←back to thread

The $5000 Compression Challenge (2001)

(www.patrickcraig.co.uk)
181 points ekiauhce | 2 comments | 23 Nov 24 21:10 UTC | HN request time: 0.418s | source
Show context
omoikane ◴[24 Nov 24 00:14 UTC] No.42224958[source]▶
The original email thread was from 2001, and it gets posted to HN periodically:

https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=patrickcraig.co.uk

For another compression challenge that is still ongoing, try "500000€ Prize for Compressing Human Knowledge" (also known as "Hutter Prize"):

http://prize.hutter1.net/

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37502329 - Hutter Prize for compressing human knowledge (2023-09-13, 215 comments)

replies(2): >>42225155 #>>42232092 #
vlovich123 ◴[24 Nov 24 00:53 UTC] No.42225155[source]▶
I have a fundamental problem with the Hutter prize stating that intelligence is related to compression & then sponsoring a prize for lossless compression. Intelligence is related to lossy compression. Lossless is mainly a mechanistic act.
replies(5): >>42225198 #>>42225266 #>>42231630 #>>42232462 #>>42233497 #
echoangle ◴[24 Nov 24 01:04 UTC] No.42225198[source]▶
Isn’t the intelligence shown by compressing lossless the scheme you use? Applying the algorithm is the easy part, the proof of intelligence is inventing the algorithm which compresses.
replies(2): >>42225248 #>>42238197 #
1. vlovich123 ◴[25 Nov 24 17:35 UTC] No.42238197[source]▶
Yes, you are proving intelligence if you invent the algorithm which compresses. If the prize was for inventing an algorithm that could then build the lossless compression scheme itself then you'd be onto something. But the prize is for the human who invents the better compression algorithm and proof of intelligence of the human would be self-evident.
replies(1): >>42239379 #
2. Jerrrry ◴[25 Nov 24 19:33 UTC] No.42239379[source]▶
Why are you explicitly saying "human"...