it. Anything more complex, like a pretzel is out of the question, just disappears/instantly-forgotten.
My dreams can be very vivid, except for some where an object disappears if I focus directly on it.
Always wondered whether this is normal, aphantasia, or something else…
I was good at mechanical drawing in college, meaning I could visualize the view of something from different sides. But, generally there was a perspective to work off of.
I don’t have aphantasia, but I believe I have reduced ability to visualize things with accuracy and in detail. My visualizations are very imperfect and more like glimpses than strong visualizations. In particular, I struggle to visualize faces.
I can "visualize" geometry and technical drawings by focusing on parts of them. It was enough for all my school work.
But then I learned about analytic geometry in the 8-th grade. I annoyed every math teacher by just using it to solve all the school geometry problems. And quite a few geometry problems in math competitions.
You know you can just try it and see on any inference system thst has this knob, right?
Related: if you don't have a limit on sampling (top-K or top-P), eventually you'll hit one of the really unlikely tokens by chance and then the model will switch to Japanese because the most likely completion after a random Japanese character in the middle of an English sentence is more Japanese writing, not a reversal back to English.
That could be how it works, but in practice it takes into account all previous tokens when producing the next-token distribution to sample from. So a switch back is more likely than your explanation supposes.
No, if you switched to Japanese the LLM wouldn't ignore it, it would "assume" there's a reason for that. The same if the previous iteration of the LLM switched to Japanese. Else you're expecting an LLM to ignore its own previous outputs and restart "thinking" from scratch with every token?
It's situational and I suspect there are situations where it would and others where it wouldn't. Would depend on the almost infinite variables of how training was done. You'd be right that it'd be likely to switch but while it's possible it's due to temperature, there are just so many things going on. But it would be one sensible explanation among many.
I don’t like the idea of hacking a response to contain a watermark. I also don’t like the idea of false positives detections coming directly from Anthropic. If people read more AI generated content, people will probably start writing more in that style
The flip side of this is that if AI-generated content becomes reliably identifiable and carries a stigma, then people might deliberately change their styles to be more diverse and human.
One example I've seen are junior employees at my company deliberately adopting a lowercase/less punctuation writing style so as to stand apart from AI.
reply