Slashdot Mirror
Text Compressor 1% Away From AI Threshold
Baldrson writes "Alexander Ratushnyak compressed the first 100,000,000 bytes of Wikipedia to a record-small 16,481,655 bytes (including decompression program), thereby not only winning the second payout of The Hutter Prize for Compression of Human Knowledge, but also bringing text compression within 1% of the threshold for artificial intelligence. Achieving 1.319 bits per character, this makes the next winner of the Hutter Prize likely to reach the threshold of human performance (between 0.6 and 1.3 bits per character) estimated by the founder of information theory, Claude Shannon and confirmed by Cover and King in 1978 using text prediction gambling. When the Hutter Prize started, less than a year ago, the best performance was 1.466 bits per character. Alexander Ratushnyak's open-sourced GPL program is called paq8hp12 [rar file]."
Could someone out there please explain how being able to compress text is equivalent to artificial intelligence?
Is this to suggest that the algorithm is able to learn, adapt and change enough to show evidence of intelligence?
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
It is not equivalent, so I'm not surprised you didn't get it. As far as I know, the reasoning goes as follows: Shannon estimated that each character contains 1.something bits of information. Shannon was an intelligent human being. So if a program reaches this limit, it is as smart as Shannon.
And yes, that's absolute bollocks. Shannon's number was just an estimate and only applied to serial transmission of characters, because that's what he was interested in. Since then, a lot of work has been done in statistical natural language processing, and I would be surprised if the number couldn't be lowered.
Anyway, since the program doesn't learn or think to reach this limit, nor gives a explanation how this level of compression is intrinsically linked to the language/knowledge it compresses, it cannot be called AI; e.g., it doesn't know how to skip irrelevant bits of information in the text. That would be intelligence...
The first poster on this topic had a good explanation - it seems like an AI problem, but not why.
Compression is about recognizing patterns. Once you have a pattern, you can substitute that pattern with a smaller pattern and a lookup table. Pattern recognition is a primary branch of AI, and is something that actual intelligences are currently much better at.
We can generally show this is true by applying the "grad student algorithm" to compression - i.e., lock a grad student in a room for a week and tell him he can't come out until he gets optimum compression on some data (with breaks for pizza and bathroom), and present the resulting compressed data at the end.
So far this beats out compression produced by a compression program because people are exceedingly clever at finding patterns.
Of course, while this is somewhat interesting in text, it's a lot more interesting in images, and more interesting still in video. You can do a lot better with those by actually having some concept of objects - with a model of the world, essentially, than you can without. With text you can cheat - exploiting patterns that come up because of the nature of the language rather than because of the semantics of the situation. In other words, your text compressor can be quite "stupid" in the way it finds patterns and still get a result rivaling a human.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
The problem with this approach is that there are many ways the say the same thing, and that this compression/decompression algorithm is tested using strict text-comparison only. A real AI might compress 'The sky is blue today' and decompress to 'Today it's beatiful weather' and not be wrong.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
Maybe someone could sell the whole thing in a book-sized rectangular box with a tiny keyboard and 'DON'T PANIC' inscribed in large, comforting letters in the front.
Now that'd be cool.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
Connectionist models are models. Any model needs to be interpreted to be understood.
Seastead this.
When you look up a word in the dictionary, it takes from 10 to 30 seconds to read the definition. But you did need the whole book/brick to do it.
Well, not always...
American --> British
transportation --> transport
football player --> footballer
subway --> tyube
burglarize --> burgle
Apology to Ubuntu forum.