4 ms·

Years long compression challenge with dozens of geniuses participating: exists Random person on the internet: let me improve this thing I've never heard of by

Years long compression challenge with dozens of geniuses participating: exists Random person on the internet: let me improve this thing I've never heard of by using the one fact I know about compression, there are two kinds It's absolute hubris and a waste of everyone's time to chime in with low value, trash comments like "they should make it lossy". It's not unreasonable at all to take a snarky tone in response. "not even wrong" absolutely applies here, and they carefully, patiently, and in great detail explained why.

Dylan16807 3y ago
It depends on your goal. If your goal is compressing human knowledge, then you do want to avoid wasting bits on the details of wording that were random chance. The problem is inability to objectively judge such a compression, not the mere fact that it won't be bit-perfect. It is not "not even wrong".
- ltbarcly3 3y ago
  You didn't even read the thread though? All the methods in this competition that are competitive DO use lossy compression.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    I did read the thread. I'm objecting to the idea that stacking lossless corrections onto lossy compression and then measuring the total is a good way to measure what we want to measure here, wrt human knowledge. It may be the best we have, but it's not good. See my other comment here, that I probably shouldn't have put in a reply to a reply to a dead comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37506099 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37506099
    - ltbarcly3 3y ago
      Why should we care what you think though? Im not being nasty, but unless you have a reputation in that field you have to give some cogent argument or its just some random possibly-uninformed opinion.
bonoboTP 3y ago
I often feel the same way when discussions pop up here or on other forums, about topics I'm familiar with. Like randos declaring that researchers in deep learning are "obviously doing it wrong" and they should instead do X, where X is like an entire subfield existing for years with a lot of activity, etc. So I get where you're coming from. But I'd suggest that a place like HN is in fact a place for random people to inject their half-baked takes. It is a just discussion board where lots of the comments will be uninformed or wrong. Take it or leave it. If you want something else, you need to find more niche communities that are - by the nature of it - more difficult to find and less public, including IRL discussion, clubs, conferences etc. But it has its use: we, you and me can jump in any thread and type out what we think after 2 minutes and get some response. But of course someone even more novice might think that we know more than just that 2 minutes consideration, and they learn our junk opinion as if it was the result of long experience. It's unavoidable, since nobody knows who the rest of the commenters are. Online discussions are incredibly noisy, and often even the people who seem to use the jargon and seem knowledgeable to the outsider can be totally off-base and essentially just imitate how the particular science or field "sounds like". Unfortunately, you only learn this gradually and over a long time. If you learn stuff through forums, Reddit, HN, blogs, substacks etc. it can be very misleading from the first-person experience because you will soak up lots of nonsense as well. Reading actual books and taking real courses is still very much relevant. HN and co. are more like the cacophony of what the guy on the street thinks. Very noisy, and only supposed to be a small treat over rigorous study. You shouldn't expect to see someone truly breaking new ground in this comment thread. If it disturbs you, you can skip the comments. But trying to "forbid" it, or gatekeep is futile. It's like trying to tell people in a bar not to discuss how bad the soccer team coach is, because they don't really have the relevant expertise. Yeah, sure, but people just wanna chat and throw ideas around. It's on the reader to know not to take it too seriously.
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  ISWYM but the problem isn't really people making suggestions, but the way they make suggestions that grates. If Mr Internet-random-guy wants to introduce the issue of lossy compression then by all means ask why not, but don't say they should. It comes across as arrogance, probably because it is, then it sucks up plenty of the time of others who do actually know the subject, putting something right. Even more bloody annoying is when people ask when even the most immediate web search would get the answer. Wikipedia is usually a very good place to start. I guess that for these people, the cost is externalising it to other's wasted time. Then again, we all take turns at being the stupid one, so am I to complain.
RALaBarge 3y ago
You may find the book "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" interesting if you have not read it. The author posits that it isn't people entrenched in the field that will offer breakthrough advancements, but it is instead outsiders looking in. More often than not, they are aggressively rebutted, which leads to the belief that science progresses one funeral at a time. Perhaps it is you who needs to guard against hubris? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re...
- misnome 3y ago
  I disagree with you; therefore by your own logic, I am right.
  - RALaBarge 3y ago
    I wish I could claim the logic, but I am a nobody who knows nothing. The author of the book, however, has impressed people for over 70 years with this line of thought and I too agree with him.
slashdev 3y ago
I’m sorry you see it as a trash comment, but I hope the discussion it provoked was to your liking. I found it enlightening.
- ltbarcly3 3y ago
  There is nothing wrong with jumping in and saying stuff that probably isn't right on an internet forum! That doesn't make it valuable or insightful, it's just how forums work. Your comment was cool with me and you shouldn't feel like you need to change at all. That said, the response to your comment was insightful and made interesting points. You did in fact kick off a very interesting conversation!

