I recall awhile back hearing someone ask whether intelligence was actually the same or similar to “compression” or storing all of this knowledge in weights - IE the ability to create something from reason or weights or relationships / connections. This article makes it even more interesting!
1. It uses math notation. This is a software development site, wouldn't this be much more clear to this audience written as psuedo code instead of a complex series of greek and latin letters?
2. It doesn't step through a concrete example. What is hollow R raised to the (M * d_v) ? Is it a number, a set, a list, a matrix?
To use an example I understand: RAG used to seem complicated to me when only math people were talking about it in math words. For example, let's take a line from wikipedia on embeddings:
> the representation is a real-valued vector that encodes the meaning of the word in such a way that the words that are closer in the vector space are expected to be similar in meaning
What made it clear was learning that generating an embedding is just a function(string) -> list[float], and RAG is just taking a list[float] for your prompt and finding other list[float] that are close to it in your dataset.
So what would make this article more clear, is step through a simplified example of putting a value into a memory store and querying that memory store, showing the actual data structures.
At the risk of stating the obvious, this is a forum where people can post arbitrary links to other sites, some of which might have audiences that might not be "the exact set of people who read Hacker News". I'm not sure you'd be able to make a compelling argument that alexwang.ai is aimed at software developers and no one else.
This article is a bit more of a grey area. It is on a subject that is deeply relevant to this site and I'm sure some HN readers will get value from it. My point is that an even better submission to HN would have been an article on the same topic but written for programmers rather than mathematicians.
Perhaps, but HN apparently is pretty hostile to people explaining why something is not clear and how it could be more clear based on all the downvotes. I'll keep that in mind: "If you don't understand something, shut up!"
Clear explanations are a good thing, but different explanations help people in different ways. Your explanation seems helpful to me, and reminds me of Ben Affleck's explanation in the GQ interview. But Ben Affleck connected it directly to arrays of RGB pixel data, which clicks more with me personally, but probably wouldn't with everyone. It certainly didn't make things any clearer to the interviewer.