[HN Gopher] The Stick of Jan Sloot (2004)
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Stick of Jan Sloot (2004)
        
       Author : Logans_Run
       Score  : 77 points
       Date   : 2023-08-20 12:56 UTC (10 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.spronck.net)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.spronck.net)
        
       | dmbche wrote:
       | "The Sloot Digital Coding System was an alleged data sharing
       | technique that its inventor claimed could store a complete
       | digital movie file in 8 kilobytes of data -- violating Shannon's
       | source coding theorem by many orders of magnitude. The alleged
       | technique was developed in 1995 by Romke Jan Bernhard Sloot (27
       | August 1945, Groningen - 11 July 1999,[1] Nieuwegein), a Dutch
       | electronics engineer.[2] In 1999, just days before the conclusion
       | of a contract to sell his invention, Sloot died suddenly of a
       | heart attack. The source code was never recovered, and the
       | technique and claim have never been reproduced or verified. "
       | 
       | From wikipedia
        
       | bsza wrote:
       | If the laws and initial state of the universe can be expressed in
       | few enough bits, then all you need to store is a title and a
       | date. Run a simulation of the universe, fast forward to the date
       | the movie was released, use an AI to find a theater playing it,
       | and digitize the tape. It may take longer to run than the current
       | age of the universe, but eventually you'll get it.
        
         | amelius wrote:
         | Yeah, but perhaps we're living in a multiverse and you'd have
         | to encode which universe the movie was released in, which may
         | require more bits than the entire movie :)
         | 
         | However, interestingly, by scanning other universes you may
         | find similar movies with slightly different plot turns.
        
         | qingcharles wrote:
         | I've thought about this a lot over the years. What you're
         | asking is, can we accurately emulate our own universe inside
         | our own universe at greater than 100% speed? If so, it would
         | allow us to build a type of space-time machine where we could
         | visit any location at any time.
         | 
         | I don't think it is totally inconceivable. It is definitely
         | possible that there are hacks such as compression that would
         | allow a simulator to run at above 100% speed. It also might not
         | need to be 100% accurate -- we might find that running below
         | that threshold still produces an output that is practically
         | indistinguishable from the real events, yet allows it to run.
        
           | bsza wrote:
           | > I don't think it is totally inconceivable
           | 
           | You could create a kind of "reverse" grandfather paradox by
           | preventing future events predicted by the simulation from
           | happening. Perhaps it could run fine up to the point that it
           | has to simulate itself, then it would slow down to the point
           | of becoming useless.
        
             | Fuzzwah wrote:
             | Basically the plot of the wonderful TV series "Devs". Well
             | worth the time investment.
        
           | oxfordmale wrote:
           | Quantum mechanics makes this impossible. This would require
           | to know the position and speed of each particle precisely and
           | that is in violation of the Heisenberg principle.
        
       | adamgordonbell wrote:
       | I once had an idea for a file transfer system based on digits of
       | pi that sounds the same as this idea.
       | 
       | You'd give everybody DVDs of digits of pi (or they could
       | calculate them themselves) , and then transfer files faster by
       | just sending them the offset into pi.
       | 
       | At the time I thought it could work with a big enough bank of
       | digits of PI on both sides. If transfer was expensive, and
       | calculating digits was cheap then you could give everyone an
       | infinite supply of digits of pi and have a nearly infinite
       | compression system.
       | 
       | I discovered that often the offset into pi is much larger than
       | the data you are sending. Turns out it's an expensive way to sent
       | things.
       | 
       | Also, it turns out that this area was already well understood.
       | There are no free lunches with entropy.
       | 
       | But it was a fun idea to kick around.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | tzs wrote:
         | Another potential problem with that approach is that it is
         | possible that not all finite files appear in the digits of pi.
         | It is believed that all appear but it hans't been proven.
        
         | eternityforest wrote:
         | Neural network encoding seems like the closest thing to that
         | idea that's actually practical.
        
         | amelius wrote:
         | You first have to prove that pi contains all possible finite
         | substrings, which I believe is still an open problem.
        
         | 6510 wrote:
         | could just count in stead of pi, the offset would be the same
         | number as the value at the offset.
        
         | troupe wrote:
         | Glad to hear I'm not the only person who tried this. :)
        
         | alfanick wrote:
         | It "exists" at https://github.com/philipl/pifs
        
       | mvdwoord wrote:
       | Fascinating story though, possible or not. And there were some
       | demos for investors, including iirc Sony Entertainment, which
       | would have been hard to fake completely. So at worst, this guy
       | was a decent magician..
       | 
       | There is a book on it with lots of details..
       | 
       | https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3316995-de-broncode
        
         | brnt wrote:
         | It doesn't take much magic to convince certain pointy haired
         | bosses.
        
           | mvdwoord wrote:
           | Very true... But from what I remember, he demoed for a bunch
           | of research teams as well, which would require a bit more
           | sleight of hand than fooling the average venture capitalist
           | gambling other people's money.
           | 
           | In any case, it's one of those crazy stories.
        
