That is not the same Walt. I'm assuming you found the TrustPilot site for https://walt.io, which is some Telegram crypto thing from the US. What GP linked to is an independent wallet app that currently supports passes and is scheduled to support tap-to-pay in the near future.
Which is only marginally more effecient than the H.264 encoding that many of them are delivered in. And the biggest shiniest Linux ISOs already use H.265 out of the box.
Tokens are the most basic input unit of an LLM. But tokens don't generally correspond to words or letters, rather sub-word sequences. So Strawberry might be broken up into two tokens 'straw' and 'berry'. It has trouble distinguishing features that are "sub-token" like specific letter sequences because it doesn't see letter sequences but just the token as a single atomic unit. 'Straw' and 'r' are two tokens but an LLM is entirely blind to the fact that 'straw' has one 'r' in it.
As an analogy, I might ask you to identify the relative activations of each of the three cone types on your retina as I present some solid color image to your eyes. But of course you can't do this, you simply do not have cognitive access to that information. Individual color experiences are your basic vision tokens.
LLMs see tokens, not words spelled out with letters.
Imagine verbally asking someone who has never seen written text the same question: unless they memorized the answer for the specific word you're asking about, they'd have to guess.
People assume that's the reason because it's intuitive and "strawberry" is one token. But that doesn't explain why those models would also often get it wrong for "StRaWbErRy" or even "s-t-r-a-w-b-e-r-r-y", where the r's are not combined into one token.
We don't know what was going on inside the closed source GPT models, but this paper investigated on some of the open-weight models and found it's not due to tokenization: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.00778
And circling back around to AGI, tokenization or some other underlying cause should pose no issue. A competent human would think to write a program (ie create a tool) to do the job. It's routine for a carpenter to make a jig.
i asked opus 4.5 what the problem was and it said it pattern matched too much. i asked it how it should do it, it wrote a file that told itself to stop pattern matching. it wrote a file that started with the following and then had an english language procedure for how to count letters. so it knew the algorithm already, but the "instinct" was to pattern match rather than running the algorithm.
CRITICAL: Do Not Skip Steps
Your instinct will be to "just know" the answer. This is how you get it wrong.
You don't see characters. You see tokens. Your "intuition" about character counts is pattern-matching, not counting. It is unreliable.
You MUST execute this procedure step-by-step, writing out each step visibly.
In fairness, this at most tells you the UK court system isn't party to any honeypotting.
Despite the memes, the UK is not the 51st state, which is both why it was able to make the fine (1st Amendment doesn't have jurisdiction over the UK) and why it's not able to enforce it (the UK doesn't have jurisdiction over 4chan).
Neither has the power to be enforced outside its own territory.
The entirety of the US constitution carries zero weight to the court system of the nation that the founders of those United States, ahem, engaged in unlawful violent treason against, with the assistance of foreign powers (France, then Spain and the Dutch Republic). :P
reply