Import AITURK IDE 1.0.0-beta.1 from Hermes 63279301; preserve MIT license

optional-skills/creative/creative-ideation/references/methods/compression-progress.md

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+# Compression Progress
+
+Jürgen Schmidhuber, *Formal Theory of Creativity* (1990–2010). Beauty = compressibility given prior knowledge. Interestingness = the *change* in compressibility as you learn. A worthwhile project is one that, on completion, would compress your model of the world.
+
+## Core formula
+
+```
+I(D, O(t)) = B(D, O(t)) − B(D, O(t−1))
+```
+
+Interestingness = first derivative of beauty over time. Pure noise (no learnable pattern) and fully-known pattern (already compressed) are both boring. Beauty lives between.
+
+## When to use
+
+- Picking a research question
+- Selecting between candidate projects ("which would teach me the most?")
+- Diagnosing aesthetic dissatisfaction ("this is fine but not interesting")
+- Choosing what to read
+
+## Don't use when
+
+- Fast generation (this is reflective, not generative)
+- Group decisions where audiences differ (single-observer model)
+
+## Procedure
+
+### For picking a research question
+1. List 5–10 things you currently *cannot predict well* in your domain. Be specific: not "the future of AI", but "why X 7B model trained with technique A performs worse than Y 1.3B model with technique B on benchmark Z".
+2. For each: would understanding it compress only this fact, or re-organize a broader domain? Prefer the latter.
+3. For each: is the answer learnable from where you are? (Not noise; not too far above your prior.)
+4. Pick the highest learnable compression-progress potential.
+
+### For evaluating ideas
+For each candidate, ask:
+- What would I understand differently if this were complete?
+- Would that understanding compress this domain or only this idea?
+- Is it currently learnable from where I am?
+
+Highest answers across all three = pursue.
+
+### For aesthetic critique
+Where is the work entirely predictable? (too known) Entirely unpredictable? (too random) Where does it sit in the learnable-but-not-yet-learned zone? Strong work has more of the third.
+
+## Worked example
+
+User has three options:
+- A. Build a habit tracker.
+- B. Build a tool that explains why a `git rebase --interactive` produced its conflicts, by reconstructing the commit graph mid-rebase.
+- C. Read Lacan.
+
+Analysis:
+- A: no compression progress; user already has model of habit trackers. Reject.
+- B: high. User doesn't currently have strong model of how rebase constructs intermediate states; building this requires learning that, and the resulting model re-organizes how the user thinks about all VCS internals.
+- C: real compression-progress potential, but prior is missing. Long path to get there. Worthwhile if on the prerequisite track; otherwise read Žižek/Bruce Fink first as scaffolding.
+
+Recommend B.
+
+## Anti-slop notes
+
+- "Compression progress" as slogan ≠ doing the analysis. State the actual model gaps you'd close.
+- Don't claim every idea has high compression-progress. Most don't. The framework is useful because it discriminates.
+- Don't impose this lens on artistic work without acknowledging its limits.
+
+Source: people.idsia.ch/~juergen/creativity.html