←back to thread

Embeddings are underrated (2024)

(technicalwriting.dev)
484 points jxmorris12 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 1.04s | source
Show context
tyho ◴[] No.43964392[source]
> The 2D map analogy was a nice stepping stone for building intuition but now we need to cast it aside, because embeddings operate in hundreds or thousands of dimensions. It’s impossible for us lowly 3-dimensional creatures to visualize what “distance” looks like in 1000 dimensions. Also, we don’t know what each dimension represents, hence the section heading “Very weird multi-dimensional space”.5 One dimension might represent something close to color. The king - man + woman ≈ queen anecdote suggests that these models contain a dimension with some notion of gender. And so on. Well Dude, we just don’t know.

nit. This suggests that the model contains a direction with some notion of gender, not a dimension. Direction and dimension appear to be inextricably linked by definition, but with some handwavy maths, you find that the number of nearly orthogonal dimensions within n dimensional space is exponential with regards to n. This helps explain why spaces on the order of 1k dimensions can "fit" billions of concepts.

replies(12): >>43964509 #>>43964649 #>>43964659 #>>43964705 #>>43964934 #>>43965081 #>>43965183 #>>43965258 #>>43965725 #>>43965971 #>>43966531 #>>43967165 #
1. aaronblohowiak ◴[] No.43964649[source]
>nearly orthogonal dimensions within n dimensional space

nit within a nit: I believe you intended to write "nearly orthogonal directions within n dimensional space" which is important as you are distinguishing direction from dimension in your post.

replies(1): >>43966937 #
2. tyho ◴[] No.43966937[source]
FFS, it's too late for me to edit. You are of course correct.