Critique of Diminishing Returns in 3D Mesh Resolution

This image is an effective illustration of diminishing returns in 3D mesh resolution — a concept that also maps interestingly to other fields like machine learning and graphics technology. Here's a critique broken into strengths, limitations, and broader relevance (like LLMs):


Strengths:

  • Clear Visual Progression:

  • The image progressively shows increasing mesh resolution from 60 → 600 → 6000 → 60,000 triangles.

  • It highlights how early increases in triangle count drastically improve visual fidelity, but later increases offer smaller visual gains.

  • Effective Message:

  • The caption succinctly communicates the diminishing returns principle, emphasizing how older models benefited more from added complexity.

  • Concrete Example:

  • A 3D bust is a good, recognizable example to show polygonal detail. It's a model where facial smoothness and features become clearer, making visual changes obvious.


⚠️ Limitations / Critique:

  • Over-Simplification of "Returns":

  • The image implies that adding triangles now has nearly no benefit ("multiplying by 10 hardly does"). In reality, use cases matter — higher triangle counts are still critical in some fields (e.g., VR, 3D printing, scientific visualization).

  • It ignores improvements in lighting, texturing, and normal mapping, which may have a larger visual impact than geometry alone.

  • Technological Context Missing:

  • It compares today’s returns to 15 years ago but omits key tech shifts like real-time ray tracing, hardware improvements, or LOD (Level of Detail) systems that make better use of detailed meshes.

  • Lack of Application-Specific Considerations:

  • A 60k triangle model may be excessive for mobile gaming but essential for close-up cinematics. The image ignores contextual tradeoffs like platform, camera distance, and animation.


🤖 Relevance to Large Language Models (LLMs):

You're likely drawing a parallel between this and increasing LLM size. That’s a valid comparison:

  • LLMs show diminishing returns too. The jump from GPT-2 → GPT-3 yielded massive improvements. GPT-3 → GPT-4 was subtler, and future gains from larger models (like GPT-5 or beyond) are expected to be even smaller per parameter added.
  • Much like triangles in 3D graphics, more parameters in LLMs do not guarantee proportional improvement. Optimization techniques (e.g., sparsity, retrieval-augmented generation, fine-tuning, RLHF) are now more important than raw size. So this image is a great analog for resource allocation strategy — whether in polygons or parameters, smarter design often beats brute-force scaling.

🔚 Final Verdict:

An excellent visual aid for teaching diminishing returns in polygonal modeling, but its message would benefit from acknowledging nuance — particularly the interplay of context, application, and complementary technologies. When applied metaphorically to LLMs, it provides a compelling conversation starter on compute efficiency and scaling.