zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. measur+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-02-04 00:31:09
I'm correct on the technical level as well: https://chatgpt.com/s/t_698293481e308191838b4131c1b605f1
replies(1): >>refulg+A1
2. refulg+A1[view] [source] 2026-02-04 00:41:30
>>measur+(OP)
That math is for comparing all n-grams for all n <= N simultaneously, which isn't what was being discussed.

For any fixed n-gram size, the complexity is still O(N^2), same as standard attention.

replies(1): >>measur+oa
◧◩
3. measur+oa[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 01:39:15
>>refulg+A1
I was talking about all n-gram comparisons.
replies(1): >>refulg+zd
◧◩◪
4. refulg+zd[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 02:01:04
>>measur+oa
Thanks for clarifying. I was hoping to clarify the disconnect between you two, looked like on on "bigrams, trigrams, & so on." It reads idiomatically as enumerating fixed-n cases. Parsing "& so on" as "their simultaneous union" asks quite a bit of those two words. Either way, as ChatGPT showed you and you shared, all-ngram comparison brings us to O(N^3), still several exponents short of N^10 that started this thread.
replies(1): >>measur+ae
◧◩◪◨
5. measur+ae[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 02:06:38
>>refulg+zd
This is getting tiresome. I can make the operations as complicated as necessary by comparing all possible permutations of the input string w/ every other permutation & that will not be reducible to standard attention comparisons. The n-gram was a simple example anyone should be able to understand. You can ask your favorite chatbot to compute the complexity for the permutation version.
replies(1): >>refulg+Yk
◧◩◪◨⬒
6. refulg+Yk[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-04 03:01:22
>>measur+ae
No worries! I enjoyed it fwiw, appreciate your time :) (The permutation version would be factorial, fwiw, not polynomial. Different beast entirely.)
[go to top]