There’s something quietly impressive about getting modern AI ideas to run on old hardware (like OP's project or running LLM inference on Windows 3.1 machines). It’s easy to think all the progress is just bigger GPUs and more compute, but moments like that remind you how much of it is just more clever math and algorithms squeezing signal out of limited resources. Feels closer to the spirit of early computing than the current “throw hardware at it” narrative.
There is an absolutely beautiful rendering of the Mona Lisa encoded at some point in the digits of pi. If you know the position, it's really easy to plot the image.
This is both simultaneously false, and true but largely meaningless. If you mean the Mona Lisa is somehow directly encoded somewhere in pi, then of course it’s not. It’s just a number.
If you mean that when you feed the numbers starting with some offset of pi into a specific algorithm you will get a rendering of the Mona Lisa, then yes, but so what? Allow me to introduce you to the PiMona algorithm. I won’t bother you with the implementation details, but it takes exactly one integer parameter. If it’s 3, it produces a beautiful rendering of the Mona Lisa. Anything else and it generates random garbage. Turns out, it’s really easy to find where the Mona Lisa is encoded in pi! It’s right there at the start.
But let’s say you meant that the digits of pi at some offset, when encoded properly and fed into any algorithm that is theoretically capable of generating the Mona Lisa will cause that algorithm to do so, then sure. But that’s also true of random noise, and says more about the algorithm and the nature of random numbers than about the Mona Lisa somehow being encoded into the fabric of the universe (which I’m sure isn’t what you meant, but I’m just saying there’s nothing really special about pi in that regard, except that as far as we know, it continues infinitely).
I think they're going for more of a 'monkeys will eventually produce shakespeare' thing here. Which you can apply the same argument to - monkeys do not know english, don't know what they're typing, and theoretically english could devolve to a state where every sentence could be qualified as shakespeare, right? Your argument just seems unnecessarily pedantic.
I had no idea your simulator existed. No XCMDs, correct; everything is pure HyperTalk. I just ran a few training steps and they complete in a second or two. Thank you for importing it!
More of a copy-paste process. The scripts are written as .txt files in Nova on my Mac Studio, then pasted one at a time into HyperCard's script editor on the classic Mac. The files are kept separate because SimpleText has a 32 KB text limit.
Does HyperCard implement its on text handling for the HyperTalk editor that doesn't rely on the TextEdit toolbox service (which IIRC is the source of SimpleText's 32 kB limit)?
Fields appeared to use TE and I suppose the script editor was pretty much limited to 32 kB of text for that reason, although you could have any size of text in a variable.
Curiousity got the better of me, and I just tested it in Infinite Mac.
The HyperTalk editor is indeed limited to 32 kB.
It's certainly possible that this limit only applies to editing scripts, as it's unlikely TextEdit was used in the process of interpreting them, but I don't have time tonight to investigate.
Later versions of HyperCard supported OSA scripts as well, now I'm also curious what the size limit is for (presumably) compiled AppleScripts stored in HyperCard stacks.
I first studied back-propagation in 1988, at the same time I fell in love with HyperCard programming. This project helps me recall this elegant weapon for a more civilized age.
I love this. From reading the nuts-and-bolts "parameters" (haha) of your implementation, I get the impression that the fundamental limit is, well, using a 32-bit platform to address the sizes of data that usually need at least 48 bits!
Thanks! The precision was a happy surprises, HyperTalk uses Apple's SANE library, which gives you 80-bit extended precision. The interpreter speed and the lack of arrays were a challenge. Rediscovering what HyperCard could do was half the fun of this project.
It's strange to think how modern concepts are only modern because no one thought of them back then. This feels (to me) like the germ theory being transferred back to the ancient greeks.
I think it's incredible to see the potential that is still locked up in old hardware. For example the 8088 MPH demo. Amazing what he was able to do with an 8088 and CGA. All this time the hardware had that potential, but it took decades to figure out how to unlock it, long after the hardware was considered obsolete. Imagine the sort of things that might be done later down the road with hardware of 0-20 years ago if somebody really dug into it to that level.
42 comments
But first you have to find that position.
If you mean that when you feed the numbers starting with some offset of pi into a specific algorithm you will get a rendering of the Mona Lisa, then yes, but so what? Allow me to introduce you to the PiMona algorithm. I won’t bother you with the implementation details, but it takes exactly one integer parameter. If it’s 3, it produces a beautiful rendering of the Mona Lisa. Anything else and it generates random garbage. Turns out, it’s really easy to find where the Mona Lisa is encoded in pi! It’s right there at the start.
But let’s say you meant that the digits of pi at some offset, when encoded properly and fed into any algorithm that is theoretically capable of generating the Mona Lisa will cause that algorithm to do so, then sure. But that’s also true of random noise, and says more about the algorithm and the nature of random numbers than about the Mona Lisa somehow being encoded into the fabric of the universe (which I’m sure isn’t what you meant, but I’m just saying there’s nothing really special about pi in that regard, except that as far as we know, it continues infinitely).
https://hcsimulator.com/imports/MacMind---Trained-69E0132C
Does HyperCard implement its on text handling for the HyperTalk editor that doesn't rely on the TextEdit toolbox service (which IIRC is the source of SimpleText's 32 kB limit)?
The HyperTalk editor is indeed limited to 32 kB.
It's certainly possible that this limit only applies to editing scripts, as it's unlikely TextEdit was used in the process of interpreting them, but I don't have time tonight to investigate.
Later versions of HyperCard supported OSA scripts as well, now I'm also curious what the size limit is for (presumably) compiled AppleScripts stored in HyperCard stacks.
I first studied back-propagation in 1988, at the same time I fell in love with HyperCard programming. This project helps me recall this elegant weapon for a more civilized age.
On the Greeks, Archimede almost did 'Calculus 0.9'.
(still debugging it, but getting closer to full coverage)