On 10/4/07, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/4/07, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Lossless video compression would not get far. The brightness of a pixel > > depends on the number of photons striking the corresponding CCD sensor. The > > randomness due to quantum mechanics is absolutely incompressible and makes > > up > > a significant fraction of the raw data. > > Suppose 50% is the absolute max you can get - that's still worth > having, in cases where you don't want to throw away data. >
But why is it going to correlate with intelligence? Intelligence is just trying to make sense of this randomness, by ignoring most of it. Things it notices are probably categorized in chunks which correlate with their probabilities, but 'noise' from intelligence's POV can probably still be compressed by simple algorithm, which will provide overall compression which makes intelligent part irrelevant. So question is if particular test can be scored best by general perception, and not by narrow AI. The same probably goes for text compression: clever (but not intelligent) statistics-gathering algorithm on texts can probably do a much better job for compressing than human-like intelligence which just chunks this information according to its meaning. -- Vladimir Nesov mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=49576145-cd5ee6
