3 ms·
First, the competition does place a time limit (in fact several resource limits). I agree that it may be too lax to judge consumer-oriented compression algorith
by parentheses 6y ago
First, the competition does place a time limit (in fact several resource limits). I agree that it may be too lax to judge consumer-oriented compression algorithms. That is not what this competition is about.
The goal is maximizing compression ratio - with the aim of affecting AI. Since an AI system can be seen as a lossy compression where some worldly input is compressed into something that we hope mimics "understanding". Improvements in compression may translate to AI advances [0] and potentially vice versa.
To draw a parallel away from computing:
One could say we are compressors that experience the world and compress it to loose what we don't care about. Improving our compression is basically akin to "knowing more" or "remembering more of the right things". See Schmidhuber [1].
[0] http://prize.hutter1.net/hfaq.htm#compai http://prize.hutter1.net/hfaq.htm#compai
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4360 https://arxiv.org/abs/0812.4360
- globular-toast 6y ago> One could say we are compressors that experience the world and compress it to loose what we don't care about. That's how lossy compression works but this competition is about lossless compression. Makes me wonder if the competition should really be about lossy compression, as it's pretty obvious our minds aren't lossless compressors.
- lifthrasiir 6y agoThis argument has been argued over and over and the FAQ offers counterarguments [1]. Also if you can build a good lossy compressor it's relatively easy to convert into a lossless one (residual coding), but the inverse does not hold in general. [1] http://prize.hutter1.net/hfaq.htm#lossless http://prize.hutter1.net/hfaq.htm#lossless