Comment by refulgentis

You generated pretty much ~all of this with Claude (c.f. ASCII diagrams with emojis on each line to "prove" various not-even-wrong claims it was told to justify), and the work is mediocre enough that it's worth full-throatedly criticizing both the work quality and that you inflicted this upon the world.

Look how many confused comments there are due to the page claiming features you don't have, don't understand, and don't make sense on their own terms (what's an "attention map"? with maximum charity, if we had some sort of attention-as-in-LLM-like structure precached, how would it apply beyond one model? how big would the image be? is it possible to fit that in the 2 bits we claim to fit in every 4 bytes)

I don't want for you to take it personally, at all, but I never, ever, want to see something like this on the front page again.

You've reinvented EXIF and JPEG metadata, in the voice of a diligent teenager desiring to create something meaningful, but with 0 understanding of the computing layers, 4 hours with Wikipedia, and 0 intellectual humility - though, with youth, born not from obstinance, but naiveté.

Some warning signs you should have taken heed of:

- Metadata is universally desirable, yet, somehow unexplored until now?

- Your setup instructions use UNIX commands up until they require running a Windows batch file

- The example of hiding data hides it in 2 bits in a channel then "demonstrates" this is visually lossless because its hidden in 1 bit across 2 channels (it isn't, because if it was, how would we determine which 2 of the channels?) ("visually lossless" confuses "lossless", a technical term meaning no information was lost with a weaker claim of being lossy-but-not-detectably-so)

I'll leave it here, I think you have the idea and there's a difference between being firm and honest, and being cruel, and length will dictate a lot of that to a casual observer.