       | refulgentis wrote:
       | Isn't this trivially false, way before atoms, Turing machines,
       | and any other drive-by namedrops I missed?
       | 
       | Given the notch = (A+B) / 10
       | 
       | You can only recover A + B. You can't recover A or B
       | individually.
        
         | granularity wrote:
         | I read "attaches all these numbers to each other" to mean
         | concatenation, not addition. Presumably you'd want to encode a
         | "next book" token too. This kind of compression is known as
         | arithmetic coding. It does work.
        
           | sdfsdfsfds wrote:
           | The standard theoretical technique for encoding a list of
           | numbers as a single number is Godel encoding. It can be
           | applied as many times as you like--e.g. to encode a list of
           | lists of numbers, or a list of lists of lists of numbers.
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_numbering
        
             | felixhandte wrote:
             | Sure, but Godel encoding is pretty much purely a
             | theoretical exercise. I'm not sure anyone anywhere has ever
             | practically manipulated Godel-encoded expressions in a
             | useful way. His original scheme also has the problem that
             | prime factorization is rather computationally challenging--
             | it is after all the basis of the RSA cryptosystem.
             | 
             | Whereas Arithmetic encoding is actually practical,
             | extensively used, and a direct analogue to the stick.
        
               | sdfsdfsfds wrote:
               | I'm aware of arithmetic encoding and it is definitely the
               | most compelling example of encoding arbitrary data with a
               | single number. On the other hand, there is a lot more to
               | arithmetic coding than the ability to encode lists of
               | numbers--all the considerations involving the context of
               | each symbol, which are essential to the process of
               | compression. I just felt that it might be helpful to give
               | an example which didn't implicate all that complex
               | compression apparatus.
        
       | tzs wrote:
       | A little OT: do the information theory based proofs of limits on
       | how effective compression can be also prove that backwards time
       | travel is impossible?
       | 
       | If backwards time travel were possible then your "compression
       | algorithm" could simply be deleting the file. To recover the file
       | go back in time to before it was deleted and make a copy.
       | 
       | With this you can "compress" giant files down to just a short
       | description of a place and time where the file was on your
       | computer.
        
         | Mattasher wrote:
         | Interesting idea, but you're not getting any entropy for free
         | by going back in time. If you wanted to map every possible file
         | of a set length to a specific time and location where it's
         | stored, you'd still need, in general, the same number of bits
         | as you would for the file itself, because you'd have to
         | describe that many distinct time/location pairs.
        
         | qingcharles wrote:
         | Backwards time travel is perfectly possible, but perhaps not in
         | our actual reality, but in a simulation of our universe, which
         | would get you the data you want.
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | dang wrote:
       | Related. Others?
       | 
       |  _Was This Lost Computer Code Worth Billions? (Jan Sloot Digital
       | Coding) (2020) [video]_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36499676 - June 2023 (2
       | comments)
       | 
       |  _The Stick of Jan Sloot (2004)_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29623524 - Dec 2021 (22
       | comments)
       | 
       |  _Ask HN: What was the secret that Jan Sloot took with him to the
       | grave?_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13443135 - Jan
       | 2017 (4 comments)
       | 
       |  _The Stick of Jan Sloot (2004)_ -
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8699058 - Dec 2014 (18
       | comments)
        
       | 6510 wrote:
       | Inventors are a different animal. One doesn't start with a
       | reasonable theory but one works from the other end, one quite
       | unreasonably starts with what would be wonderful to have. One
       | doesn't test a theory but one ponders how the seemingly
       | impossible might be accomplished which is a problem that can be
       | broken down into more reasonable things until it's impossible
       | component is defined properly so that one may make an often
       | futile attempt to ask the question differently. With few
       | exceptions there are no results. Those not skilled in the art
       | consider that part cheating. This is logical because their line
       | of reasoning seeks to further validate that what they already
       | know, it thus involves an effort to prove something can't be
       | done, or at least not by someone like that, or at least not by
       | that person, or at least not by that method etc etc
       | 
       | The cheating in this context would be to study the thing the file
       | represents rather than the representation.
       | 
       | A dumb example would be to make a 10 hour movie from a single
       | image that doesn't move. There is no reason for the file to be
       | larger than the original jpg.
       | 
       | > I can not only get Orson Welles' Citizen Kane. I can get
       | Citizen Kane in colour!
       | 
       | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI5qy9Zoh_0
       | 
       | To argue that this was not the method Sloot used is missing the
       | point. The question is: How to do it, not how to imitate someone
       | else.
       | 
       | In his demo Sloot was playing 16 full movies simultaneously on a
       | 1995 laptop at any speed. A high end computer had 32 MB memory,
       | 133 MHz cpu, PCI video cards had 4 MB ram, 66 MHz, 560 MB HDD
       | 
       | If it was not what he said it was why didn't he just sell what he
       | had? Without the extraordinary claims the demo already requires
       | cartoon physics. He drives the truck into the match box, making
       | an U turn inside doesn't at all seem necessary???
        
       | PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
       | At least one of the ideas alluded to in this article is
       | reminiscent of an actual audio "compression" algorithm. SAOL aka
       | "MPEG-4 Structured Audio"
       | 
       | https://sound.media.mit.edu/resources/mpeg4/sa-tools.html
       | 
       | It was a growing idea in the mid-2000s but AFAIK it has gone
       | absolutely nowhere. Essentially, instead of somehow encoding the
       | audio, you encode a description of how to generate the audio.
        
       | turtleyacht wrote:
       | (2004)
        
       | zevv wrote:
       | I have met him in person a lot of times: I worked at a local
       | electronics shop and we used to bring him TVs and radios for
       | repair regularly. He was socially awkward, stubborn, and on more
       | then one occasion he made mistakes with regards to the repairs
       | but did not want to admit fault at any time.
       | 
       | From my (rather limited) interactions with him, I'd say he was
       | far from genius, I feel he just got sucked in and had no way out
       | of his network of lies without losing face.
        
         | tgv wrote:
         | Almost everybody was skeptical at the time. It was too good to
         | be true.
        
       | karmakaze wrote:
       | > The whole problem of Pieper's way of thinking (and of every
       | other person who believes that Sloot actually could compress
       | movies with a factor of two million) is that he believes that the
       | key does not need to contain every detail of a movie.
       | Unfortunately, it does.
       | 
       | I wonder if one was scammed and bought a Blu-ray with everything,
       | only to find out they got novels rather than movies. After the
       | initial disappointment they might realize well written novels are
       | better than movies and never watch another.
       | 
       | How about we get GPT to turn good movies into great books? Like a
       | large inverse prompt engineering problem.
       | 
       | Could we then even feed that text as input to make a better,
       | though arbitrarily different movie?
        
         | daveguy wrote:
         | > How about we get GPT to turn good movies into great books?
         | Like a large inverse prompt engineering problem.
         | 
         | GPT has trouble making great sentences, much less great books
         | from a data type completely different from its training. GPT,
         | at the core, is a "likely next word" generator. No great
         | literature came as a process of "likely next word" in a vacuum.
         | Likely next word from complex experiences of a decade and plot
         | designed from those complex experiences, sure. But not the
         | algorithm that GPT is.
         | 
         | > Could we then even feed that text as input to make a better,
         | though arbitrarily different movie?
         | 
         | Nothing about a feedback loop of mediocrity describes a
         | practical way to improve quality. This concept is as sound as
         | the alien encoding stick and the sloot encoding scheme itself.
        
           | lowdest wrote:
           | GPT can make great sentences, it's just not the default
           | operating mode. LLMs are capable of amazing things if you can
           | get them into the right section of the latent space.
        
           | RetroTechie wrote:
           | What _should_ be doable:
           | 
           | Deconstruct a movie into a set of 3D models, textures,
           | voices, parameters for those 3D models' movement, procedural
           | generation of background objects like trees, grass, sea,
           | sand, weather conditions, etc, etc. Like the data that forms
           | the content of modern, near-photorealistic games.
           | 
           | A game engine-like rendering system would then render a
           | scene, tweak parameters until rendered scene / frames match
           | the original movie closely, and work through the rest of the
           | movie the same way.
           | 
           | When done, one could produce derivations of such movie by
           | changing actors' voices, have them move differently or speak
           | in another language, swap out buildings or other objects,
           | reduce polygon count or resolution of textures, have a
           | cornfield show a little taller stalks, put the sun in a
           | different angle, etc, etc.
           | 
           | Of course this is _way_ beyond current compute capabilities.
           | Not to mention software frameworks to do this job. But _in
           | theory_ this should work. For a 2min trailer it would
           | probably be pointless. But for a 2..3h movie, maybe not.
           | 
           | And yes, of course this would be lossy 'compression'. Just
           | more high-level than current video compression schemes.
           | 
           | For an audio analogy: compare mp3 compression with MIDI +
           | quality sound banks for every instrument under the sun +
           | parameters like how hard a piano key was struck, etc. Vary
           | such high-level parameters until rendered output matches the
           | original music.
        
           | karmakaze wrote:
           | What is the limiting factor though? I could make a bad sketch
           | and get a description of that used to render a better picture
           | right? We currently don't optimize for this as a goal so
           | could get better, no?
        
             | FFP999 wrote:
             | [dead]
        
       | projektfu wrote:
       | Weird, I once read about Roel Pieper, completely randomly, in a
       | trade magazine for Unix that I think had very few issues. He had
       | just become head of Unix Systems Laboratories. I don't know why
       | that article stuck with me for so long. I didn't know he was also
       | a professor, I thought he was just an exec. Turns out he was
       | professor of business, not computer science, though his original
       | university education was in CS.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-08-20 23:01 UTC)