Vik Korrapati: belief

Transcript context

…ind goes to like, let's use synthetic data to, Solve this problem. That works, but it's problematic because it turned out we needed millions of synthetic gauge images to get to reasonable performance. And thinking about it, reading a gauge is like [00:46:00] not a one, like it's not a zero short process in our minds, right? Like if you had to tell me the reading in Celsius for this, Real world gauge. There's two dials on there. So first you have to figure out which one you have to be paying attention to, like the inner one or the outer one. You look at the tip of the needle, you look at what labels it's between, and you count how many and do some math to figure out what that probably is. So what happens if we just add that as a Chain of thought to give the model better understanding of the different sub, to allow the model to better learn the subtasks it needs to perform to accomplish this goal. So you can see in this example, this was actually generated by the latest version of our model. It's like, okay, Celsius is the inner scale. It's between 50 and 60. There's 10 ticks. So the second tick, it's a little debatable here, like there's a weird shadow situation going on, the dial is off, so I don't know what the ground truth is, but it works okay. There's points on there that are, the points [00:47:00] over there are actually grounded. I don't know if this is easy to see, but when I click on those, there's a little red dot that moves around on the image. The model actually has to predict where this points are, I was already trying to do this with bounding boxes, but then Malmo came out with pointing capabilities. And it's like pointing is a much better paradigm to to represent this. We see pretty good results. This one's actually for clock reading. I couldn't find our chart for gauge reading at the last minute. So the light. Blue chart is with our rounded chain of thought. This measures, we have, we built a clock reading benchmark about 500 images. This measures accuracy on that. You can see it's a lot more sample efficient when you're using the chain of thought to model. Another big benefit from this approach is like, you can kind of understand how the model is. it and how it's failing. So in this example, the actual correct reading is 54 Celsius, the model output [00:48:00] 56, not too bad but you can actually go and see where it messed up. Like it got a lot of these right, except instead of saying it was on the 7th tick, it actually predicted that it was the 8th tick and that's why it went with 56. So now that you know that this. Failing in this way, you can adjust how you're doing the chain of thought to maybe say like, actually count out each tick from 40, instead of just trying to say it's the eighth tick. Or you might say like, okay, I see that there's that middle thing, I'll count from there instead of all the way from 40. ount out each tick from 40, instead of just trying to say it's the eighth tick. Or you might say like, okay, I see that there's that middle thing, I'll count from there instead of all the way from 40. So helps a ton. The other thing I'm excited about is a few short prompting or test time training with this. Like if a customer has a specific gauge that like we're seeing minor errors on, they can give us a couple of examples where like, if it's miss detecting the. Needle, they can go in and correct that in the chain of thought. And hopefully that works the next time. Now, exciting approach, we only apply it to clocks and gauges. The real question is, is it going to generalize? Probably, like, there's some science [00:49:00] from text models that when you train on a broad number of tasks, it does generalize. And I'm seeing some science with our model as well. So, in addition to the image based chain of thought stuff, I also added some spelling based chain of thought to help it understand better understand OCR, I guess. I don't understand why everyone doesn't do this, by the way. Like, it's trivial benchmark question. It's Very, very easy to nail. But I also wanted to support it for stuff like license plate, partial matching, like, hey, does any license plate in this image start with WHA or whatever? So yeah, that sort of worked. All right, that, that ends my story about the gauges. If you think about what's going on over here it's interesting that like LLMs are showing enormous. Progress in reasoning, especially with the latest set of models that we've seen, but we're not really seeing, I have a feeling that VLMs are lagging behind, as we can see with these tasks that should be very simple for a human to do [00:50:00] that are very easy to find VLMs failing at. My hypothesis on why this is the case is because On the internet, there's a ton of data that talks about how to reason. There's books about how to solve problems. There's books critiquing the books about how to solve problems. But humans are just so good at perception that we never really talk about it. Like, maybe in art books where it's like, hey, to show that that mountain is further away, you need to desaturate it a bit or whatever. But the actual data on how to, like, look at images is, isn't really present. Also, the Data we have is kind of sketched. The best source of data we have is like image all text pairs on the internet and that's pretty low quality. So yeah, I, I think our solution here is really just we need to teach them how to operate on individual tasks and figure out how to scale that out. All right. Yep. So conclusion. At Moondream we're trying to build amazing PLMs that run everywhere. Very hard problem. Much work ahead, but we're making a ton of progress and I'm really excited [00:51:00] about If anyone wants to chat about more technical details about how we're doing this or interest in collaborating, please, please hit me up. Yeah,…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.