Dylan16807 3y ago

It depends on your goal. If your goal is compressing human knowledge, then you do want to avoid wasting bits on the details of wording that were random chance. The problem is inability to objectively judge such a compression, not the mere fact that it won't be bit-perfect. It is not "not even wrong".

ltbarcly3 3y ago
You didn't even read the thread though? All the methods in this competition that are competitive DO use lossy compression.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  I did read the thread. I'm objecting to the idea that stacking lossless corrections onto lossy compression and then measuring the total is a good way to measure what we want to measure here, wrt human knowledge. It may be the best we have, but it's not good. See my other comment here, that I probably shouldn't have put in a reply to a reply to a dead comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37506099 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37506099
  - ltbarcly3 3y ago
    Why should we care what you think though? Im not being nasty, but unless you have a reputation in that field you have to give some cogent argument or its just some random possibly-uninformed opinion.

bonoboTP 3y ago

I often feel the same way when discussions pop up here or on other forums, about topics I'm familiar with. Like randos declaring that researchers in deep learning are "obviously doing it wrong" and they should instead do X, where X is like an entire subfield existing for years with a lot of activity, etc. So I get where you're coming from. But I'd suggest that a place like HN is in fact a place for random people to inject their half-baked takes. It is a just discussion board where lots of the comments will be uninformed or wrong. Take it or leave it. If you want something else, you need to find more niche communities that are - by the nature of it - more difficult to find and less public, including IRL discussion, clubs, conferences etc. But it has its use: we, you and me can jump in any thread and type out what we think after 2 minutes and get some response. But of course someone even more novice might think that we know more than just that 2 minutes consideration, and they learn our junk opinion as if it was the result of long experience. It's unavoidable, since nobody knows who the rest of the commenters are. Online discussions are incredibly noisy, and often even the people who seem to use the jargon and seem knowledgeable to the outsider can be totally off-base and essentially just imitate how the particular science or field "sounds like". Unfortunately, you only learn this gradually and over a long time. If you learn stuff through forums, Reddit, HN, blogs, substacks etc. it can be very misleading from the first-person experience because you will soak up lots of nonsense as well. Reading actual books and taking real courses is still very much relevant. HN and co. are more like the cacophony of what the guy on the street thinks. Very noisy, and only supposed to be a small treat over rigorous study. You shouldn't expect to see someone truly breaking new ground in this comment thread. If it disturbs you, you can skip the comments. But trying to "forbid" it, or gatekeep is futile. It's like trying to tell people in a bar not to discuss how bad the soccer team coach is, because they don't really have the relevant expertise. Yeah, sure, but people just wanna chat and throw ideas around. It's on the reader to know not to take it too seriously.

_a_a_a_ 3y ago
ISWYM but the problem isn't really people making suggestions, but the way they make suggestions that grates. If Mr Internet-random-guy wants to introduce the issue of lossy compression then by all means ask why not, but don't say they should. It comes across as arrogance, probably because it is, then it sucks up plenty of the time of others who do actually know the subject, putting something right. Even more bloody annoying is when people ask when even the most immediate web search would get the answer. Wikipedia is usually a very good place to start. I guess that for these people, the cost is externalising it to other's wasted time. Then again, we all take turns at being the stupid one, so am I to complain.

RALaBarge 3y ago

You may find the book "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" interesting if you have not read it. The author posits that it isn't people entrenched in the field that will offer breakthrough advancements, but it is instead outsiders looking in. More often than not, they are aggressively rebutted, which leads to the belief that science progresses one funeral at a time. Perhaps it is you who needs to guard against hubris? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re...

misnome 3y ago
I disagree with you; therefore by your own logic, I am right.
- RALaBarge 3y ago
  I wish I could claim the logic, but I am a nobody who knows nothing. The author of the book, however, has impressed people for over 70 years with this line of thought and I too agree with him.

slashdev 3y ago

I’m sorry you see it as a trash comment, but I hope the discussion it provoked was to your liking. I found it enlightening.

ltbarcly3 3y ago
There is nothing wrong with jumping in and saying stuff that probably isn't right on an internet forum! That doesn't make it valuable or insightful, it's just how forums work. Your comment was cool with me and you shouldn't feel like you need to change at all. That said, the response to your comment was insightful and made interesting points. You did in fact kick off a very interesting conversation!