48 lines
2.0 KiB
Python
48 lines
2.0 KiB
Python
|
#!/usr/bin/env python3
|
||
|
|
"""COMPARISON REPORT"""
|
||
|
|
print("""
|
||
|
|
\033[1;36m============================================================\033[0m
|
||
|
|
\033[1;36m GLYPHOS vs TRANSFORMER - COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS \033[0m
|
||
|
|
\033[1;36m============================================================\033[0m
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
\033[1;33m1. WHAT EACH BENCHMARK MEASURES\033[0m
|
||
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
\033[1mTRANSFORMER:\033[0m
|
||
|
|
✓ Full vocabulary embedding (10,000+ classes)
|
||
|
|
✓ Multi-head attention O(N²) for ALL token pairs
|
||
|
|
✓ Softmax normalization (exponential operations)
|
||
|
|
✓ Residual connections + Layer Normalization
|
||
|
|
✓ Language model output head
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
\033[1mGLYPHOS:\033[0m
|
||
|
|
✓ Sparse graph with 4 edges per node
|
||
|
|
✓ Simple weighted averaging of neighbors
|
||
|
|
✓ Binary similarity check (fixed threshold)
|
||
|
|
✓ Sigmoid activation (cheap approximation)
|
||
|
|
✓ No vocabulary, no language modeling
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
\033[91mKEY POINT: These solve fundamentally DIFFERENT problems!\033[0m
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
\033[1;33m2. OPERATIONAL COST COMPARISON\033[0m
|
||
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
| Component | Transformer | GlyphOS |
|
||
|
|
|--------------------|------------------|------------------|
|
||
|
|
| Attention Ops | \033[91m~500M/token\033[0m | \033[92m~16K/node\033[0m |
|
||
|
|
| Memory Pattern | \033[91mRandom/Cache miss\033[0m|\033[92m Sequential/Clean\033[0m|
|
||
|
|
| Scaling Behavior | \033[91mO(N²)\033[0m | \033[92mO(edges) ≈ O(N)\033[0m |
|
||
|
|
| Training Required | \033[91mYes (weeks)\033[0m | \033[92mNo (static)\033[0m |
|
||
|
|
| Capability | \033[93mText generation\033[0m | \033[93mGraph relaxation\033[0m |
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
\033[1;33m3. APPLES-TO-APPLES COMPARISON NEEDS\033[0m
|
||
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
□ Same task (e.g., text completion)
|
||
|
|
✓ Same sequence length
|
||
|
|
✓ Same hardware
|
||
|
|
□ Same evaluation metric (perplexity, BLEU, etc.)
|
||
|
|
□ Same parameter budget
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
\033[91mWithout these, performance claims are misleading.\033[0m
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
\033[36mRun actual benchmarks to see real timings.\033[0m
|
||
|
|
""")
|