- 131comments
- 178comments
- 33comments
- 218comments
- 57comments
- 11comments
- 43comments
- 71comments
- 239comments
- 9comments
- 235comments
- 34comments
- 9comments
- 50comments
- 16comments
- —discuss
- 167comments
- 3comments
- 143comments
- 23comments
- 12comments
- 174comments
- 89comments
- 16comments
- 70comments
- 275comments
- —discuss
- 132comments
- 15comments
- 147comments
I read LanDiff [0], where they train a "semantic tokenizer" with codebooks that compresses 3D visual features into a 1D discrete token stream, Then train an LM over those semantic tokens (~x14,000 compression vs raw visual features). The results beat Sora and models x3 its size.
So why can't we do the analogous thing for text? Learn a discrete semantic codebook over spans/phrases, reason over that compressed sequence, decode back to natural language.
Is it that:
- text is already a high-density symbolic representation so gains are marginal - "semantic fidelity" is too hard to define for a lossy text codec - scaling raw tokens keeps working so nobody's motivated - some combination of the above
I think that the recent "neural codec" research (Meta BLT, DeepMind 2024) is somewhat similar to this, just applied to raw codec/signal data?
[0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.04606